NationStates Jolt Archive

What is going on in Iraq explained in one sentence:

Americans and Iraqis fighting together against terrorists.

Don't believe me? Well, consider at least that this *may* be true. There has never been any shortage of recruits for the Iraqi army and police, even though it is a very dangerous job.

If public opinion was so strongly against the US: why not just wait until the elections, get an anti-US government elected, and then use their legitimate authority ask us to leave? Ah, because the guys who set up car bombs couldn't get anyone elected even as dog-catcher, except in a couple of cities, that's why.

Most of the people there may not *like* us but they understand and support what we're doing. They also understand that they, not we, are the prime target of the terrorists... something like 10-15,000 Iraqis have been killed by terrorists in the past year. Many Iraqis are very angry, and many are looking for blood... the response in parts of Iraq to the Fallujah mosque shooting by a marine was not "why did you shoot the unarmed terrorist" but "why did you leave the other ones alive"... Iraqi troops are much rougher with prisoners than US troops.

There is also an ugly ethnic and religious aspect to this... no, it's not Muslim vs Christian, but Shia vs Sunni. The Shias are 60% and the Sunni 15% or so... yet the Sunni held almost all the power under Saddam. They're not going to have much power under a purely democratic system, so they (some of them) are very intensely unhappy. There is almost no unrest in Shia areas now. The top Shia cleric issued a fatwa (ruling) recently that pretty much said "Vote or burn in hell". The Sunnis want to boycott the elections because they know they will not get many votes. Well that's too damn bad, its just the way a democracy works you know.

By the way, why I keep calling the guys we are fighting terrorists... a terrorist is someone who does not obey the laws of war (which are very simple - distinguish yourself from civilians, don't target civilians, and don't commit acts of perfidy). These guys obviously break all three rules. The most recent attacks were against Shia mosques, against members of several election committees, and against the most popular Shia political party. That basically tells you who the attackers are and what they want (hint: it is not to liberate Iraq from US occupation).

Well put.

Some points are true, but let me NOTE that the completely vague sentence does not explain the war in Iraq in any legitimate way.
This OPINION is clearly right-leaning. Now, I am no leftist, as I disagree with extremists and their views and being on either wing would support such an act, but some statements here are obviously pro-war in Iraq and anti-terrorist.
Let me also mention that, although I am not a TERRORIST, supporter, the objective of a terrorist is not followed by your purely, opinionated definition.

terrorist

characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

terrorism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons

If you see this, a terrorist is someone who is trying to change a society (be the outcome negative or positive) through threats.

If there is one thing we can all learn about humans (and nature as a whole, for that matter), that would be to get to the source of the problem rather than just going out and throwing bombs all over. Unfortunately many nations seem to follow this method because it cleanses the problem quickly, but does not erase it. We really are great humans, are we?

terrorism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence ...

Right, why is it an unlawful use of force? Because it doesn't follow the laws of war. That's really the single most important part of the definition, the rest is fluff.

If you see this, a terrorist is someone who is trying to change a society (be the outcome negative or positive) through threats.

Not at all: a terrorist is someone who fights dishonorably.

The kind of person who might kidnap a child to force his mother to drive a car bomb into a checkpoint so they would spare her child's life. That type of thing - believe me, it's been done, and worse.

So according to you blowing up a mosque full of people is a "threat"? I think not.

If there is one thing we can all learn about humans ... would be to get to the source of the problem rather than just going out and throwing bombs all over.

And what would the source of the problem be? The fall of the Shia from power? Religious fanaticism? The meddling of neighboring countries? What?

With what you've written, completely missing out my point, makes it useless to argue this topic with you. You're already one of them.

Go, child, go out. Play war.

I said "be it negative or positive" so what you describe a terrorist DOES is included.

And by the way, yes. If you're smart enough, you can realize that blowing up a mosque full of people IS a threat to the society in order. Seriously, that is common sense.

Oil

With what you've written, completely missing out my point

What is the point that I missed?

Minor quibble.


You're confusing Terrorist with Guerilla.

Terrorists they seem to be, and I wont argue the point.

Guerillas do not distinguish themselves from civvies either. However they dont attack primarily civilian targets either...which would be what made em terrorists.

Oil

An interesting hypothesis which however is completely unsupported by the facts.

Item: Iraq's oil production is 2.5 million barrels per day. At $40/barrel, it would take how long to pay for the war, which is $80 billion per year?

Item: We don't get the money anyway, the Iraqis do. What do you think pays for the operation of the Iraqi government right now?

Item: We could have bought any amount of oil from Saddam, just like the Russians, French and Chinese did. He would have been quite happy to deal with us if we only helped lift those pesky sanctions. In fact he probably would have sold to us at below-market prices, just like he sold to them. Why didn't we do that if all we wanted was the oil?

Guerillas do not distinguish themselves from civvies either. However they dont attack primarily civilian targets either...which would be what made em terrorists.

Thank you, but I think I have my definitions right ;)

Guerrillas *do* distinguish themselves from civilians. The FARK in Colombia for example wear uniforms or sometimes just armbands, they are classic guerrillas in that regard (they do sometimes commit terrorist acts though).

Oil

LOL. Sorry, but I was wondering how long it'd take for a conspiracy theory to pop up. :rolleyes: Already has been proven false. Glad to see a straight forward thread like this continueing on w/o flaming or someone quoting MoveOn.org or gop.com for their proof. Let's see how long this lasts...

An interesting hypothesis which however is completely unsupported by the facts.

Item: Iraq's oil production is 2.5 million barrels per day. At $40/barrel, it would take how long to pay for the war, which is $80 billion per year?Who's paying and whose cashing in aren't the same people. You and I are paying, people with oil intrests like Bush family and Cheney's old company are profiting. And who made the decision to invade?

Item: We don't get the money anyway, the Iraqis do. What do you think pays for the operation of the Iraqi government right now? And who are they paying....

Item: We could have bought any amount of oil from Saddam, just like the Russians, French and Chinese did. He would have been quite happy to deal with us if we only helped lift those pesky sanctions. In fact he probably would have sold to us at below-market prices, just like he sold to them. Why didn't we do that if all we wanted was the oil?
Control > access.

What is going on in Iraq explained in one sentence:

Americans and Iraqis fighting together against terrorists.

Don't believe me? Well, consider at least that this *may* be true. There has never been any shortage of recruits for the Iraqi army and police, even though it is a very dangerous job.

If public opinion was so strongly against the US: why not just wait until the elections, get an anti-US government elected, and then use their legitimate authority ask us to leave? Ah, because the guys who set up car bombs couldn't get anyone elected even as dog-catcher, except in a couple of cities, that's why.

Most of the people there may not *like* us but they understand and support what we're doing. They also understand that they, not we, are the prime target of the terrorists... something like 10-15,000 Iraqis have been killed by terrorists in the past year. Many Iraqis are very angry, and many are looking for blood... the response in parts of Iraq to the Fallujah mosque shooting by a marine was not "why did you shoot the unarmed terrorist" but "why did you leave the other ones alive"... Iraqi troops are much rougher with prisoners than US troops.

There is also an ugly ethnic and religious aspect to this... no, it's not Muslim vs Christian, but Shia vs Sunni. The Shias are 60% and the Sunni 15% or so... yet the Sunni held almost all the power under Saddam. They're not going to have much power under a purely democratic system, so they (some of them) are very intensely unhappy. There is almost no unrest in Shia areas now. The top Shia cleric issued a fatwa (ruling) recently that pretty much said "Vote or burn in hell". The Sunnis want to boycott the elections because they know they will not get many votes. Well that's too damn bad, its just the way a democracy works you know.

By the way, why I keep calling the guys we are fighting terrorists... a terrorist is someone who does not obey the laws of war (which are very simple - distinguish yourself from civilians, don't target civilians, and don't commit acts of perfidy). These guys obviously break all three rules. The most recent attacks were against Shia mosques, against members of several election committees, and against the most popular Shia political party. That basically tells you who the attackers are and what they want (hint: it is not to liberate Iraq from US occupation).

That is just typical American thinking.. The problem in that region is, that every group in that region wants absolute power. So all that democracy will establish is absolute power for the greatest group. One should let a country evolve into a more democratic society. For starts with a fair trial, later on with a constitution, and when people are used to *not having absolute power*, one can instate a democracy. And it certainly is impossible to instate a democracy by war.
Don't say it worked in wwII, because all the liberated countries where used to democracy from before the war, and the germans where an outside agressor.
If the USA manages to instate a democracy, it can only last as long as the Americans force it upon the people of Iraq.

people with oil intrests ... are profiting.

And you have some evidence of this?

And who are they paying....

Well, I happen to know that government salaries in Iraq increase more or less monthly... a schoolteacher now gets ~$300/month vs $100/month same time last year, and really simple jobs like streetsweeper are $100/month. Considering that the government provides over half the jobs, if you do a little math you will find that at least half the oil money must go to the salaries of (rank-and-file) government employees. The rest probably goes to purchase stuff like medicines or capital goods from abroad.

Control > access.

That is a distinct point. On the other hand, we are hardly stealing the stuff... just making sure it is under the control of its rightful owners, the Iraqi people, as opposed to the scumbag Saddam, his friends and the little UN cabal he had going.

And you have some evidence of this?



Well, I happen to know that government salaries in Iraq increase more or less monthly... a schoolteacher now gets ~$300/month vs $100/month same time last year, and really simple jobs like streetsweeper are $100/month. Considering that the government provides over half the jobs, if you do a little math you will find that at least half the oil money must go to the salaries of (rank-and-file) government employees. The rest probably goes to purchase stuff like medicines or capital goods from abroad.



That is a distinct point. On the other hand, we are hardly stealing the stuff... just making sure it is under the control of its rightful owners, the Iraqi people, as opposed to the scumbag Saddam, his friends and the little UN cabal he had going.
You perhaps missed the no bid contract that Halliburton got?

The problem in that region is, that every group in that region wants absolute power.

Not according to the polls. Most are moderates.

So all that democracy will establish is absolute power for the greatest group.

A distinct improvement on absolute power for the smallest group ;)

However, that is not simply true. Consider a situation where three factions get 40/30/30 percent of the vote. The greatest groups has to persuade at least one of the small ones in order to do anything. The two small groups together also have a majority. This would hardly be a dictatorship - although I'm sure there would be a lot of horse-trading.

Iraq now has 250+ parties, and 90+ "slates" of candidates running in the elections. I think nobody will have an overwhelming majority. In fact I would be extremely surprised if any one got over 40%.

One should let a country evolve into a more democratic society.

Unfortunately, truly totalitarian societies collapse, they don't evolve.

one can instate a democracy. And it certainly is impossible to instate a democracy by war.

Who is "one"? And how does "one" go about "instating" a democracy exactly? (without a war)

Don't say it worked in wwII, because all the liberated countries where used to democracy from before the war

I will say it worked in WWII, and not just because of the examples in Europe. You are of course completely ignoring Japan, Taiwan, Korea and a number of other East Asian countries.

You might say Iraqis were used to democracy before Saddam too... it was one of the better middle-eastern countries before the series of military coups that resulted in Saddam coming to power.

If the USA manages to instate a democracy, it can only last as long as the Americans force it upon the people of Iraq.

Why force it? It seems to be what they want. Again, I'm simply looking at the polls, I don't make assumptions.

You perhaps missed the no bid contract that Halliburton got?

No, I didn't miss it. Halliburton and other companies are doing a huge amount of business, but for the most part losing money on it, or barely recouping expenses. A lot of their top management is ex-military and/or has close government ties. I'd call that using money to make war, rather than using war to make money. The plain fact is that a lot of military logistics is handled by ostensibly civilian organizations now (LOGPAC), and because it is more important that the stuff get there than that it be cheap, there will be no-bid contracts. Big deal. It is still a lot cheaper than if the military did that themselves.

This has to be one of the better first-hand accounts of what Iraq is really like in print... the guy is an artist who visited there twice for a few months. Not being a journalist, he doesn't have an agenda, he just tells and shows what he saw. He also gets into some crazy situations. Read them all:

http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/mumford/mumford2-5-04.asp
http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/mumford/mumford2-26-04.asp
http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/mumford/mumford3-30-04.asp
http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/mumford/mumford4-16-04.asp
http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/mumford/mumford7-12-04.asp
http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/mumford/mumford7-29-04.asp
http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/mumford/mumford8-16-04.asp
http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/mumford/mumford9-15-04.asp
http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/mumford/mumford10-5-04.asp
http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/features/mumford/mumford12-13-04.asp

Also there's the documentary "Voices of Iraq" (http://www.voicesofiraq.com/) which was produced by 150 ordinary Iraqis using cheap cameras. I haven't seen it yet but I plan to see it soon, it is said to be quite good.

Of course, if you are positive you *know* what is going on and why we're there then you don't need to read or see any of this ;)

As long as we have someone to fight, that's all that matters. This war is kind of tough for the government, however, as they have no face to put on it, no Kruschev, Hihn, Hussein, or Bin Laden to frighten us with.

Before I saw anything else, it's Shiite, not Shia or whatever that word you were using was.
Now, I find myself very annoyed with anyway who characterizes the terrorists as evil or subhuman just because they're doing what they're doing. I don't agree with their methods or their ideals, but at least I am able to see all sides of the issue; you have to be able to do that. Did you ever consider that maybe it's the only way they've got to fight back? I'm not trying to justify their actions; I'm just saying that we should try to look at things from all points of views before we make judgements. It tends to help in a lot of situations. >_>

Before I saw anything else, it's Shiite, not Shia or whatever that word you were using was.
Now, I find myself very annoyed with anyway who characterizes the terrorists as evil or subhuman just because they're doing what they're doing. I don't agree with their methods or their ideals, but at least I am able to see all sides of the issue; you have to be able to do that. Did you ever consider that maybe it's the only way they've got to fight back? I'm not trying to justify their actions; I'm just saying that we should try to look at things from all points of views before we make judgements. It tends to help in a lot of situations. >_>

You are justifying their actions, despite your claims to the contrary.

The people on here who cannot fathom how one can justify their actions that are hypocrites. These individuals consider themselves to be "at war" and there hasn't been a populous that has existed that didn't hate the civilians on the other side and tolerate their extermination.

You perhaps missed the no bid contract that Halliburton got?

You perhaps missed the fact that Bill Clinton gave nobid contracts to Halliburton back in the 90s. I'm sure that he was part of an oil conspiracy too.

What is going on in Iraq explained in one sentence:

Americans and Iraqis fighting together against terrorists.

Don't believe me? Well, consider at least that this *may* be true. There has never been any shortage of recruits for the Iraqi army and police, even though it is a very dangerous job.

If public opinion was so strongly against the US: why not just wait until the elections, get an anti-US government elected, and then use their legitimate authority ask us to leave? Ah, because the guys who set up car bombs couldn't get anyone elected even as dog-catcher, except in a couple of cities, that's why.

Most of the people there may not *like* us but they understand and support what we're doing. They also understand that they, not we, are the prime target of the terrorists... something like 10-15,000 Iraqis have been killed by terrorists in the past year. Many Iraqis are very angry, and many are looking for blood... the response in parts of Iraq to the Fallujah mosque shooting by a marine was not "why did you shoot the unarmed terrorist" but "why did you leave the other ones alive"... Iraqi troops are much rougher with prisoners than US troops.

There is also an ugly ethnic and religious aspect to this... no, it's not Muslim vs Christian, but Shia vs Sunni. The Shias are 60% and the Sunni 15% or so... yet the Sunni held almost all the power under Saddam. They're not going to have much power under a purely democratic system, so they (some of them) are very intensely unhappy. There is almost no unrest in Shia areas now. The top Shia cleric issued a fatwa (ruling) recently that pretty much said "Vote or burn in hell". The Sunnis want to boycott the elections because they know they will not get many votes. Well that's too damn bad, its just the way a democracy works you know.

By the way, why I keep calling the guys we are fighting terrorists... a terrorist is someone who does not obey the laws of war (which are very simple - distinguish yourself from civilians, don't target civilians, and don't commit acts of perfidy). These guys obviously break all three rules. The most recent attacks were against Shia mosques, against members of several election committees, and against the most popular Shia political party. That basically tells you who the attackers are and what they want (hint: it is not to liberate Iraq from US occupation).


What a crock!

You make it sound like there was no invasion, just a mutual desire to combat "terrorism" that sprung up out of a pre-existing condition.

Why do you have so many recruits? Simple - it is just about the only job available to many Iraqis. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19450-2004Sep14.html)

So far, however, the attacks have not stopped young Iraqi men from seeking jobs as police officers. Those who show up at recruiting centers typically say they are motivated not by patriotism but by economics. Many maintain that they have no choice but to assume the risk because there are few other well-paying jobs in postwar Iraq.

"There are no other jobs," said a police officer at the scene of Tuesday's bombing who gave his name as Hussein. "Joining the police and the army is the only choice."



Last I heard, unemployment is averaging something on the order of 60% in Iraq and people still have families to feed. And yes - they also recognize that the only way to get the Coalition out of Iraq is to take over their own security so some assume the risk for the betterment (and hopefully freedom) of their own country.

But to think that most are doing this as some form of desire to work in cooperation with the US is assinine.

Incidentally, your numbers are also completely wrong. Bear in mind that the Kurds are also Sunni, let alone your complete lack of description of that third aspect to the internal struggles between groups. Nor are either group some sort of homogenous mass with identical ideals and desires. There are moderates and extremists on both sides.

BTW, if you want to talk about "breaking the rules of war" - try and take an HONEST look at both sides. There is plenty of blame to go around.

You perhaps missed the fact that Bill Clinton gave nobid contracts to Halliburton back in the 90s. I'm sure that he was part of an oil conspiracy too.

LOGICAL FALLACY!!!

The errors of others do not exempt one from blame.

BTW, if you want to talk about "breaking the rules of war" - try and take an HONEST look at both sides. There is plenty of blame to go around.

One side: taking nude pictures of prisioners
Other side: chopping heads off, murdering aid workers who flew halfway across the world to feed starving children

Damn right, both sides are equally savage.

LOGICAL FALLACY!!!

The errors of others do not exempt one from blame.

People who bring up Halliburton are trying to act as if Bush invented the nobid because he has oil friends, as suggested by the person I was responding to with my post.

When you look at the reason for the no bid, you'll see it's not an error.

One side: taking nude pictures of prisioners
Other side: chopping heads off, murdering aid workers who flew halfway across the world to feed starving children

Damn right, both sides are equally savage.

Oh, so the US is welcome to disobey the laws of war as long as somebody else does it worse? And you really think that Abu Ghraib is the sum totality of Coalition violations of the Geneva Conventions?

Is murder is OK as long as you don't exceed the worst serial killers?


Interesting logic you have there....

It is not possible to have a wide spread insurgency without wide spread popular support. Our troops can't go from the Green Zone to the airport without the possibility of bobby traps and sniping.

Though it is true that Iraqis are signing up to become police officers and to go into the Iraqi Army, many recruits actually turn out to be insurgents, or will become part of the insurgency once we arm them.

Before I saw anything else, it's Shiite, not Shia or whatever that word you were using was.

Shia is the collective noun (or the adjective). Shia or Sunni for a group, Shiite or Sunnite for one person.

Now, I find myself very annoyed with anyway who characterizes the terrorists as evil or subhuman just because they're doing what they're doing.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said they are "evil or subhuman" ("subhuman"="untermenschen" - nice innuendo you have going there, by the way). I did say they are terrorists and I explained why they meet the technical definition.

I do think they are evil because of what they do. But I wouldn't say "just" because of what they do. To put that little word, "just", in there would be to imply that it can be in any way overlooked or excused. It cannot.

Killing hostages in not acceptable, ever. Doing it as a ritual, on TV, fits any reasonable definition of evil. In spades.

I don't agree with their methods or their ideals, but at least I am able to see all sides of the issue; you have to be able to do that.

Helpful advice, if misplaced. I do see their side of the issue - in fact I have a fair idea of what each of the numerous factions wants. I think most of the people who would walk around with a "US out of Iraq" sign have no idea even of anything as basic as the Shia/Sunni/Kurd divide without which it is impossible to understand anything about the situation.

Did you ever consider that maybe it's the only way they've got to fight back?

Yes. However, and this is a key point, it is only their goals which restrict their choice of methods of fighting back. If they were simply nationalistic or anti-US, they would want to proceed with elections as fast as possible, so that a parliament with a degree of legitimacy could dictate terms (withdrawal) to the US. They would want the country to be as safe as possible, so that there would be plenty of news and international monitoring of the elections. But since they are fundamentalist and/or in favor of Sunni dominance - views held by a very small minority - they use atrocities to try to provoke the Shia majority into lashing out (which will bring other Sunni to their side), to delay or make impossible elections, and to intimidate the general population especially those that are trying to build a functioning country.

In short: you can deduce goals from means. I think their means are criminal and barbaric, and the implied goals despicable.

I'm not trying to justify their actions; I'm just saying that we should try to look at things from all points of views before we make judgements.

Seems to me you are trying to justify their actions. Okay, I've looked at things from their point of view - if I was them, I'd go into politics, not terrorism at this point. That they resort to terrorism means that they think politics is a dead end, which means that their agenda is particularly disagreeable to most people. Pretty simple, really.

Before I saw anything else, it's Shiite, not Shia or whatever that word you were using was.
Now, I find myself very annoyed with anyway who characterizes the terrorists as evil or subhuman just because they're doing what they're doing. I don't agree with their methods or their ideals, but at least I am able to see all sides of the issue; you have to be able to do that. Did you ever consider that maybe it's the only way they've got to fight back? I'm not trying to justify their actions; I'm just saying that we should try to look at things from all points of views before we make judgements. It tends to help in a lot of situations. >_>Normally I'd agree with you... after all, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. but here is a question. are you justifying the fact that they are shooting out of Holy buildings and using civilians as shields. when we fire back, it's not that the terrorists are using Holy Sites and Civilians to sheild themselves... no it's The American Forces shot a Civilian... or They blew up a Mosque. Never mind the fact that they are spending money to have those Mosques repaired and are providing medicine for those hurt.

Normally I'd agree with you... after all, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. but here is a question. are you justifying the fact that they are shooting out of Holy buildings and using civilians as shields. when we fire back, it's not that the terrorists are using Holy Sites and Civilians to sheild themselves... no it's The American Forces shot a Civilian... or They blew up a Mosque. Never mind the fact that they are spending money to have those Mosques repaired and are providing medicine for those hurt.


Shooting out of Mosques?

You mean like this?

http://www.geocities.com/jfabiani@sbcglobal.net/talafar.jpg

What is going on in Iraq explained in one sentence:

Americans and Iraqis fighting together against terrorists.

Don't believe me? Well, consider at least that this *may* be true. There has never been any shortage of recruits for the Iraqi army and police, even though it is a very dangerous job.

If public opinion was so strongly against the US: why not just wait until the elections, get an anti-US government elected, and then use their legitimate authority ask us to leave? Ah, because the guys who set up car bombs couldn't get anyone elected even as dog-catcher, except in a couple of cities, that's why.

Most of the people there may not *like* us but they understand and support what we're doing. They also understand that they, not we, are the prime target of the terrorists... something like 10-15,000 Iraqis have been killed by terrorists in the past year. Many Iraqis are very angry, and many are looking for blood... the response in parts of Iraq to the Fallujah mosque shooting by a marine was not "why did you shoot the unarmed terrorist" but "why did you leave the other ones alive"... Iraqi troops are much rougher with prisoners than US troops.

There is also an ugly ethnic and religious aspect to this... no, it's not Muslim vs Christian, but Shia vs Sunni. The Shias are 60% and the Sunni 15% or so... yet the Sunni held almost all the power under Saddam. They're not going to have much power under a purely democratic system, so they (some of them) are very intensely unhappy. There is almost no unrest in Shia areas now. The top Shia cleric issued a fatwa (ruling) recently that pretty much said "Vote or burn in hell". The Sunnis want to boycott the elections because they know they will not get many votes. Well that's too damn bad, its just the way a democracy works you know.

By the way, why I keep calling the guys we are fighting terrorists... a terrorist is someone who does not obey the laws of war (which are very simple - distinguish yourself from civilians, don't target civilians, and don't commit acts of perfidy). These guys obviously break all three rules. The most recent attacks were against Shia mosques, against members of several election committees, and against the most popular Shia political party. That basically tells you who the attackers are and what they want (hint: it is not to liberate Iraq from US occupation).

I only have one thing to say... You have no idea what you're talking about.

The last time it was "safe" to take an Iraq wide poll about 80% of Iraqi's wanted the Americans out of their country. As Zeppistan has also stated, the Iraqi police are only helping because they have to take the chance so they can feed their families. As for terrorists, there were no terrorists in Iraq until the Americans invaded and further it's a total assumption that the insurgency is not made up of mostly Iraqi's. You don't know that. No one does. Although there is large speculation that most of the insurgents are Saddam loyalists, which would in fact make them Iraqi's.. Had the US not botched the whole war and not disband the Iraqi army, the Americans might not find themselves in the quagmire they find themselves in now. To end, what makes you think after the elections the Iraqi's won't tell the USA to get the hell out of their country? You sure do make a hell of a lot of uniformed assumptions in this little piece of yours! :rolleyes:

You make it sound like there was no invasion, just a mutual desire to combat "terrorism" that sprung up out of a pre-existing condition.

Yes, it did spring out of a pre-existing condition, namely Saddam. In medical terms, they had an operation to remove a tumor, and are now getting antibiotics to deal with the secondary infections ;)

Last I heard, unemployment is averaging something on the order of 60% in Iraq and people still have families to feed.

That's simply not true. There are a lot of guest workers (Thai etc) because it is too hard to get local labor. Salaries have shot up tremendously, both government and private, while prices of goods are relatively steady. That doesn't happen in a slow labor market.

Okay, maybe there is a lot of unemployed youths hanging around Sadr city under big posters of Mookie (Moqtada)... they don't want to work, that's why they're unemployed.

And yes - they also recognize that the only way to get the Coalition out of Iraq is to take over their own security so some assume the risk for the betterment (and hopefully freedom) of their own country.

Whether they like us or not, our goals are the same. Of course the guys who set bombs have very different goals. What might those be, you think?

Incidentally, your numbers are also completely wrong. Bear in mind that the Kurds are also Sunni, let alone your complete lack of description of that third aspect to the internal struggles between groups.

I was trying to keep it simple ;)

BTW, if you want to talk about "breaking the rules of war" - try and take an HONEST look at both sides. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Is there really? How do you think our side has broken them?

Shooting out of Mosques?

You mean like this?

http://www.geocities.com/jfabiani@sbcglobal.net/talafar.jpgthat's not a Mosque.

Shia is the collective noun (or the adjective). Shia or Sunni for a group, Shiite or Sunnite for one person.



You're putting words in my mouth. I never said they are "evil or subhuman" ("subhuman"="untermenschen" - nice innuendo you have going there, by the way). I did say they are terrorists and I explained why they meet the technical definition.

I do think they are evil because of what they do. But I wouldn't say "just" because of what they do. To put that little word, "just", in there would be to imply that it can be in any way overlooked or excused. It cannot.

Killing hostages in not acceptable, ever. Doing it as a ritual, on TV, fits any reasonable definition of evil. In spades.



Helpful advice, if misplaced. I do see their side of the issue - in fact I have a fair idea of what each of the numerous factions wants. I think most of the people who would walk around with a "US out of Iraq" sign have no idea even of anything as basic as the Shia/Sunni/Kurd divide without which it is impossible to understand anything about the situation.



Yes. However, and this is a key point, it is only their goals which restrict their choice of methods of fighting back. If they were simply nationalistic or anti-US, they would want to proceed with elections as fast as possible, so that a parliament with a degree of legitimacy could dictate terms (withdrawal) to the US. They would want the country to be as safe as possible, so that there would be plenty of news and international monitoring of the elections. But since they are fundamentalist and/or in favor of Sunni dominance - views held by a very small minority - they use atrocities to try to provoke the Shia majority into lashing out (which will bring other Sunni to their side), to delay or make impossible elections, and to intimidate the general population especially those that are trying to build a functioning country.

In short: you can deduce goals from means. I think their means are criminal and barbaric, and the implied goals despicable.



Seems to me you are trying to justify their actions. Okay, I've looked at things from their point of view - if I was them, I'd go into politics, not terrorism at this point. That they resort to terrorism means that they think politics is a dead end, which means that their agenda is particularly disagreeable to most people. Pretty simple, really.
Then in that case, I'll have to agree with you. I still don't see them as evil, but I do agree that they're methods are unnecessary and that they need not perform such actions. Again, though, I was trying to see all sides of the issue without justifying; if it came across as justification for their actions, I apologize. I condemn every killing they've performed.
Of course, I still don't think the Iraqi war had anything to do with terrorism in the beginning, or was justified, but that's a completely different subject.

It is not possible to have a wide spread insurgency without wide spread popular support.

Congratulations, you just proved you have no idea what you're talking about.

First, how many insurgents are there? Look at the number of attacks, estimate the number of people/hours to set up each one, you will promptly arrive at the number of insurgents... namely 5000 fulltime and 10000 part-time, give or take a few thousand. Plus ten to twenty times as many "popular supporters" who do not participate actively.

A widespread insurgency... you might mean something like the Vietnamese under Gen. Giap who destroyed the French G.M. 100 (a regiment-plus force of elite mechanized infantry with armor and artillery in support)? It took them about half a million people (!) to carry supplies in order to pull that operation off. Or la Drang? Yep, that was widespread.

What we have here is the work of a very few people.

However, that does not make it easy to deal with. Consider Northern Ireland, where an even smaller number of people cased utter havoc for decades.

I still don't think the Iraqi war had anything to do with terrorism in the beginning, or was justified

You've got that right.

U.S. Road To War (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/american.html)

Yes, it did spring out of a pre-existing condition, namely Saddam. In medical terms, they had an operation to remove a tumor, and are now getting antibiotics to deal with the secondary infections ;)


In the US, a patient gets to choose their medical treatment. It's called informed consent. I'm trying to remember when the US asked IRaq if it wanted to be invaded, and when they said "yes".


That's simply not true. There are a lot of guest workers (Thai etc) because it is too hard to get local labor. Salaries have shot up tremendously, both government and private, while prices of goods are relatively steady. That doesn't happen in a slow labor market.



No, there are lots of guest workers for security reasons that it is dificult to vet locals. Are these guest-workers being hired by Iraqis? No. They are being hired by the Coalition and the people with rebuilding contracts. And the pay rates have shot up because it is just about the most dangerous job on the planet right now. But yes - poor people from countries like Thailand will take the job becaus their economics at home are not much better than those in Iraq right now.


Okay, maybe there is a lot of unemployed youths hanging around Sadr city under big posters of Mookie (Moqtada)... they don't want to work, that's why they're unemployed.


I see that you completely missed the quote from the Washington Post that substantiated my claim. Nor have you any clue as to the economic situationin IRaq right now.


Whether they like us or not, our goals are the same.

really? your goal is simply to feed your family and make things possible for an opccupation of your country to end too?

Of course the guys who set bombs have very different goals. What might those be, you think?


To repulse an army of occupation.

I was trying to keep it simple ;)


"simple" seems to describe your thinking all to well.

This OPINION is clearly right-leaning.

This opinion speaks the truths. I am in the military and I have been to Iraq. Who are you people to really judge what is going on unless you have been there? I have and half the stuff the media puts out makes it seem like nothing is being done and soldiers just die in vain for some George Bush f*** up.

This opinion speaks the truths. I am in the military and I have been to Iraq. Who are you people to really judge what is going on unless you have been there? I have and half the stuff the media puts out makes it seem like nothing is being done and soldiers just die in vain for some George Bush f*** up.

Are you trying to imply it was some how not a f*ck up? Because if you are, even retired 4 star Generals would disagree with you.

This opinion speaks the truths. I am in the military and I have been to Iraq. Who are you people to really judge what is going on unless you have been there? I have and half the stuff the media puts out makes it seem like nothing is being done and soldiers just die in vain for some George Bush f*** up.
It is essentially a George Bush fuck-up, as you put it. The soldiers themselves, of course, for the most part deserve our respect and I give them that. But the war itself does not by any means. We can judge because this is a free society and we're allowed to speak our minds. I could say the same about Star Trek haters judging the quality of a Star Trek movie; that doesn't mean they can't judge it anyway. You see my point, don't you?

This opinion speaks the truths. I am in the military and I have been to Iraq. Who are you people to really judge what is going on unless you have been there? I have and half the stuff the media puts out makes it seem like nothing is being done and soldiers just die in vain for some George Bush f*** up.
I am going to join the Army soon,mabye even go to Iraq..Ive heard all the people there are ingrates,they dont like us being there right?...We went there to do a job..get Saddam we've done that but now most people hates us..whats happening?..there not terrorists that's Bin Laden and/was Saddam but know civvies are fighting against us..why?.....Whats happening?

One side: taking nude pictures of prisioners
Other side: chopping heads off, murdering aid workers who flew halfway across the world to feed starving children

Damn right, both sides are equally savage.

One side still thinking it's the most humane nation in the world, but still holding hundreds of prisoners caged without trial on Cuba, claiming they have no POW status.

What is going on in Iraq explained in one sentence:

Americans and Iraqis fighting together against terrorists.

Don't believe me? Well, consider at least that this *may* be true. There has never been any shortage of recruits for the Iraqi army and police, even though it is a very dangerous job.

If public opinion was so strongly against the US: why not just wait until the elections, get an anti-US government elected, and then use their legitimate authority ask us to leave? Ah, because the guys who set up car bombs couldn't get anyone elected even as dog-catcher, except in a couple of cities, that's why.

Most of the people there may not *like* us but they understand and support what we're doing. They also understand that they, not we, are the prime target of the terrorists... something like 10-15,000 Iraqis have been killed by terrorists in the past year. Many Iraqis are very angry, and many are looking for blood... the response in parts of Iraq to the Fallujah mosque shooting by a marine was not "why did you shoot the unarmed terrorist" but "why did you leave the other ones alive"... Iraqi troops are much rougher with prisoners than US troops.

There is also an ugly ethnic and religious aspect to this... no, it's not Muslim vs Christian, but Shia vs Sunni. The Shias are 60% and the Sunni 15% or so... yet the Sunni held almost all the power under Saddam. They're not going to have much power under a purely democratic system, so they (some of them) are very intensely unhappy. There is almost no unrest in Shia areas now. The top Shia cleric issued a fatwa (ruling) recently that pretty much said "Vote or burn in hell". The Sunnis want to boycott the elections because they know they will not get many votes. Well that's too damn bad, its just the way a democracy works you know.

By the way, why I keep calling the guys we are fighting terrorists... a terrorist is someone who does not obey the laws of war (which are very simple - distinguish yourself from civilians, don't target civilians, and don't commit acts of perfidy). These guys obviously break all three rules. The most recent attacks were against Shia mosques, against members of several election committees, and against the most popular Shia political party. That basically tells you who the attackers are and what they want (hint: it is not to liberate Iraq from US occupation).

a) The Iraqui Economy is shattered. Many join the iraqui national guard because they want to make a living, and that is the only employer there. Dont think they join because they like you, and many of those that do have been found to be colaborating with the insurgency.

b) Who said they arent waiting for elections? Every shiite is waiting for that day, after 30 years of sunni oppresssion, power will fall on their hands, without they having to do anything but wait.

c) Thousands of civilians have died in the hands of US forces, dont wash your hands out of that. Want to know when the resistance of fallujah started? When the US shoot at protesters, killing over 20 civilians. And that is just one sad example in the long list of sad examples that the US have provided.

d) Yea, they are rough. But the US troops that shoot everything on site, are even thougher.. or not. That's not much of an argument.

e) You forgot the kurds for the ethnic mixing. And think like this: How many people were in the IRA and how long it lasted? And how many people are in the insurgency right now? You bought a problem that will be solved in.. 20 years?

f) Well, be careful on what you call a terrorist. A collaborator against an enemy invader can be called a valid target. If not, you just called every partisan that fought the nazis a terrorist (And they had a zeal against the colaborators)


Edit: damn, everyone posted what i said before :(

Shooting out of Mosques?

You mean like this?

http://www.geocities.com/jfabiani@sbcglobal.net/talafar.jpg
I agree with him seriously,
the American bastards are torturing Iraqis and defying their religion by making them nude.And it's all for oil...Americans Troops are killing innocents blowing up holy areas.They should burn in Hell for their sins.And no Bush is too stupid to be doing everything he's doing so it has to be someone else who's giving him commands.Just like to know has anyone seen farenheit 911?That explains why Osama Bin Laden and his "terrorists" are involved.Most Americans are Islamicphobic.

The last time it was "safe" to take an Iraq wide poll about 80% of Iraqi's wanted the Americans out of their country.

True as far as it goes. I know of two polls from this summer and one more recent one. There was the BBC/Oxford and the USA Today poll. Sure they want the Americans out of their country... did you pay attention to the question about *when* they want us to leave? (from memory: right away < 20%, within 6 months 40%, within a year 15% ... "when the security situation improves" was not a choice but I think most would have picked that)

As Zeppistan has also stated, the Iraqi police are only helping because they have to take the chance so they can feed their families.

Bullshit. Early on a lot of people signed up because they had been mistreated by Saddam... more recently a lot are in it for revenge.

As for terrorists, there were no terrorists in Iraq until the Americans invaded

Sure...
http://obsidianorder.blogspot.com/2004/10/saddam-and-al-qaeda-timeline.html

further it's a total assumption that the insurgency is not made up of mostly Iraqi's

I didn't say anything about that, not sure why you bring it up.

At a guess, it's 80/20 Iraqi/foreign right now. Most of the money comes from Baathist accounts held in Syria.

Americans might not find themselves in the quagmire they find themselves in now.

How cliched. This is not a quagmire, this is a skirmish at most.

To end, what makes you think after the elections the Iraqi's won't tell the USA to get the hell out of their country?

I would have no problem with that, assuming it represents what the people want. However, if that is due to threats and blackmail by a small group, I would have a huge problem with it.

I am going to join the Army soon,mabye even go to Iraq..Ive heard all the people there are ingrates,they dont like us being there right?...We went there to do a job..get Saddam we've done that but now most people hates us..whats happening?..there not terrorists that's Bin Laden and/was Saddam but know civvies are fighting against us..why?.....Whats happening?


You blow the hell out of a country and call the citizens "ingrates" for not welcoming you?


"Gosh, why can't they see that despite any errors made (like - sorry about your child that picked up a stray cluster-bomblet) that we only had their best interests at heart when we sent our troops in their to occupy their country?"

Try putting yourself in their shoes for a bit and see how grateful you would feel. If any proper post-war planning beyond the best-case scenario had been made before going in - maybe it wouldn't have turned into the cluster-fuck that it has. But it spiralled out of control due to poor planning and insufficient manpower, and this is the mess you now have.

In the US, a patient gets to choose their medical treatment. It's called informed consent.

If they are completely incapacitated, their relatives get to decide.

Are these guest-workers being hired by Iraqis? No.

Actually yes they are. I'm pretty sure my source on the state of the economy is a little better than yours, or the WaPo's handpicked quote.

make things possible for an occupation of your country to end too?

An unjust peace is not peace. An unjust end to the occupation would be merely substituting it with an occupation by someone else. We are trying to set things up so we can leave as fast as possible, but not to leave another *regime* behind. That's key.

Bullshit. Early on a lot of people signed up because they had been mistreated by Saddam... more recently a lot are in it for revenge.


How about you source that rather than just give your own opinion.

I sourced the Washington Post article that clearly stated that the primary reason given was economics. So far, you are just blowing smoke.

The Americans are quickly inching towards Fascism...They are treating the Iraqis somewhat like the Nazis treated the Jews but not in mass,they do it and cover it up with thier propaganda infested media.

The Americans are quickly inching towards Fascism...They are treating the Iraqis somewhat like the Nazis treated the Jews but not in mass,they do it and cover it up with thier propaganda infested media.
Their "New Christians" are determined to wipe Islam off the face of the Earth and other races i.e: Africans,and etc... Damn Those American Scum Bags to Hell. Somebody should occupy the States aand do the same as they do the Muslim countries.

True as far as it goes. I know of two polls from this summer and one more recent one. There was the BBC/Oxford and the USA Today poll. Sure they want the Americans out of their country... did you pay attention to the question about *when* they want us to leave? (from memory: right away < 20%, within 6 months 40%, within a year 15% ... "when the security situation improves" was not a choice but I think most would have picked that)



Bullshit. Early on a lot of people signed up because they had been mistreated by Saddam... more recently a lot are in it for revenge.



Sure...
http://obsidianorder.blogspot.com/2004/10/saddam-and-al-qaeda-timeline.html



I didn't say anything about that, not sure why you bring it up.

At a guess, it's 80/20 Iraqi/foreign right now. Most of the money comes from Baathist accounts held in Syria.



How cliched. This is not a quagmire, this is a skirmish at most.



I would have no problem with that, assuming it represents what the people want. However, if that is due to threats and blackmail by a small group, I would have a huge problem with it.

a) Source of that poll?
b) Well, even if some have signed for revenge, it is wishful thinking that the vast majority signed by anything else than much needed money.
c) Did you know that there was a Taliban oficial that visited the US in the 90's? And did you knew iraq had an embassy in my country? Gosh, we are all colaborators!
d)At a guess..
e)Cliche? You have taken more casualties in iraq than in vietnam, in the same lenght of time. Its war, urban guerrilla warfare.

This opinion speaks the truths. I am in the military and I have been to Iraq. Who are you people to really judge what is going on unless you have been there?

Thanks... I haven't been there but I do try to talk to (and really listen to) people who have.

If they are completely incapacitated, their relatives get to decide.


So, you are their relative? And IRaqis were totally incapacitated? Awfuly arrogant of you.


Actually yes they are. I'm pretty sure my source on the state of the economy is a little better than yours, or the WaPo's handpicked quote.


What source? The blog?


Oh yeah.... hell, who doesn't take Blogspt and Livejournal over news organizations....

:rolleyes:


An unjust peace is not peace. An unjust end to the occupation would be merely substituting it with an occupation by someone else. We are trying to set things up so we can leave as fast as possible, but not to leave another *regime* behind. That's key.

You CAUSED the situation. You CAUSED the occupation. Don't now try and sugarcoat the fuckups with some BS rhetoric simply designed to try and equate this to the supposed "War on Terror" by looking to label this as some cooperative effort with Iraqis to combat that evil noun.

Sure...
http://obsidianorder.blogspot.com/2004/10/saddam-and-al-qaeda-timeline.html

I'm sorry, I refuse to try and have a serious debate with any one who would use a blog as a source.. get real! :rolleyes:

What source? The blog?

Hahaha, you read my mind.. ;)

Thanks... I haven't been there but I do try to talk to (and really listen to) people who have.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0930-15.htm


Read this for more about iraqui economy:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6930.htm

So, you are their relative? And IRaqis were totally incapacitated? Awfuly arrogant of you.



What source? The blog?


Oh yeah.... hell, who doesn't take Blogspt and Livejournal over news organizations....

:rolleyes:



You CAUSED the situation. You CAUSED the occupation. Don't now try and sugarcoat the fuckups with some BS rhetoric simply designed to try and equate this to the supposed "War on Terror" by looking to label this as some cooperative effort with Iraqis to combat that evil noun.
It's true before the Americans invaded they were in prosperity.As long as there are Americans in Iraq or other countries,
there will always be skirmishes.I think the States are losing this war because Bush is becoming more desperate by the attacks...and also let's say there was a fight in Baghdad,the media will say 10 americans died and 16 Iraqis dead,
most of the time that's not true they'll be around 20 americans dead and 8 Iraqis.It's the media cover up.Remember that attack on the American base a few weeks back?Bush said "Minimum losses i.e: 6-15 there were more about 45 dead.They do it so the recruits don't lose moral and make people think they are winning when infact they are losing...

I am going to join the Army soon,mabye even go to Iraq..Ive heard all the people there are ingrates,they dont like us being there right?...We went there to do a job..get Saddam we've done that but now most people hates us..whats happening?..there not terrorists that's Bin Laden and/was Saddam but know civvies are fighting against us..why?.....Whats happening?

Nuge and other military guys might give you a better answer, but as I understand it there are very few people who are actually fighting, most of the rest are too intimidated to do anything about it although they often help us with good intel. I wouldn't say most people hate us, they just want it all to be over. It will probably quiet down a lot after the elections in January (just guessing). As for why... a few people were lording it over everyone, now they're not, they're not real happy about it. A few others see an opportunity to become a lot more powerful... throw in religion, and all kinds of (whether real or imaginary) slights and insults... and of course you have your career criminals who are happy about the chaos that makes their jobs a hundred times easier.

You may want to have a look at these blogs by guys in the military, some good stories here...

http://www.blackfive.net/
http://www.lt-smash.us/
http://www.sgthook.com/
http://www.thequestingcat.com/blog/
http://www.sgtstryker.com/
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/
http://www.marinecorpsmoms.com/
http://cbftw.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/
http://www.thegreenside.com/
http://2slick.blogspot.com/
http://avengerredsix.blogspot.com/
http://www.overpressure.com/

You may want to have a look at these blogs by guys in the military, some good stories here...

http://www.blackfive.net/
http://www.lt-smash.us/
http://www.sgthook.com/
http://www.thequestingcat.com/blog/
http://www.sgtstryker.com/
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/
http://www.marinecorpsmoms.com/
http://cbftw.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/
http://www.thegreenside.com/
http://2slick.blogspot.com/
http://avengerredsix.blogspot.com/
http://www.overpressure.com/


= Propaganda! sheesh, do you have any REAL sources? :headbang:

= Propaganda! sheesh, do you have any REAL sources? :headbang:
Actually, in this case he was using those as a recommendation to the person who was signing up for the military, not using them as sources for his arguments.
Still, I find myself agreeing with you; he clearly does not understand the truth about this war. I would not be surprised if he was a high school student who had a Republican teacher like Browner tell him all about conservatism and converted him to it.

Nuge and other military guys might give you a better answer, but as I understand it there are very few people who are actually fighting, most of the rest are too intimidated to do anything about it although they often help us with good intel. I wouldn't say most people hate us, they just want it all to be over. It will probably quiet down a lot after the elections in January (just guessing). As for why... a few people were lording it over everyone, now they're not, they're not real happy about it. A few others see an opportunity to become a lot more powerful... throw in religion, and all kinds of (whether real or imaginary) slights and insults... and of course you have your career criminals who are happy about the mess that makes their jobs a hundred times easier.

You may want to have a look at these blogs by guys in the military, some good stories here...

http://www.blackfive.net/
http://www.lt-smash.us/
http://www.sgthook.com/
http://www.thequestingcat.com/blog/
http://www.sgtstryker.com/
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/
http://www.marinecorpsmoms.com/
http://cbftw.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/
http://www.thegreenside.com/
http://2slick.blogspot.com/
http://avengerredsix.blogspot.com/
http://www.overpressure.com/


Still sourcing Blogs as the full and complete truth?

Despite the fact that the Pentagon has put in place practices that will come down VERY hard on any soldier in-theater who makes negative comments about the war? (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3867981)


Military officials are cracking down on blogs written by soldiers and Marines in Iraq, saying some of them reveal sensitive information. Critics say it's an attempt to suppress unflattering truths about the U.S. occupation. NPR's Eric Niiler reports.

A blogger with the pen name CBFTW, stationed near Mosul with the First Battallion, 23rd Regiment, says he began his My War Web log to help combat boredom. "I'm just writing about my experiences," the soldier says. "I'm pretty much putting my diary on the Internet -- that's all it is."

CBFTW says he has avoided describing sensitive information, such as U.S. weapons capabilities, weaknesses and scheduling. But earlier this month, CBFTW was lectured by commanders about violating operational security. Two other popular blogs run by soldiers have been shut down recently.

Lt. Col. Paul Hastings, a spokesman for unit CBFTW belongs to, said the soldier's blog now has to be reviewed by his platoon sergeant and a superior officer.



Tell me - do you source any veterans AGAINST the war? No? any negative blogs? No?

Sheesh! :headbang:

Actually, in this case he was using those as a recommendation to the person who was signing up for the military, not using them as sources for his arguments.
Still, I find myself agreeing with you; he clearly does not understand the truth about this war. I would not be surprised if he was a high school student who had a Republican teacher like Browner tell him all about conservatism and converted him to it.

Yeah, I see your point.. my comment stands on my assessment of the links though.

I am a mother of two children. Thankfully I don't live in the USA. If either of my children wanted to sign up for the military and I did live in the USA, I would chain them to a pole in the basement.

Yeah, I see your point.. my comment stands on my assessment of the links though.

I am a mother of two children. Thankfully I don't live in the USA. If either of my children wanted to sign up for the military and I did live in the USA, I would chain them to a pole in the basement.
I was going to go to the Air Force Academy at one point, but that was back under Clinton's Presidency. Ever since then, my main goal is to eventually go into politics to try to get this country back to the way it should be. I would like to eventually become the President in 2040 or so.

Congratulations, you just proved you have no idea what you're talking about.

First, how many insurgents are there? Look at the number of attacks, estimate the number of people/hours to set up each one, you will promptly arrive at the number of insurgents... namely 5000 fulltime and 10000 part-time, give or take a few thousand. Plus ten to twenty times as many "popular supporters" who do not participate actively.

A widespread insurgency... you might mean something like the Vietnamese under Gen. Giap who destroyed the French G.M. 100 (a regiment-plus force of elite mechanized infantry with armor and artillery in support)? It took them about half a million people (!) to carry supplies in order to pull that operation off. Or la Drang? Yep, that was widespread.

What we have here is the work of a very few people.

However, that does not make it easy to deal with. Consider Northern Ireland, where an even smaller number of people cased utter havoc for decades.



Between the American Militia Movement, The Neo Nazis, and The Klan there are more Right Wing domestic terrorists in the US than there are insurgents in Iraq. With the exception of the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing the American right wing has staged no major attacks. Not that they don't want to, they just don't have the popular support.

You can't mine a road in a neighborhood or set up an ambush in broad daylight without people seeing what your doing. Even though the US is offering reward cash for information on insurgent activity, the insurgency goes on. If I saw some skinheads planting a bomb in a road I'd be on the phone in a heartbeat, then I'd go out and kick their ass. Why doesn't this happen in Iraq.

The reason is once you have an occupation of a country, fighting that occupation becomes a patriotic struggle. The size of the force doesn't matter, to many Iraqis it's still a patriotic struggle.

The efficiency of the US military machine in wiping out widespread concentrated forces means that the only way to efficiently fight it is in small groups. The Iraqi insurgency has already learned that lesson. Do not make the dangerous mistake that because they have modified their tactics, that they are a small and disorganized force.

A small and disorganized force wouldn't be able to turn the main route between the airport to the Green Zone into a sniper's alley. It wouldn't be able to stop the flow of oil reserves that the US installed government has already sold to American and British corporations at bargain prices.

I was going to go to the Air Force Academy at one point, but that was back under Clinton's Presidency. Ever since then, my main goal is to eventually go into politics to try to get this country back to the way it should be. I would like to eventually become the President in 2040 or so.

I've read quite a few of your posts.. I wish you much luck. You seem like one of the good ones. It would be nice to see my neighbours to the south gain their sanity back again. Lets just hope it doesn't take till 2040 though.. ;)

Actually, in this case he was using those as a recommendation to the person who was signing up for the military, not using them as sources for his arguments.

Thank you, that is very gracious.

Still, I find myself agreeing with you; he clearly does not understand the truth about this war. I would not be surprised if he was a high school student who had a Republican teacher like Browner tell him all about conservatism and converted him to it.

This however is not. Much easier to assume your opponent is stupid ("clearly does not understand the truth"), immature ("high school student"), brainwashed ("converted him") - or heck, how about all three? - than to actually argue. Earlier you were suggesting that I thought the terrorists were "subhuman" when I said or implied nothing of the sort. How about you actually respond to what I'm saying?

I don't think there is any "clear truth" about what is a pretty complex situation ... but insofar as it is to be found, it is in first-hand accounts which I seek out as much as possible.

I don't think there is any "clear truth" about what is a pretty complex situation ... but insofar as it is to be found, it is in first-hand accounts which I seek out as much as possible.

I think there are in fact some rather blatant clear truths about some of what has gone on and it's not pretty. I don't know if you're a student a grandfather or a middle aged person nor is that relevant to the obvious fact to my husband (Zeppistan) and I that you clearly don't know what you're talking about on many levels and have either chosen to put a blindfold on or just really don't get it.

Tell me - do you source any veterans AGAINST the war?

Do you know of any?

I know of *one* but he doesn't have a blog. Unfortunately he is also full of shit because his account of dates and places where things happened keeps changing, and are full of highly improbable details.

But earlier this month, CBFTW was lectured by commanders about violating operational security. ... Lt. Col. Paul Hastings, a spokesman for unit CBFTW belongs to, said the soldier's blog now has to be reviewed by his platoon sergeant and a superior officer.

You will note that this is one of the blogs I listed. I was reading it way before it became famous. Yeah, I read the post that caused all the commotion, and in my opinion it did violate OpSec, although not in a particularly bad way. What the article neglects to mention is that the guy was complimented on his writing by his officers and told to keep going, they just wanted to read whatever he wrote before it was publushed.

So you have a dilemma: either that guy had a negative post and was reprimanded because of it - in which case I linked to a negative blog; or he was really reprimanded because of OpSec - in which case the NPR article is bogus. Which one is it?

Thank you, that is very gracious.



This however is not. Much easier to assume your opponent is stupid ("clearly does not understand the truth"), immature ("high school student"), brainwashed ("converted him") - or heck, how about all three? - than to actually argue. Earlier you were suggesting that I thought the terrorists were "subhuman" when I said or implied nothing of the sort. How about you actually respond to what I'm saying?

I don't think there is any "clear truth" about what is a pretty complex situation ... but insofar as it is to be found, it is in first-hand accounts which I seek out as much as possible.
Actually, I was not intending the high school student bit to be insulting in the least; it was a reference to some events that occurred at my own school. And I have argued against you, and now ended my argument; the statement was my last comment on the situation.
I've read quite a few of your posts.. I wish you much luck. You seem like one of the good ones. It would be nice to see my neighbours to the south gain their sanity back again. Lets just hope it doesn't take till 2040 though..
Thank you; and I believe we Americans will gain our sanity back sooner; the 2040 bit was the earliest I believe it's probable for a seventeen year old such as myself to manage the Presidency. ^_^

I am a mother of two children. Thankfully I don't live in the USA. If either of my children wanted to sign up for the military and I did live in the USA, I would chain them to a pole in the basement.

I suppose this would be entirely beyond your understanding then. Quoting from - gasp - a blog...

http://www.thequestingcat.com/catseye.htm

For those who might be interested, I would like to explain a little bit about who I am. I am a soldier serving in Iraq, in the northern sector. I am in the 1st Infantry Division. My Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) is 11B, which is a standard Infantryman. I am 22 years old, and have been serving in the army on active duty for just about a year, though I served in the National Guard for about 4 years prior to that in the same MOS.

My name, The Questing Cat, was chosen to represent me because I believe that all life is a quest for something. In my case, I always wanted to quest for experience, so I joined the army and requested a hard MOS because I felt that hardship had the most to teach me. I don't think I was wrong. I wanted active duty because I wanted to experience more to become a well rounded person. I didn't want to debate the theory of ethics or have a selected curriculum regurgitated to me. I wanted to learn by doing. I wanted to be a primary source.

While I was in the National Guard, I was friends with many college students. They would tell me their views on the military, and then ask my opinion, waiting for the chance to disagree. They always seemed so smug in their own bubble of experience. They had been told the way it was, and nothing could burst their self fulfilling logic.

What I write here is not meant to tell others what to think, it is to present a view point that I feel is under represented. I am trying to put forth the world as The Questing Cat lives it, not what CNN has reported.

I suppose this would be entirely beyond your understanding then. Quoting from - gasp - a blog...

http://www.thequestingcat.com/catseye.htm

I don't respond to bad sources.. if you wait a minute Zep or I could go write some thing in our journals online and source it for you if you like.. ;)

Very well said. I appreciate that SOME on here seem to have a more than tenuous grip on reality and reason. :)

Very well said. I appreciate that SOME on here seem to have a more than tenuous grip on reality and reason. :)

I won't even try with you Eutrusca, you drank the kool-aid a long time ago..lol :)

Very well said. I appreciate that SOME on here seem to have a more than tenuous grip on reality and reason. :)
Who were you complimenting? Stephistan or Cassini?

Who were you complimenting? Stephistan or Cassini?

Oh his post was directed without doubt towards Cassini, he's a neo-con in every sense of the term!

Do you know of any?

I know of *one* but he doesn't have a blog. Unfortunately he is also full of shit because his account of dates and places where things happened keeps changing, and are full of highly improbable details.


What? You want me to do all you work for you? Try Googling "veteran against war Iraq" and see how many hits you get. Also, bear in mind that by reading only soldiers blogs you are getting only one side of the story. And these are people who get their opinions from IRaqis at gunpoint. Do you think maybe they hear what people think they want to hear? And do you think that people in a war have to find ways in their own minds to justify to themselves the fact that they take human life? That they have to live with themselves?

If you are committed to using blogs to get your opinion of the state of IRaq, might I suggest that at the very least that you also start reading some by Iraqis to balance your viewpoint. And read the news too. Grunts don't always have the whole picture.

Try: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

here are the most recent posts:

Christmas Wishlist...
I have to make this fast.

No electricity for three days in a row (well, unless you count that glorious hour we got 3 days ago...). Generators on gasoline are hardly working at all. Generators on diesel fuel aren't faring much better- most will only work for 3 or 4 straight hours then they have to be turned off to rest.

Ok- what is the typical Iraqi Christmas wishlist (I won't list 'peace', 'security' and 'freedom' - Christmas miracles are exclusive to Charles Dickens), let's see:

1. 20 liters of gasoline
2. A cylinder of gas for cooking
3. Kerosene for the heaters
4. Those expensive blast-proof windows
5. Landmine detectors
6. Running water
7. Thuraya satellite phones (the mobile phone services are really, really bad of late)
8. Portable diesel generators (for the whole family to enjoy!)
9. Coleman rechargeable flashlight with extra batteries (you can never go wrong with a fancy flashlight)
10. Scented candles (it shows you care- but you're also practical)

When Santa delivers please make sure he is wearing a bullet-proof vest and helmet. He should also politely ring the doorbell or knock, as a more subtle entry might bring him face to face with an AK-47. With the current fuel shortage, reindeer and a sleigh are highly practical- but Rudolph should be left behind as the flashing red nose might create a bomb scare (we're all a little jumpy lately).



Fuel Shortage...
It has been a sad few weeks.

The situation seems to be deteriorating daily. To brief you on a few things: Electricity is lousy. Many areas are on the damned 2 hours by 4 hours schedule and there are other areas that are completely in the dark- like A'adhamiya. The problem is that we're not getting much generator electricity because fuel has become such a big problem. People have to wait in line overnight now to fill up the car. It's a mystery. It really is. There was never such a gasoline crisis as the one we're facing now. We're an oil country and yet there isn't enough gasoline to go around...

Oh don't get me wrong- the governmental people have gasoline (they have special gas stations where there aren't all these annoying people, rubbing their hands with cold and cursing the Americans to the skies)... The Americans have gasoline. The militias get gasoline. It's the people who don't have it. We can sometimes get black-market gasoline but the liter costs around 1250 Iraqi Dinars which is almost $1- compare this to the old price of around 5 cents. It costs almost 50,000 Iraqi Dinars to fill up the generator so that it works for a few hours and then the cost isn't so much the problem as just getting decent gasoline is. So we have to do without electricity most of the day.

Cooking gas has also become a problem. The guy who sells us the gas cylinders isn't coming around because apparently he can't get the used cylinders exchanged for full ones. People are saying that it costs around 10,000 Iraqi dinars to buy one on the street and then, as usual, you risk getting one that might explode in the kitchen or be full of water. We're trying to do more and more of our 'cooking' on the kerosene heater. The faucet water is cold, cold, cold. We can't turn on the water heater because there just isn't enough electricity. We installed a kerosene water heater some time last year but that has also been off because there's a kerosene shortage and we need that for the heaters.

I took my turn at 'gasoline duty' a couple of weeks ago. E. and my cousin were going to go wait for gasoline so I decided I'd join them and keep them company. We left the house at around 5 a.m. and it was dark and extremely cold. I thought for sure we'd be the first at the station but I discovered the line was about a kilometer long with dozens and dozens of cars lined up around the block. My heart sank at the discouraging sight but E. and the cousin looked optimistic, "We just might be able to fill up before evening this time!" E. smiled.

I spent the first hour jabbering away and trying to determine whether or not gasoline was actually being sold at the station. E. and the cousin were silent- they had set up a routine. One of them would doze while the other watched in case a miracle occurred and the line actually started moving. The second hour I spent trying to sleep with my kneck at an uncomfortable angle on the back head rest. The third hour I enthusiastically tried to get up a game of "memorize the license plate". The fourth hour I fiddled with the radio and tried to sing along to every song being played on air. (It should be mentioned that at this point E. and the cousin threatened to throw Riverbend out of the car).

All in all, it took E. and the cousin 13 hours to fill the car. I say E. and the cousin because I demanded to be taken home in a taxi after the first six hours and E. agreed to escort me with the condition that I would make sandwiches for him to take back to the cousin. In the end, half of the tank of gasoline was kept inside of the car (for emergencies) and the other half was sucked out for the neighborhood generator.

People are wondering how America and gang (i.e. Iyad Allawi, etc.) are going to implement democracy in all of this chaos when they can't seem to get the gasoline flowing in a country that virtually swims in oil. There's a rumor that this gasoline crisis has been concocted on purpose in order to keep a minimum of cars on the streets. Others claim that this whole situation is a form of collective punishment because things are really out of control in so many areas in Baghdad- especially the suburbs. The third theory is that this being done purposely so that the Iraq government can amazingly bring the electricity, gasoline, kerosene and cooking gas back in January before the elections and make themselves look like heroes.

We're also watching the election lists closely. Most people I've talked to aren't going to go to elections. It's simply too dangerous and there's a sense that nothing is going to be achieved anyway. The lists are more or less composed of people affiliated with the very same political parties whose leaders rode in on American tanks. Then you have a handful of tribal sheikhs. Yes- tribal sheikhs. Our country is going to be led by members of religious parties and tribal sheikhs- can anyone say Afghanistan? What's even more irritating is that election lists have to be checked and confirmed by none other than Sistani!! Sistani- the Iranian religious cleric. So basically, this war helped us make a transition from a secular country being run by a dictator to a chaotic country being run by a group of religious clerics. Now, can anyone say 'theocracy in sheeps clothing'?

Ahmad Chalabi is at the head of one of those lists- who would join a list with Ahmad Chalabi at its head?

The borders are in an interesting state. Now this is something even Saddam didn't do: Iraqi men under the age of 50 aren't being let into the country. A friend of ours who was coming to visit was turned back at the Iraqi border. It was useless for him to try to explain that he had been outside of the country for 10 years and was coming back to visit his family. He was 47 and that meant he, in his expensive business suit, shining leather shoes, and impressive Samsonite baggage, might be a 'Jihadist'. Silly Iraqis- Iraqi men under 50 are a sure threat to the security of their country. American men with guns and tanks are, on the other hand, necessary to the welfare of the country. Lebanese, Kuwaitis and men of other nationalities being hired as mercenaries are vital to the security of said country. Iranian men coming to visit the shrines in the south are all welcome... but Iraqi men? Maybe they should head for Afghanistan.

The assault on Falloojeh and other areas is continuing. There are rumors of awful weapons being used in Falloojeh. The city has literally been burnt and bombed to the ground. Many of the people displaced from the city are asking to be let back in, in spite of everything. I can't even begin to imagine how difficult it must be for the refugees. It's like we've turned into another Palestine- occupation, bombings, refugees, death. Sometimes I'll be watching the news and the volume will be really low. The scene will be of a man, woman or child, wailing in front of the camera; crying at the fate of a body lying bloodily, stiffly on the ground- a demolished building in the background and it will take me a few moments to decide the location of this tragedy- Falloojeh? Gaza? Baghdad?


There are many more...

Between the American Militia Movement, The Neo Nazis, and The Klan there are more Right Wing domestic terrorists in the US than there are insurgents in Iraq. With the exception of the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing the American right wing has staged no major attacks. Not that they don't want to, they just don't have the popular support.

You can't mine a road in a neighborhood or set up an ambush in broad daylight without people seeing what your doing. Even though the US is offering reward cash for information on insurgent activity, the insurgency goes on. If I saw some skinheads planting a bomb in a road I'd be on the phone in a heartbeat, then I'd go out and kick their ass. Why doesn't this happen in Iraq.

The reason is once you have an occupation of a country, fighting that occupation becomes a patriotic struggle. The size of the force doesn't matter, to many Iraqis it's still a patriotic struggle.

The efficiency of the US military machine in wiping out widespread concentrated forces means that the only way to efficiently fight it is in small groups. The Iraqi insurgency has already learned that lesson. Do not make the dangerous mistake that because they have modified their tactics, that they are a small and disorganized force.

A small and disorganized force wouldn't be able to turn the main route between the airport to the Green Zone into a sniper's alley. It wouldn't be able to stop the flow of oil reserves that the US installed government has already sold to American and British corporations at bargain prices.
You obviously have extensive experience and training in counterinsurgency operations. So tell me, what are your recommendations for countering the "sniper alley," the interruption in the flow of oil reserves, etc.?

Who were you complimenting? Stephistan or Cassini?
The original post by The Cassini Belt.

Oh his post was directed without doubt towards Cassini, he's a neo-con in every sense of the term!
TSK! Now, Steph, you should know me better than that by now! Even just a cursory glance at my nation should inform you that I am definitely not a neo-con. :D

TSK! Now, Steph, you should know me better than that by now! Even just a cursory glance at my nation should inform you that I am definitely not a neo-con. :D

As I said on the last page my dear.. I won't even try with you. You drank the kool-aid far too long ago. :)

A terrorist is someone who does not obey the laws of war .
Bush is a Terrorist.

I don't respond to bad sources.. if you wait a minute Zep or I could go write some thing in our journals online and source it for you if you like.. ;)

Steph, I think your "bad sources" accusation against blogs in general is not reasonable. First, a lot of them are not anonymous/pseudonymous in any way - about half of them will readily tell you their name (and specialty and unit they serve in, if in the military). The ones that are pseudonymous, you can usually meet with in person (at blogger conventions/parties/etc), and people have done so. Second, a blog develops a distinctive voice after a while - you know it's a real person writing what they think, the fakes just aren't the same. (observe ROACAJ in this thread who is deliberately trolling as far as I can tell). Third, and most importantly, they are so damn detailed - you could no more make up a convincing military blog than you could convincingly pretend to be a concert violinist or a highrise washer. Fourth, and this is the most important one, you just have to cross-check extensively and with a broad variety of sources.

As I said on the last page my dear.. I won't even try with you. You drank the kool-aid far too long ago. :)
ROFLMAO!!! Steph, I will give you this ... when you slip the knife in, you do it with style and penache! :D

Bush is a Terrorist.
Yeah, well by your definition, so am I, so go perform some sort of impossible act upon your own body. :D

Bush is a Terrorist.

You might be on to some thing there...

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/v.jpg


http://www.stephaniesworld.com/bushvillagevoice.jpg

A terrorist is someone who does not obey the laws of war .
Bush is a Terrorist.

the most dangerous one...

Yeah, well by your definition... ...

It is not my definition....

hint*hint*The original post by The Cassini Belt.


;)

Try: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

LOL. Riverbend, the chicken little of Baghdad. Yeah, I was a regular reader for a while. Unfortunately (remember cross-checking?) she was pretty consistently reporting much fewer hours of electricity per day than anybody else (blogs or in print). I guess she still is at it. One other little detail that leaked through her writing, her family is Sunni and moderately well connected in the former regime. Well, what do you think she'd say? Of course it's pretty glum.

... so am I, so go perform some sort of impossible act upon your own body. :D
Eutrusca...pls do not asume all have your kind of erotic fantasies

:D :eek: :D :D

LOL. Riverbend, the chicken little of Baghdad. Yeah, I was a regular reader for a while. Unfortunately (remember cross-checking?) she was pretty consistently reporting much fewer hours of electricity per day than anybody else (blogs or in print). I guess she still is at it. One other little detail that leaked through her writing, her family is Sunni and moderately well connected in the former regime. Well, what do you think she'd say? Of course it's pretty glum.

You just have an aswer for every thing huh... Have you thought of running for office? LMAO! :D

Bush is a Terrorist.

And the laws of war he has not followed are...? Rememeber, the list is in my original post.

There is no acceptable explanation.

Eutrusca...pls do not asume all have your kind of erotic fantasies

:D :eek: :D :D
ROFLMAO! Good one! ROFL! :D

And the laws of war he has not followed are...?

Oh, do you really, I mean really want to go there? Here's an argument you won't win.. be careful what you ask for! :cool:

ROFLMAO! Good one! ROFL! :D

Hahaha, yeah they did get you on that one.

*Note to self, proof read before posting* :D

You just have an aswer for every thing huh... Have you thought of running for office? LMAO! :D

With some more encouragement like this, anything could happen ;)

Oh, do you really, I mean really want to go there? Here's an argument you won't win.. be careful what you ask for! :cool:

Bring it on.

And the laws of war he has not followed are...? Rememeber, the list is in my original post.
The laws of War are not what you say they are...

ever heard of the "belle cite" in Swizerland?

Hahaha, yeah they did get you on that one.

*Note to self, proof read before posting* :D
"They?" Vas ist das "they?" Should I be looking over my shoulder now? :eek: :confused:

ROFLMAO! Good one! ROFL! :D

*apreciates good sense of humor*

"They?" Vas ist das "they?" Should I be looking over my shoulder now? :eek: :confused:

Just because you think people are out to get you, that doesn't mean their not.. haha I'm j/k.

I say "they" when talking about posters.. it's the whole nation thing mentality. ;)

The laws of War are not what you say they are...

ever heard of the "belle cite" in Swizerland?

No, I have not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war
Among other issues, the laws of war address declaration of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; the avoidance of atrocities; the prohibition on deliberately attacking civilians; and the prohibition of certain inhumane weapons. It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform, is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.

which is exactly what I said, "perfidy" covering quite a lot of particular situations.

Okay, lets get the ball rolling..

Rules of war.

For our first trick, how about "kidnapping" ? Against the rules of war. No argument there. Pretty cut and dry!

So, then ponder me this, why did the Americans kidnap family members of the Ba'thist regime leaving notes to turn themselves in if they wanted their families released?

Oh and that's just a small starter, like a good meal.. you save the main course for last. ;)

No, I have not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war

which is exactly what I said, perfidy covering quite a lot of particular situations.
Look, I agree with your basic proposition, but let's face it ... in war, particularly when national survival is at stake, all the gloves come off. No amount of Geneva Convention paperwork, UN twiddling, or anything else is going to alter this. If the US were invaded, I would happily take up arms in civilian clothes, resort to behavior termed "atrocities" by any number of conventions, and make use of whatever weapons ( mass or otherwise ) I thought would make the invaders leave.

It's fairly obvious that there are a number of holdovers from the Saddam regime, imported terrorists, assorted religious extremists, and what have you, who believe the US is an "invader." The question is, are there sufficient numbers of Iraqis who want their country to become free from terror and oppression to vote in the upcoming elections?

No, I have not.


it is a beautyfull city

http://www.geneve-tourisme.ch/decouvrir.php3?edTemp=visiter

Look, I agree with your basic proposition, but let's face it ... in war, particularly when national survival is at stake, all the gloves come off. No amount of Geneva Convention paperwork, UN twiddling, or anything else is going to alter this. If the US were invaded, I would happily take up arms in civilian clothes, resort to behavior termed "atrocities" by any number of conventions, and make use of whatever weapons ( mass or otherwise ) I thought would make the invaders leave.

Wow, we agree... this is starting to either scare you, or me! Perhaps both!

Wow, we agree... this is starting to either scare you, or me! Perhaps both!
Realism has a way of scaring the shit out of most people, Ms. Stephi! :)

If the US were invaded, I would happily take up arms in civilian clothes, resort to behavior termed "atrocities" by any number of conventions, and make use of whatever weapons ( mass or otherwise ) I thought would make the invaders leave.

Well, it's really easy to make us leave Iraq... go vote ;) Assuming that was *all* you wanted... and not, say "to make the invader leave and set up a theocracy afterwards"? As invaders, we are basically big softies... unlike the Imperial Japanese Army for example.

There is a reason for most of the things that are prohibited... aside from causing unnecessary suffering, they don't help win the war, in fact they usually hurt the prospects of the side that engages in them. Think about it.

Well, it's really easy to make us leave Iraq... go vote ;) Assuming that was *all* you wanted... and not, say "to make the invader leave and set up a theocracy afterwards"? As invaders, we are basically big softies... unlike the Imperial Japanese Army for example.

You do know that the REAL Iraqi election is not going to take place till next year right? This upcoming one in Jan. is just another "America picks the popular guy of their choice after the Iraqi's who didn't get killed voting weight in"

... The question is, are there sufficient numbers of Iraqis who want their country to become free from terror and oppression to vote in the upcoming elections?If I was Iraqui, I would rather wait untill the occupier Army leaves...and then have elections...

The German Army could have held City elections in France...yet most Frenchmen would consider "elected" officials as puppets of the German Army.

Here in America...I would not want to have elections under occupying Armies, with foreign Soldiers all over Washington and on every single governemnt building...

For our first trick, how about "kidnapping" ? Against the rules of war. No argument there. Pretty cut and dry!

Detaining *anyone* is not against the rules. This is a kind of borderline case though. I don't particularly like it but from a legal point of view I don't think the family members are hostages since they were not in any danger.

If they were hostages (say "turn yourself in or we'll kill them in 24 hours") then yes that would be completely against the rules. I assume we didn't do that?

The German Army could have held City elections in France...yet most Frenchmen would consider "elected" officials as puppets of the German Army.

Here in America...I would not want to have elections under occupying Armies, with foreign Soldiers all over Washington and on every single governemnt building...

Funny you should mention that... France and Germany and Japan and lots of other countries did in fact have elections under an occupying Army... the U.S. Army. Most people think they turned out ok. Certainly much better than the equivalent under the German Army.

If I was Iraqui, I would rather wait untill the occupier Army leaves...and then have elections...

The German Army could have held City elections in France...yet most Frenchmen would consider "elected" officials as puppets of the German Army.

Here in America...I would not want to have elections under occupying Armies, with foreign Soldiers all over Washington and on every single governemnt building...
Well, neither would I, given the type of government we have now. But suppose the US had an extreme, repressive theocracy ( please spare me the "Bush theocracy" nonsense! ), and a coalition of democracies invaded and told us that all it would take to make them leave was for us to have a free and open election? What then? I rather suspect that most of us would knock ourselves out to have just that ... a free and open election. :)

I'm gonna take a break... I'll respond to any comments this afternoon or tomorrow (er, next year).

Happy New Year!

Bring it on.


OK, the following is from an NS post I did in August 2003. I haven't rechecked all of the news links to see if they are still good. Bear in mind that this only relates to the first six or so months of the war, excludes Abu Ghraib and any actions in all of 2004.
----------------------------------

Where to start, where to start....

You can read the Geneva Conventions here (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm).
The Hague Conventions on Warfare are here (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/lawwar.htm)

Article 3 clearly states

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;
...

But then, the US has no problem holding hostages to secure an arrest (http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/944890.asp?0cl=cr&cp1=1)

"Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: If you want your family released, turn yourself in. Such tactics are justified, he said, because, It’s an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info. They would have been released in due course, he added later. The tactic worked. On Friday, Hogg said, the lieutenant general appeared at the front gate of the U.S. base and surrendered."


What else? Let's see...I'm not going to write them ALL out or take the time to find supporting links to those items that are common knowledge, but

Fact: The US has used schools to base troops in. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0404/p07s01-woiq.htm)

Fact: The US has admitted using civilian clothed troops behind enemy lines in urban areas in contravention to the Hague Conventions on Warfare. If you think those troops behind the lines during the war all carried their weapons openly to draw attention to themselves in accordance with those Conventions - then I have this bridge for sale....

Fact: The US used cluster bombs in urban areas in clear contravention of international law regarding the employment of "arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;" We could also sidebar into DU, but that would take far too long.

Fact: The US clearly failed to adequately protect civilian hospitals as they are mandated to in accordance with Geneva (IV). They claimed a lack of manpower and yet were clearly capapble of protecting buildings like the Ministry of Oil which is an economic objective and not considered as a more important item to protect.

Fact: US forces helped in the desecration of several statues of Hussein. As much as they may have wanted to make a political point, it is a violation of the HAgue Conventions Article 53 relating to the protection of Cultural Objects which prohibits:
(a) to commit any acts of hostility directed against the historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples;
(c) to make such objects the object of reprisals.

If Iraqis wanted to tear them down, the troops could stand around and cheer - but they couldn't blow them up or help tear them down as they did. Those monuments belonged to the Iraqis and it was up to them to decide what to do with them. This is also in contradiction to Geneva Protocol 2 Article 16

Fact: The US violated the Geneva Conventions when displaying and surgically reconstructing post mortem the bodies of ranking Iraqi military officers Uday and Qusay. This surgery was done simply for propaganda reasons and as such clearly violates article 3 section 1 c) prohibiting "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment". We all recall that this was the section used when the US claimed that the display of dead US troops by Iraq via Al Jazeera constituted a breach of the conventions.

Fact: The US has put prices on the heads of former members of the Iraqi power structure, and has indicated the willingness to pay these rewards if they are brought in dead or alive. That amounts to suborning assassination for profit which is in violation of Geneva Conventions Article 3 section 1d) prohibiting "The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. "

It is also in direct contravention of The Hague Conventions on Warfare (1907) Section II. Chapter 1 which prohibits "To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;"

-----------------------------

And this old journal entry relates to the illegality of one of Bremmer's directives during his tenure:


One little nugget that has slipped under the radar is CPA Order 39. This order allows the CPA to privatize publically held properties and institutions, allows foreign companies unrestricted access to buy up the industries of Iraq, and also provides them free reign to take all profits from those companies out of Iraq without any requirements for local reinvestment. And despite being a temporary government, this act allows the CPA to sign any leases it so chooses of such assets held in public trust for 40 year periods.

This is insane. In trying to rebuild the country and give the citizens a free and prosperous future your first step is to let it be bought up? This is a fairly good article on the subject (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1548/1_19/112212901/p2/article.jhtml?term=)

However it again just show how this administration cares nothing about the rule of law.

Because this is about as blatantly illegal as you can get! And yet it has been signed into law by the agent of the US government, Paul Bremmer.


Illegal you ask? Yes!


The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". Iraq's existing constitution outlaws the privatization of key state assets, and it bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms. No plausible argument can be made that the CPA was "absolutely prevented" from respecting those laws, and yet the CPA overturned them unilaterally.

The convention also states that occupying powers "shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile state, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct."

Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines "usufruct" as an arrangement that grants one party the right to use and derive benefit from another's property "without altering the substance of the thing". Put more simply, if you are a housesitter, you can eat the food in the fridge, but you can't sell the house and turn it into condos.

What could more substantially alter "the substance" of a public asset than to turn it into a private one?

But when Bremer enacted the order last September, the CPA immediately announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatized; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100% of their profits out of Iraq. The allowance of complete foreign control of Iraq's banking industry is certainly key. No country has ever been successful without a fair measure of domestic control of it's financial intitutions.

Indeed, The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream".

Don't care about International Law?

How about Domestic Law. The US army's Law of Land Warfare states that "the occupant does not have the right of sale or unqualified use of [non-military] property". This is pretty straightforward: bombing something does not give you the right to sell it.

But already the great selloff has begun. After all, you have a population in dire financial need after a decade of sanctions, and a business community crying out for capital to get things running again. The pickings are great when the situation is dire and you can buy up firms at pennies on the dollar.

And the section allowing the CPA to sign binding 40 year leases on businesses it choses to privatize is also in full swing. Cases in point, MCI (the perpetrators of the greatest fraud in US history) being handed Iraqi mobile telephone business on a silver platter, and JP Morgan (you remember them from the Enron scandal) has been handed the business of heading up the new Trade Bank of Iraq.

And the laws do not even require the CPA to look at domestic bids for services when a foreign company has an interest. There is no formalized bidding structure in place at all that provides even the veneer of legitimacy. But hey, we can trust guy like Chalabi to do right by IRaq right? It's not like he has a record of financial impropriety is it? Or of providing false information? Nahhhh - we wouldn't let a guy like that have power....


*sigh*


Do you think that Bush could do anything more to ensure that the next generation of Iraqis is a breeding ground for hatred towards the west? A breeding ground for the very terrorism that didn't exist there before? The terrorism he claims to be fighting?

-------------------------------------------------

So, there are a few violations of Geneva conventions both in the handling of military matters as well as in the administration of the country under occupation.

Now, do you want me to go into prisoner treatment and the treatment of civillians in Fallujah (i.e. - forcing all male civillians between the ages of 15 and 50 to remain in the line of fire (refusing surrender) as they did not feel that they could adequately sort out civilians from insurgents?

Detaining *anyone* is not against the rules. This is a kind of borderline case though. I don't particularly like it but from a legal point of view I don't think the family members are hostages since they were not in any danger.

If they were hostages (say "turn yourself in or we'll kill them in 24 hours") then yes that would be completely against the rules. I assume we didn't do that?

You're rationalizing.. It's still kidnapping.. when you " detain" you don't issue demands for release. It's called kidnapping. Check your own criminal code. See: kidnapping.

Oh and Happy New Year.. :)

Well, neither would I, given the type of government we have now. But suppose the US had an extreme, repressive theocracy ( please spare me the "Bush theocracy" nonsense! ), and a coalition of democracies invaded and told us that all it would take to make them leave was for us to have a free and open election? What then? I rather suspect that most of us would knock ourselves out to have just that ... a free and open election. :)


Since when did IRaq have a repressive theocracy?

Saddam was a nasty SOB, but he was a secular SOB.

Here are a couple of things that may make the elections in Iraq a bit more difficult to pull off. Juam Cole notes (http://www.juancole.com/2004/12/death-and-death-threats-in-iraq-some.html) that CNN is reporting that all 700 voter registration workers in Mosul have resigned after death threats. The guerrillas are alleging that the secular process of American-sponsored elections will result in un-Islamic laws. I don't see how Mosul can participate in the election under these conditions. It has a population of about a million. and KarbalaNews.net reports that Adnan Pachachi, head of the Independent Democratic Bloc, called again on Thursday for a postponement of the January 30 elections. He, Ghazi al-Yawar and Nasir Chadirchi are among the few Sunni Arab politicians with name recognition still in the race.

Candidate name recognition doesn't appear very important, however. For security reasons, the actual names of most candidates on the 78 party or multiparty lists have so far not been released. This odd situation, in which the candidates are not known a month before the election, attests to how dire the political and security situation in Iraq really is.No election officials in a large metropilitan area and a failure to release the names of candidates sounds to me like a recipe for disaster, electorally speaking.

For every one Iraqi fighting with us, there are 10 insurgents fighting against us. And one to two terrorists fighting against us (from other countries)

You're rationalizing.. It's still kidnapping.. when you " detain" you don't issue demands for release. It's called kidnapping. Check your own criminal code. See: kidnapping.

Oh and Happy New Year.. :)
Comeon now, Stephi. You know you can't apply the criminal code to wartime. Tsk! :)

Comeon now, Stephi. You know you can't apply the criminal code to wartime. Tsk! :)


Guess none 'o them Nazi's deserved to be punished then either....

:rolleyes:

Comeon now, Stephi. You know you can't apply the criminal code to wartime. Tsk! :)

I was only trying to help him/her out with the definition of kidnapping.. Kidnapping is most certainly against the rules of war as well. TSK, you should know that!

Zeppistan... total pawnage baby! ;)

For every one Iraqi fighting with us, there are 10 insurgents fighting against us. And one to two terrorists fighting against us (from other countries)
I would dearly, DEARLY love to see your sources on this! As a matter of fact, if you can PROVE this without resorting to moveon.org-style nonsense, I will totally cease and desist from ever commenting on this particular issue ever again! :)

I would dearly, DEARLY love to see your sources on this! As a matter of fact, if you can PROVE this without resorting to moveon.org-style nonsense, I will totally cease and desist from ever commenting on this particular issue ever again! :)

And NO blogs! heh!

I was only trying to help him/her out with the definition of kidnapping.. Kidnapping is most certainly against the rules of war as well. TSK, you should know that!
Sigh. What AM I going to do with you, Ms. Stephi! You know as well as I that taking prisoners is not against the Geneva Convention and that there's a fine line between taking prisoners and kidnapping. Tsk! :D

And NO blogs! heh!
Amen! :)

And NO Wikipedia, either! :D

Sigh. What AM I going to do with you, Ms. Stephi! You know as well as I that taking prisoners is not against the Geneva Convention and that there's a fine line between taking prisoners and kidnapping. Tsk! :D

Yes, because I'm sure taking Ba'thist's children to hook them into turning themselves in was not a misude of the term "prisnor" I mean those dangerous 6 year olds! You have to watch out for them, I know, I have one!

Yes, because I'm sure taking Ba'thist's children to hook them into turning themselves in was not a misude of the term "prisnor" I mean those dangerous 6 year olds! You have to watch out for them, I know, I have one!
Hmmm. I tend to agree with that assessment of the six-year-old propensity for terrorism, but would add that it applies even moreso to both 2 and 16 year olds! Heh!

I wasn't aware we were talking about 6 year olds being kidnapped. If I missed something posted about that, I apologize. I was talking about kidnapping in general.

Hmmm. I tend to agree with that assessment of the six-year-old propensity for terrorism, but would add that it applies even moreso to both 2 and 16 year olds! Heh!

I wasn't aware we were talking about 6 year olds being kidnapped. If I missed something posted about that, I apologize. I was talking about kidnapping in general.

Well they basically (in the beginning of the war) to capture their deck of cards people, kidnapped their families.. children and wives included. Left notes to turn themselves in if they wanted their families released. That is against the rules of war. I don't have a source off hand, I recall when it happened. I'll ask Zeppistan if he might not find us a source as it was him who found it the first time many months ago.

For me terrorism is 11 months old and 6 years! But we all have our crosses to bear! ..LOL :D

Oh, so the US is welcome to disobey the laws of war as long as somebody else does it worse? And you really think that Abu Ghraib is the sum totality of Coalition violations of the Geneva Conventions?

Is murder is OK as long as you don't exceed the worst serial killers?
Interesting logic you have there....

The interesting logic is that people (especially anti-Bush people) spend literally 100 times the amount of effort to complain about naked pictures than spent disapproving of rape and murder that the terrorists in Iraq are doing

The interesting logic is that people (especially anti-Bush people) spend literally 100 times the amount of effort to complain about naked pictures than spent disapproving of rape and murder that the terrorists in Iraq are doing

Are you suggesting that ONLY naked pics were taken? Have you read the news in the last year? :rolleyes:

... rape and murder that the terrorists in Iraq are doing
Abu-Grabass?

I'm sorry, I refuse to try and have a serious debate with any one who would use a blog as a source.. get real! :rolleyes:

I should point out that the blog merely organizes the information. The source for each individual point is linked.

I should point out that the blog merely organizes the information. The source for each individual point is linked.

My husband and I both have online journals, we know how it works.. it's one persons opinion. The person who owns the blog. The same as my husband or I could do with our journals and only source what backs up our own point of view. This isn't rocket science hun!

My husband and I both have online journals, we know how it works.. it's one persons opinion. The person who owns the blog. The same as my husband or I could do with our journals and only source what backs up our own point of view. This isn't rocket science hun!

Which is a rather roundabout way of saying that no matter what evidence is put forth, and no matter how sage the source, you're going to stick to your opinions no matter what.

If blogging had been around during the time of Copernicus, or Columbus, it would have spelled the end of civilization and scientific thought as we know it. Perhaps we're finally there, since no one on the Internet is interested in really hearing anything that contradicts their world view. It only makes it easier to remain ignorant while being bombarded with facts.

My husband and I both have online journals, we know how it works.. it's one persons opinion. The person who owns the blog. The same as my husband or I could do with our journals and only source what backs up our own point of view. This isn't rocket science hun!

You'll have to forgive me... I'm still not quite sure how an article from, say, the Houston Chronicle becomes disreputable just because it's referenced by a blog.

You'll have to forgive me... I'm still not quite sure how an article from, say, the Houston Chronicle becomes disreputable just because it's referenced by a blog.

Steph isn't going to certify any source as valid unless she chose it herself. Period. If the source doesn't agree with her world view, she calls it invalid, or chooses to completely ignore it.

A lot of people on this forum do the same, so she's not alone.

For me terrorism is 11 months old and 6 years! But we all have our crosses to bear! ..LOL :D
LOL! Well, just wait. You ain't seen NUFFIN' yet! Heh!

Which is a rather roundabout way of saying that no matter what evidence is put forth, and no matter how sage the source, you're going to stick to your opinions no matter what.

No it is to say that if I read it in The New York Times or The Washington Post or pick a respected news outlet, I will believe it. I don't like when people cherry pick their info.. That is all.

The interesting logic is that people (especially anti-Bush people) spend literally 100 times the amount of effort to complain about naked pictures than spent disapproving of rape and murder that the terrorists in Iraq are doing
True, but that's because the world holds the US to a much higher standard than it does other countries. The thinking goes, "They're just a bunch of poor, ignorant Muslims, but YOU guys are supposed to be the USA!"

Are you suggesting that ONLY naked pics were taken? Have you read the news in the last year? :rolleyes:

It wouldn't matter if the US made them bath in goat urine, we aren't chopping the heads off of humanitarian workers. People will always spend 24 hours complaining about the US for every 5 second story about innocent people being slaughtered by the insurgents.

No it is to say that if I read it in The New York Times or The Washington Post or pick a respected news outlet, I will believe it. I don't like when people cherry pick their info.. That is all.
Now Ms. Stephi, you know those who do NOT "cherry pick their info" on here are VERY few and far between!

No it is to say that if I read it in The New York Times or The Washington Post or pick a respected news outlet, I will believe it. I don't like when people cherry pick their info.. That is all.

The New York Times, given its record on the WMD, or given its record with certain "fair haired chosen ones" who turned out to be crap journalists, and given its bias on completely unsubstantiated stories in the last election, has lost all credibility with me, left or right.

The Washington Post is hardly an unbiased source, either.

Same with the BBC.

If you're counting on those as sources, you're guilty of cherry picking as well.

True, but that's because the world holds the US to a much higher standard than it does other countries. The thinking goes, "They're just a bunch of poor, ignorant Muslims, but YOU guys are supposed to be the USA!"

Oh my, not again.. but some serious truth to what you just said.. and it is true, you're suppose to be the USA. If you're going to talk the talk, the rest of us expect you to walk the walk. Although I don't believe Muslims are ignorant, they just perhaps don't share our western values, which is fine and their right. Just as it's our right to set the rules and laws to which we live by.

True, but that's because the world holds the US to a much higher standard than it does other countries. The thinking goes, "They're just a bunch of poor, ignorant Muslims, but YOU guys are supposed to be the USA!"

The Left has a long history of patronizing attitudes towards those of other civilizations.

The Democratic Party here in the US is a classic example. They have contrived a system by which they have destroyed the roots of the black family through a monolithin welfare subsidy - and then they hope the blacks stay poor and disenfranchised so that they can continue to count on them as a voting bloc.

After 40 years of crap results, some minorities are getting tired of the Democrats. I certainly am.

LOL. Sorry, but I was wondering how long it'd take for a conspiracy theory to pop up. :rolleyes: Already has been proven false. Glad to see a straight forward thread like this continueing on w/o flaming or someone quoting MoveOn.org or gop.com for their proof. Let's see how long this lasts...

Well, oil is a factor of that invasion, but not the reason that tiped the pot. The fact a lot of people thought Iraq had nukes is majorly the reason.

That and america's blood lust for conquest since 9/11.

Now Ms. Stephi, you know those who do NOT "cherry pick their info" on here are VERY few and far between!

I'll agree with that. OMG that's 3 times now!

I applaud every school that gets built in Iraq. However, it would be misleading and simply not true to say at least at the moment the bad far out-weighs the good that is going on over there. I honestly hope that Iraq ends up with a democracy they can form and live with. I just believe it to be unlikely. Iraq is about 7,000 years ahead of the USA in at least timeline. If they had really wanted democracy by now they'd have it. Few could argue that democracy can be forced unto a people. They have to want it. Elections don't create democracy, democracy creates elections.

Well, oil is a factor of that invasion, but not the reason that tiped the pot. The fact a lot of people thought Iraq had nukes is majorly the reason.

That and america's blood lust for conquest since 9/11.

Blood lust for revenge, not conquest. Although, I think that the US, if it had the resources, would probably have invaded every country in the Middle East to try and straighten things out.

Not that it's a practical idea.

Given the corrupt abominations that most of those countries have for governments, just taking over Iraq isn't going to solve much.

The New York Times, given its record on the WMD, or given its record with certain "fair haired chosen ones" who turned out to be crap journalists, and given its bias on completely unsubstantiated stories in the last election, has lost all credibility with me, left or right.

The Washington Post is hardly an unbiased source, either.

Same with the BBC.

If you're counting on those as sources, you're guilty of cherry picking as well.

Let me guess.. Fox news is your choice for news? I mean with what you've just said here, than we'd have to conclude their is no credible news source. I'm cynical, but I'm not as cynical as you, at least not yet..lol

The Left has a long history of patronizing attitudes towards those of other civilizations.

The Democratic Party here in the US is a classic example. They have contrived a system by which they have destroyed the roots of the black family through a monolithin welfare subsidy - and then they hope the blacks stay poor and disenfranchised so that they can continue to count on them as a voting bloc.

After 40 years of crap results, some minorities are getting tired of the Democrats. I certainly am.
It's called "the soft bigotry of low expectations," and were I on the recieving end of it I would be majorly pissed!

Blood lust for revenge, not conquest. Although, I think that the US, if it had the resources, would probably have invaded every country in the Middle East to try and straighten things out.

Not that it's a practical idea.

Given the corrupt abominations that most of those countries have for governments, just taking over Iraq isn't going to solve much.


But it would server absolutely no american interest to take over the other countries, even if it did have the resources.

PS: I do believe revenge stopped at afganistan.

No it is to say that if I read it in The New York Times or The Washington Post or pick a respected news outlet, I will believe it. I don't like when people cherry pick their info.. That is all.

Again, just as an example, how about the Houston Chronicle?

Let me guess.. Fox news is your choice for news? I mean with what you've just said here, than we'd have to conclude their is no credible news source. I'm cynical, but I'm not as cynical as you, at least not yet..lol

No, Fox News isn't either. You're jumping to conclusions.

I like to read it across various news sources. I then like to hear from people who are actually there. I then like to cross reference.

I don't trust reporters to give me the truth. They all have their axe to grind, and none of them have enough credibility to stand on their own.

The Jayson incident was enough to convince me that the New York Times was less credible than my high school newspaper.

Again, just as an example, how about the Houston Chronicle?

I've never read them I don't believe, but yeah, sure. If it's a news outlet.. and it was reporting news and not an opinion piece than I have no problem with it.

snip.

You're a really unhappy person aren't you? Listen, life doesn't always go the way we want.. but don't lose all of your idealism and hope for the world. Cause then you've got nothing left. You just seem really upset and angry at life to me. Hey, I could be completely off-base. But you really don't sound like a happy camper. Loosen up a little. ;)

I've never read them I don't believe, but yeah, sure. If it's a news outlet.. and it was reporting news and not an opinion piece than I have no problem with it.

Are you willing to accept, then, that there were terrorists in Iraq (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1855357) before we invaded?

You're a really unhappy person aren't you? Listen, life doesn't always go the way we want.. but don't lose all of your idealism and hope for the world. Cause then you've got nothing left. You just seem really upset and angry at life to me. Hey, I could be completely off-base. But you really don't sound like a happy camper. Loosen up a little. ;)

Not unhappy at all - just realistic. I can't arbitrarily choose to say that one source is "bona fide" when it's been proven so many times that they most certainly are not.

It's much better to be able to ask what's going on in another country by talking to the people there than by trying to read the news.

Are you willing to accept, then, that there were terrorists in Iraq (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1855357) before we invaded?

There was the one group, but they were in the no-fly zone under American protection. Living among the Kurds.. that is where Al Zarqawi came from. Saddam had no control over that area. Besides every one knows that Saddam was a secular leader. He didn't buy into all this fundamentalist Islamic stuff. Even Bin Laden called him a bad Muslim. He hated him. Saddam may have been a prick to his own people, but nothing more.

Not unhappy at all - just realistic. I can't arbitrarily choose to say that one source is "bona fide" when it's been proven so many times that they most certainly are not.

It's much better to be able to ask what's going on in another country by talking to the people there than by trying to read the news.

Fair enough! :)

Are you willing to accept, then, that there were terrorists in Iraq (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1855357) before we invaded?



Look, I can invade america, go to a gun club and then proclaim I've found a terrorist training cell. . .

I can take a guy with a gun, a small wodded area, and all of a sudden Canada has a terrorist training cell.

....If you're counting on those as sources, you're guilty of cherry picking as well.
War sources?

Im counting out both sides...

I am going with neutral countries.

cherry picking? ever heard of Don cherry?
http://www.andreaudet.com/_photos/don_cherry.jpg

cherry picking? ever heard of Don cherry
http://www.andreaudet.com/_photos/don_cherry.jpg

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada here, of course! :)

You obviously have extensive experience and training in counterinsurgency operations. So tell me, what are your recommendations for countering the "sniper alley," the interruption in the flow of oil reserves, etc.?

Dude, you don't have to me a mason to read the writing on the wall. There are no easy answers because the opportunity to solve this problem has already passed. If after we got Saddam we had called for an Iraqi Islamic council to form a government things would be relatively peaceful. Instead we ignored the religious leaders and put in our hand picked Iraqis so they would sell Iraq to our corporations for pennies on the dollar.

The US isn't interested in Democracy in Iraq. If the Shia had their say they would vote to become part of Iran. If the Sunni had their way they would vote for Saddam or someone just like him. Both possibilities are against US goals in the Middle East. So what Iraq will have is a government engineered by the US, a government viewed as collaborationist by the average patriotic Iraqi.

So that's basically it, we're screwed. The corporations that own the Bush Administration are not about to let hundreds of billions just slip through their fingers. The Iraqis don't want to see their nation financially raped by the US. The Syrians and the Iranians know they are next if the US ever pacifies Iraq and the US can count on Iraqis to keep order. So look for this situation to intensify over the next year.

First of all, for the record, I am an American.

The real question to answer is "Why did America go to war?"

The Bush Administration has had several reasons:

Weapons of Mass Destruction

This coudl not have been the real reason for war for several reasons. As the Bush Administration built their wmd case, there were numerous leaks from the cia and other inteligence agencies countering the claims of the Bush Administration.
Also, when the first series of weapons inspections had been completed, Bush wanted to go to war. The U.N. was un willing. This was not because they wanted to let Sadam off the hook, instead they were asking for 3 more months of inspections with more weapons inspectors. If wmds were the real reason, then Bush would have had the patience to endure more weapons inspections.
Lastly, when Iraq was falling to American troops, there was a problem. The U.S. was worried (not without reason) that sadam would burn oil wells, so they had troops guard the wells and pipelines. The problems is that while this was happening a nuclear research facility was unguarded. Since it was unguarded, looters broke in, dumped radioactive materials out of containers, and proceded to use the containers as water jugs. These people are now suffering radiation poisoning. If the U.S. went to war for wmds, then this would have been the first place to be guarded.

Ties to Al Qaeda

The Bush Administration repeatedly claimed that Sadam had ties to Al Qaeda. But in making these claimes, not only did they ignore a lack of evidence, but also the fact that Sadam and Bin Laden were enemies. Also, before the war, Bin Laden issued a statement urgin muslims to fight for their brothers in Iraq. Part of this statement said they should fight for religion, not for "infidel ideologies", refering to sadam. The State Department even tried to use this to support the claim that Sadam and Al Qaeda were connected.

Human Rights Abuses

This claim only gained popularity in the press after the first two claims were seen to be false. Sadam was a brutal dictator, nobody is disagreeing with that, but when the Bush Administration claimed this as their reason to go to war, they forgot some important details. As Noam Chomsky has said, their claims about sadam's human rights abuses forgot one important part "with our support because we didn't care." Saddam gassed thousands of Kurdswith our support because we didn't care . Sadam executed thousands of people with our support because we didn't care . Sadam got rich while his people suffered,with our support because we didn't care . In fact it was Donald Rumsfeld who helped Sadam get chemical weapons in the 1980's. It was W's father who was vice-president while sadam was one of our most important allies in the middle east. WE MADE THIS MONSTER.

Another point that the Bush Administration ignored was the human rights abuses of other countries. What about Saudi Arabia? They are an important ally, so we can't criticize them. What about Turkey's abuses of their Kurdish population? They are an ally so we didn't criticize them until they were uncooperative with our invasion plans. Then suddenly this was major news. What about Burma? or as its military dictatorship calls Myanamar? What profit can we make from that country? None! No reason to bring them up.

This reason for war holds no water at all.

Bringing Democracy to the Middle East

Democracy is not given at the point of a gun, although sometimes it can be taken at the point of a gun. The U.S. cannot force democracy on anybody. A large scale war is the worst way to create democracy.

Also, how can the Iraqis trust the U.S. to give them democracy? The U.S. threw a coup against democraticly elected Mossadeq in Iran in 1953. In his place, the U.S. put the Shah. The Shah was a brutal dictator. This lasted until the 1979 revolution. After that, the U.S. found another brutal dictator to support, Saddam. Also, the U.S. supports undemocratic governments in the region: ex Kuait, Saudi Arabia.

So, there are the "Official" reasons for the war. They are all false. So why did the U.S. go to war?

Oil

It is true that the U.S. doesn't get too much oil from the Middle East. A lot of our oil comes from Latin America and Africa. But oil is running out. Who ever controls the oil controls the world. The U.S. wants to have their hands on the spigot in order to control economic giants Europe and China. If the U.S. controls the world supply of oil, they hold the veto power over other economies.

Hegemony

The U.S. is the new roman empire. Empires are naturaly violent, and never cease their attempt to expand. Iraq is a new place for U.S. military to set up shop. There are atleast 4 permenant bases being built by the U.S. in Iraq, and many more on the way. By stationing troops in Iraq, the U.S. gains more leverage over other countries in that region.

Instability in Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is becoming a very unstable country. There is a rising culture of Islamic Extreemism. The King is old and will probably die in the next few years. This leaves his kingdom to a large number of princes. There could very likely be a large power strugle after the death of the current King. These princes are not all the same. Some are liberal and pro-western while others are Islamicly conservatives and supporters of fanatical islamic terrorist.
When King Saud dies, any number of outcomes are possible. Many of the possible outcomes are not favorable to the west. If there is a civil war, oil production will be limited. If an islamic extreemist prince comes into power, there is a good chance that oil to the west will be shut down. Also there could be a revolution in the country with equally disasterous effects.

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military moved all of its troops out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq, thus the need for new permenant bases. Also, if a friendly (puppet) government is in Iraq and Saudi Arabia crumbles, Iraq will be able to produce oil to offset the effect of Saudi Arabia's halting of oil production.

Display of Power

To the rest of the world, this war is a display of power. The Iraq War says, "We will not be held back by anyone." "We will do what we want." We set the rules." "Follow our orders, or you might end up like Iraq." A major victim of the war was the U.N. Even though the U.N. has its problems, it still serves a purpose. The U.S. has been trying to get rid of it since Bush jr. came to power. Before jr., the U.S. was content to allow the U.N. to exist in a subsurvient role. When the U.N. failed to be subsurvient to the U.S., it signed its death warant.

I hope this answeres some of the questions about the causes of the war. Later I may post about the conduct and consequences of the war.

I should point out that the blog merely organizes the information. The source for each individual point is linked.


I should also point out that this Blog references dated articles that include much of the information long since proven false after the invasion. Anyone still using it as some sort of current raison d'etre for the war is being very disengenuous.

For example:
It still references testimony by some of the Chalabi-fed expatiots long since proven false.

It still states as fact the supposed Atta meeting in Prague that the FBI admitted during the Senate hearings could not have taken place because they could rpove that he was in Florida at the time.

Indeed, if you go and actually read the Senate Intelligence Report and the 9-11 Commission Report AFTER the various arms of the intelligence community had to cough up their evidence, then you can take virtually this entire blog entry and toss it in the bin.


It's called "due diligence". Some folks around here should consider exercising it. These folks should even have just scrolled down to the very first response to that blog that pointed all of this out.

Dude, you don't have to me a mason to read the writing on the wall. There are no easy answers because the opportunity to solve this problem has already passed. If after we got Saddam we had called for an Iraqi Islamic council to form a government things would be relatively peaceful. Instead we ignored the religious leaders and put in our hand picked Iraqis so they would sell Iraq to our corporations for pennies on the dollar.

The US isn't interested in Democracy in Iraq. If the Shia had their say they would vote to become part of Iran. If the Sunni had their way they would vote for Saddam or someone just like him. Both possibilities are against US goals in the Middle East. So what Iraq will have is a government engineered by the US, a government viewed as collaborationist by the average patriotic Iraqi.

So that's basically it, we're screwed. The corporations that own the Bush Administration are not about to let hundreds of billions just slip through their fingers. The Iraqis don't want to see their nation financially raped by the US. The Syrians and the Iranians know they are next if the US ever pacifies Iraq and the US can count on Iraqis to keep order. So look for this situation to intensify over the next year.
Congratulations on deftly side-stepping the question.

Congratulations on deftly side-stepping the question.

What was the question again? ;)

I hope this answeres some of the questions about the causes of the war. Later I may post about the conduct and consequences of the war.
Sigh. Another "font of wisdom" with a less than tenuous grip on reality. :(

Curious to listen to the banter back and forth here. What's impressive is how short (and, it seems, selective) a memory some have. You want to tie terrorism to Iraq...let me help you.

Go back to shortly after 9/11. The United States had been attacked in what would be by any standard an act of war. But a nation wasn't the perpetrator...it was a band of well-funded zealots (not speculating on motives). So, here you have a new president (7+ months out from being sworn in) who has inherited a failed effort to track down and destroy a terrorist group (Al Qaeda) who has been attacking selected American targets overseas for several years to that point. And there's no knowing whether they intend to or have the ability to attack again.

Concurrently, you also have Saddam Hussein and Iraq. At the time, Hussein was acknowledged to be in possession of and producing weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological) and was actively telling the UN and the rest of the world to piss off in their efforts to disarm him of said weaponry. You recall the intimidated and ejected UN weapons inspectors, right? You had, in Iraq, a dictator who had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, had attacked Israel via missiles in the previous war (which Israel was not involved in), was funding suicide bombers amongst the Palestinians and who had given shelter to known terrorists on many prior occasions. 14 UN resolutions were on the table against him...all ignored.

Finally, you have another attack on the US: anthrax (seems everyone forgets this one). No telling at the time where it comes from, who it's targeted at (although finding it in the House offices indicates efforts to derail the American government) or how many more instances for where it will pop up. Anthrax is a weapon of mass destruction. Period. And it was unleashed on the American populace.

So, the president has two war shots on the United States of America (the nation he has sworn to defend), you have an ineffective United Nations, terrorists who have just demonstrated an ability to attack the American homeland with WMD's, and a Saddam who has WMD's, a motive to hate America, and has in the past used WMD's and has fraternized with known terrorists.

Put all this together and then kindly place yourself in the President's shoes and decide what to do.

On the one hand you have a definite duty to protect America (given 9/11 and the anthrax attacks, this is definitely not an abstract issue), a further duty that as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to enforce the edicts of the UN (several of the resolutions were clear in saying "or else" to Saddam) and you have a possibility that Saddam with his WMD's (still no proof they were destroyed measured against definitive proof they existed at one time) gets together with Al Qaeda (a nice deniable proxy fighter who very much wants WMD's to attack western targets with).

Given that Al Qaeda has been kicking America in the nuts for many years with barely any reprisal and that Saddam has been openly defying the United Nations for almost as long (with the generous on-the-sly help of France and Russia), you now have a situation as much about immediate security as you do with long term precedents. The precedent was set by the prior president's inability or indetermination to deal with the terror threat. If it's not dealt with effectively NOW what's in store over the next several years?

So...to summarize, you have attacks that are very serious in nature and represent an obvious shift in the pattern of violence and activity of terrorists, you have a possibility that what Saddam has could somehow end up in the hands of Osama Bin Laden and you have a UN that lacks the intestinal fortitude (due primarily to the perfidy of member states France and Russia) to enforce their will on Saddam.

Keep in mind, the revelations of faulty intel, Saddam's seeming lack of WMD's (curious that while they haven't been found in abundance, they also haven't been accounted for either by record of their destruction or movement) and the lack of a linkage between Saddam and Osama were not apparent at the time. If that matters to you then your response as president would have been to sit back and wait for the next shoe to drop. If so, do you think that's what would have protected America at the time?

What this post says is to remind everyone that hindsight is indeed 20/20. At the time, NO SITTING AMERICAN PRESIDENT would have rolled the dice on the chance that Saddam and Osama would NOT get together. To do so would have been Russian Roulette.

Are you willing to accept, then, that there were terrorists in Iraq (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1855357) before we invaded?


After all of the initial reports that made this claim, the final analysis in the Senate Intelligence Reports states the following: (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-n.htm)

(where it says "DELETED" is where words were balcked out of the publicly available version of the report)


3. DELETED Reporting about Activity at Salman Pak
( ) The Salman Pak facility outside Baghdad was an unconventional warfare training facility used by the IIS and Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen troops to train its officers for counterterrorism operations against regime opponents. The facility contained a village mockup for urban combat training and a derelict commercial aircraft. Iraqi Support for Terrorism explained that uncorroborated reports since 1999 have alleged "that Baghdad has sponsored a variety of conventional and mostly rudimentary instruction for al-Qa'ida at the Salman Pak Unconventional Warfare Training Facility outside Baghdad." The DELETED reports came from DELETED that "training at this camp includes paramilitary exercises, such as running long distances daily and self-defense tactics." Iraqi Support for Terrorism also stated, "these reports are part of a larger body of reporting over the past decade that ties Salman Pak to Iraqi surrogate groups." The Committee was not provided with reports that showed that Iraq trained Palestinian extremist groups and other Arabs of various nationalities at the Salman Pak facility for potential surrogate terror operations. However, a senior CIA analysts stated "We had [sources] talking about Salman Pak and training at Salman Pak and funding for Palestinian groups." The CIA did not rule out the possibility that Iraq trained known al-Qaida operatives or could have trained an Arab al-Qaida member without having knowledge that the terrorist was an al-Qaida member.

( ) In Iraqi Support for Terrorism, the CIA provided additional explanation of the sources of the information, noting that, "press and DELETED reporting about al-Qa'ida activity at Salman Pak-DELETED-surged after 11 September." The CIA determined, "that at least one DELETED defectorDELETED, whose story appeared in Vanity Fair magazine, had embellished and exaggerated his access." Additionally, DELETED other sources only repeated information provided by the DELETED defector, and also lacked first-hand access to the information. Committee staff asked both CIA and DIA analysts whether any al-Qaida operatives or other sources have confirmed Salman Pak training allegations, and the unanimous response was that none have reported knowledge of any training. A DIA analyst told Committee staff, "The Iraqi National Congress (INC) has been pushing information for a long time about Salman Pak and training of al-Qa'ida." SENTENCE DELETED



So, you tell me.... were there terrorists at Salman Pak? Are you positive that the 2003 news article full of heresay absolutely spoke of final truths?

NO SITTING AMERICAN PRESIDENT would have rolled the dice on the chance that Saddam and Osama would NOT get together. To do so would have been Russian Roulette.

Don't know where you came up with this.. but in case you forgot.. Bin Laden & Saddam hated each other. I doubt they were going to get together any time soon. Unlike America who does practice the enemy of my enemy is my friend, Bin Laden would of never, why? because he is a religious fundamentalist and that's all that matters to him. So hooking up with a man he called a "bad Muslim" was at best unlikely.. but just keep telling yourself it.. I'd offer you a blindfold, but I see you've brought your own!

Curious to listen to the banter back and forth here. What's impressive is how short (and, it seems, selective) a memory some have. You want to tie terrorism to Iraq...let me help you.

Go back to shortly after 9/11. The United States had been attacked in what would be by any standard an act of war. But a nation wasn't the perpetrator...it was a band of well-funded zealots (not speculating on motives). So, here you have a new president (7+ months out from being sworn in) who has inherited a failed effort to track down and destroy a terrorist group (Al Qaeda) who has been attacking selected American targets overseas for several years to that point. And there's no knowing whether they intend to or have the ability to attack again.

Concurrently, you also have Saddam Hussein and Iraq. At the time, Hussein was acknowledged to be in possession of and producing weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological) and was actively telling the UN and the rest of the world to piss off in their efforts to disarm him of said weaponry. You recall the intimidated and ejected UN weapons inspectors, right? You had, in Iraq, a dictator who had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, had attacked Israel via missiles in the previous war (which Israel was not involved in), was funding suicide bombers amongst the Palestinians and who had given shelter to known terrorists on many prior occasions. 14 UN resolutions were on the table against him...all ignored.

Finally, you have another attack on the US: anthrax (seems everyone forgets this one). No telling at the time where it comes from, who it's targeted at (although finding it in the House offices indicates efforts to derail the American government) or how many more instances for where it will pop up. Anthrax is a weapon of mass destruction. Period. And it was unleashed on the American populace.

So, the president has two war shots on the United States of America (the nation he has sworn to defend), you have an ineffective United Nations, terrorists who have just demonstrated an ability to attack the American homeland with WMD's, and a Saddam who has WMD's, a motive to hate America, and has in the past used WMD's and has fraternized with known terrorists.

Put all this together and then kindly place yourself in the President's shoes and decide what to do.

<blah blah blah>


Speaking of selective memopry.... there sure are some things you carefully ignore! For example:

1) There was no "failed attempt" to hunt down Osama. Clinton tried to assassinate him and was told by the Republican-controlled house that he was just trying to take the news off of his penis. They did everything they could to scuttle the hunt for Osama during that period.

2) Saddam was never known to have or produce nukes. That was ALWAYS BS. Nor did many people buy into the rest of that story that he was still in possession of huge stockpiles. That's why Powell had to try and convince them at the UN. He failed because he couldn't produce the evidence. No suprise why now is there?

3) The initial UN resolutions that ended the gulf war included a guarantee of phased sanction withdrawls to go along with the disarmament process. After years of disarming under the watchful eye of the inspectors when he asked for some restrictions to be lifted Albright changed the rules and said "never as long as you are in power". At which point he said "fuck you too then". Adding more resolutions when you aren't living up to the first either is silly.

4) The anthrax was known to be of US manufacture BEFORE this war started. There had already been searches within the US and there was a suspect.

I could go on....

Put all of it together, and GW NEVER was able to tie Saddam to 9-11. This got lumped into the "war on Terror" at the same time as he was playing footsies with the known nuclear ambitions of North Korea.

What would any other President do? Well, Bush Sr. had the option of invading Iraq at a time where it might have made some sense. He didn't because he realized the enormity of what it would entail. Too bad his son didn't follow his lead....

Congratulations on deftly side-stepping the question.

What? You want me to tell just how to stop the insurgency?

Well it's a little late in the day, like asking how to stop the falling paint can from hitting the carpet, or the casually thrown turd from hitting the fan.

This is the best shot. Call a council of Islamic Clerics to form a government. Tell them the US will back their government until it's on it's feet. Tell them we will go on with rebuilding with their permission. Have all business dealings done since the occupation to be subject to their review, renegotiation, or cancellation. Allow governments outside of the coalition to bid on contracts. Tell them we will withdraw from Iraq in a one year time span.

Do that and the insurgency will drop off. The Imans will take care of any extremist factions themselves. They will crush all others vying for their power like Al Qaeda or Jihadist factions

Americans, and americanized iraqis like allawi versus real iraqis and terrorists.

I like to read it across various news sources. I then like to hear from people who are actually there. I then like to cross reference.

I don't trust reporters to give me the truth. They all have their axe to grind, and none of them have enough credibility to stand on their own.

That's exactly how I feel too. It takes a lot of work though.

Reporters usually lie by omission. E.g. the missing explosives case, the fact that over 1000 times as many explosives had been secured or destroyed somehow was not mentioned. It does change things a little, doesn't it?

Regarding Saddam-Al Qaeda ties... yes I am aware of all the rebuttals, but in many cases I think they are actually less credible than the original reports. I would take both with a grain of salt. Many of these have never been rebutted though - the meetings in Sudan, the one in Morocco, etc. And as for Salman Pak and the meetings in Prague I am pretty convinced both are true.

Regarding Saddam-Al Qaeda ties... yes I am aware of all the rebuttals, but in many cases I think they are actually less credible than the original reports. I would take both with a grain of salt. Many of these have never been rebutted though - the meetings in Sudan, the one in Morocco, etc. And as for Salman Pak and the meetings in Prague I am pretty convinced both are true.

Your Senate and the 9/11 Commission disagree with you.

1) There was no "failed attempt" to hunt down Osama. Clinton tried to assassinate him and was told by the Republican-controlled house that he was just trying to take the news off of his penis. They did everything they could to scuttle the hunt for Osama during that period.
Oh? And this, even if true, prevented the Commander In Chief from excuting the duties of his office? Hmmm. Interesting take. :rolleyes:

Your Senate and the 9/11 Commission disagree with you.

As if the truth has ever stopped anyone...

Your Senate and the 9/11 Commission disagree with you.

Not to mention the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the President.

But hey - as long as Cassini is convinced..... it must be true!

Oh? And this, even if true, prevented the Commander In Chief from excuting the duties of his office? Hmmm. Interesting take. :rolleyes:

Yes, it is indeed an "interesting take" how a President in the middle of a witch-hunt impeachment proceeding who's hands are tied by not holding the House or Senate feels like he is being pressured to set certain policies.

The point being that Republicans shit all over him for going after Osama when he did, raising a stink about undeclared acts of war - calling it a PR move, and then when they assume the Oval office they ignore the security aparatus that tried repeatedly to warn them that Osama was the biggest current threat, and now finally blame Clinton for not following through at the time.

What was he supposed to do? Invade Afghanistan then? What would the reaction have been prior to 9-11 had he done that? You know as well as I do that he would have got his ass nailed to the wall had he done it, and without 9-11 to provide hindsight he STILL would be getting pilloried for it. Because Joe Average would not understand the justification.

Yes - in retrospect we all wish he had done so then. At least he ordered the CIA to try to take Osama out. At least he made attempts to take the bastard out.

What did GW do prior to 9-11?

Golf? Try to avoid all of his ties to Kenny Lay from becomming public when Enron hit the fan? Sorry, but I won't be a Bush apologist. At least Clinton tried when it wasn't the popular priority for foreign policy. You cannot take that away from Clinton as hard as you may try. His team understood the threat, tried to make it a priority, and had their eye on the ball.

Can't say the same about the Republicans. At least, not with a straight face.

hey Eutrusca, no dismissive comment on my peace plan? Trying to think of a way we can quell the insurgency and still hold on to our Iraqi assets?

This is the best shot. Call a council of Islamic Clerics to form a government. Tell them the US will back their government until it's on it's feet. Tell them we will go on with rebuilding with their permission. Have all business dealings done since the occupation to be subject to their review, renegotiation, or cancellation. Allow governments outside of the coalition to bid on contracts. Tell them we will withdraw from Iraq in a one year time span.

Let us consider this for a minute.

Most of the influential Shia imams for the most part recognize the leadership of Ayatollah Sistani. What does Sistani have to say that might have a bearing on this? Well, there is an interpretation of Islamic teachings called "wilayet al-fiqh" ("rule by religious jurisprudence") which says that basically you should have a government by a council of clerics. This is accepted by most Shia clerics in Iran, and hence you have Iran's form of government - which is not pure government *by* clerics, but clerics do indeed have a big say, in fact an overriding say, in what goes on. Sistani is *vehemently* opposed to that theory, he supports a different theory of separation of chirch and state. So if offered to form the government he (and most other influential Shia clerics) would refuse. Sistani supports democracy, hence his recent "those who refuse to vote will burn in hell" fatwa.

Moqtada Al-Sadr is the leading Shia proponent of "wilayet al-fiqh". Obviously he is very good friends with Iran. He is not very influential though... the only people who would follow him over Sistani are the young toughs from the slums.

Then you have the Sunni clerics. By and large they do recognize "wilayet al-fiqh" and would readily jump at the chance to form a governing council of clerics... only two problems: one, they represent a small minority of the population, under 5-10% (I am excluding the moderate pro-secular-government Sunni)... and two, they are very good friends with Al-Qaeda (e.g. see the cooperation between Fadhili and Zarqawi).

Do that and the insurgency will drop off. The Imans will take care of any extremist factions themselves. They will crush all others vying for their power like Al Qaeda or Jihadist factions

An excellent plan if it were not for the fact that the imams who would be willing to do this *are themselves* an extremist, jihadist faction.

The point being that Republicans shit all over him for going after Osama when he did, raising a stink about undeclared acts of war - calling it a PR move, and then when they assume the Oval office they ignore the security aparatus that tried repeatedly to warn them that Osama was the biggest current threat, and now finally blame Clinton for not following through at the time.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Under Clinton, the CIA was told they must "capture, not kill" Osama, so that he could be "brought to justice" ( http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/176947p-154019c.html ). That's the law enforcement theory of fighting terrorism, and it does not work.

The attack on USS Cole was deemed "not sufficiently provocative" to warrant a response. Col Mike Sheehan had a telling conversation with Richard Clarke, namely ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F03%2F28%2Fdo2804.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=15343 )

In October 2000, Clarke and Special Forces Colonel Mike Sheehan leave the White House after a meeting to discuss al-Qa'eda's attack on the USS Cole: "'What's it gonna take, Dick?' Sheehan demanded. 'Who the s*** do they think attacked the Cole, f****** Martians? The Pentagon brass won't let Delta go get bin Laden. Does al-Qa'eda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?'"

And so when Clinton decided to fire a few cruise missiles at training camps, causing minimal damage, it can be seen in context as being a PR stunt not a serious effort.

And so when Clinton decided to fire a few cruise missiles at training camps, causing minimal damage, it can be seen in context as being a PR stunt not a serious effort.

It might be noted that Democrats, since the early 1960s, have been big on "sending messages" by bombing things and seeing if there's an appropriate diplomatic reaction. This strategy was outlined in detail by McNamara, and blessed as good by the party faithful ever since.

They would rather occasionally lob bombs onto someone's property, and who cares where in the hell it lands as long as it "sends a message".

The culmination of this ideal was written in stone in PD 59 by Harold Brown during the Carter Administration.

And further shown as the way things would work under Clinton.

Unfortunately, you usually have to invade a country to make it really change.

Whether the change is worth it, or how long it will actually take is another question. But "sending a message" via a few cruise missiles is generally seen as a profound act of weakness by people in the rest of the world.

An unjust peace is not peace. An unjust end to the occupation would be merely substituting it with an occupation by someone else. We are trying to set things up so we can leave as fast as possible, but not to leave another *regime* behind. That's key.

And in order to achieve that, Dubya made the mass-murdering, ex-Baath Party Chief Torturer, Iyad Allawi, the interim Prime Minister? Clever move.

Iraq explained:

America lost 4000 citizens in a massive attack launched by a Sunni run, Sunni funded, Sunni staffed terrorist group motivated by a Sunni state religion.

On the basis of these attacks the President of America launched an attack against a mainly Shia state run by a secular dictator with no links to Sunni terrorists.

The occupation is being jeopardised by the actions of Sunni run, Sunni funded, Sunni staffed terrorist groups motivated by a Sunni state religion.

The President of America is now talking up and preparing to attack the largest Shia country on the planet. If this attack happens the Iraq occupation will look like a stroll in the park.

Of course even if the occupation is a 100% success another attack on American soil by the Sunni run, Sunni funded, Sunni staffed terrorist groups motivated by a Sunni state religion is likely.

Regarding Saddam-Al Qaeda ties... yes I am aware of all the rebuttals, but in many cases I think they are actually less credible than the original reports. I would take both with a grain of salt. Many of these have never been rebutted though - the meetings in Sudan, the one in Morocco, etc. And as for Salman Pak and the meetings in Prague I am pretty convinced both are true.

Meetings are irrelevent. Meetings are people sitting down discussing the weather or whatever. Saddam was not supplying WMD, Saddam was not funding, Saddam was not tied to Al Qaeda.

Saddam is desposed and yet Al Qaeda is still a well funded terrorist group and has participated in the killing of 1200 American soldiers to add to the 4000 American civilians they killed on 911.

The funding of Al Queda appears quite secure from American attack.

The Paradox:

Is it democratic to force democracy on a people?

Is it democratic to force three nations to unite?

Is war not terrorism itself?

If war brings peace, how could it be war?

If the Iraqis love and support the coalition so much, why don't they show it?

Are the Iraqis better off with a bloody war than a tyrannical dictator?

Nothing could be further from the truth. Under Clinton, the CIA was told they must "capture, not kill" Osama, so that he could be "brought to justice" ( http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/176947p-154019c.html ). That's the law enforcement theory of fighting terrorism, and it does not work.

The attack on USS Cole was deemed "not sufficiently provocative" to warrant a response. Col Mike Sheehan had a telling conversation with Richard Clarke, namely ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F03%2F28%2Fdo2804.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=15343 )



And so when Clinton decided to fire a few cruise missiles at training camps, causing minimal damage, it can be seen in context as being a PR stunt not a serious effort.

First off, get your timeline right. The missile attack against the Afghan training camps occurred in 1998 and missed Bin Laden by hours. The attack on the USS Cole happened on October 12th 2000 - less than a month before the election. Proof as to the fact that Bin Laden was behind that attack was not found until January 2001 and it was GW who did squat about it between then and 9-11.

Now, if you are claiming that the missile attack was a PR stunt to show that they were doing something about an attack that wouldn't happen for two more years, then you are giving Billy-boy a hell of a lot of credit for prescience.

Second, there was clearly a disconnect between what the CIA thought and what the whitehouse believed their orders meant. Yes, they wanted to try and capture him to have a trial and perhaps also to gain some intel from him, but they felt that killing him was also acceptable. You have to wonder about how Tenent was managing things as - in your article - it states: "

"But CIA Director George Tenet said it was unclear whether agents had the authority to kill Bin Laden unless it was during "a credible capture operation," the report said.

"We always talked about how much easier it would have been to kill him," a former Bin Laden Station chief told the commission.

Clinton's national security adviser, Sandy Berger, insisted yesterday the CIA did have that authority."



If he was "unclear", why the hell didn't he ask for clarification? And if capturing him was the prime consideration - why would they have tried the missile attack at all? You would have to believe that the Clinton Administration didn't mind killing him with missiles, but DID mind if the CIA killed him.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

And if they DID just want to capture him, then why the first missile strike and why did they almost make other missile strikes? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/24/terror/main608419.shtml)

In another preliminary report issued Tuesday, the commission said U.S. officials planned missile attacks on bin Laden after receiving intelligence on his whereabouts, but didn't proceed with the strikes because the intelligence came from a single, uncorroborated source and there was a risk of innocents being killed.

"George (Tenet) would call and say, 'We just don't have it,'" the report quotes Berger as saying.

The Clinton administration did strike targets in Sudan and Afghanistan following attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa. Bin Laden was not hit, and may have been tipped off by a former head of Pakistani intelligence, Hamid Gul.

The report said officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, feared a failed attempt on bin Laden could kill innocents, boost bin Laden's prestige and lacked public support.



Now - once again - what exactly did you precious GW do prior to 9-11 given that he had the knowledge that Bin LAden was behind the Cole for his entire term?

Nothing?

Yeah - that's it - nothing.

It might be noted that Democrats, since the early 1960s, have been big on "sending messages" by bombing things and seeing if there's an appropriate diplomatic reaction. This strategy was outlined in detail by McNamara, and blessed as good by the party faithful ever since.

They would rather occasionally lob bombs onto someone's property, and who cares where in the hell it lands as long as it "sends a message".

The culmination of this ideal was written in stone in PD 59 by Harold Brown during the Carter Administration.

And further shown as the way things would work under Clinton.

Unfortunately, you usually have to invade a country to make it really change.

Whether the change is worth it, or how long it will actually take is another question. But "sending a message" via a few cruise missiles is generally seen as a profound act of weakness by people in the rest of the world.


Actually, most of the major positive changes in the world have occured without invasion. Did we invade the Soviets to have them eventually fall apart into many countries now building democracies? No.

Did anyone invade most of the African countries that eventually tossed out their Colonial Governments to build democracies? No.

Did anyone invade any of the Carribean or Central American countries that have built themselves up into democracies? No.

Who did get invaded?

North Korea? Vietnam? Those are your role models for success?

Change must come from within to work. Even with the best intentions a foreign-established mechanism is always viewed with distrust by the citizens - and rightly so. The best you might hope for is that when they toss what you impose that Iraq will rebuild into a worthy government of the people - but that will still be their government - not yours.

Who did get invaded?


Germany and Japan are more outstanding success stories than the former Soviet republics, or African nations that gained independence. Less overall disorder, less corruption, and far more economic success.

On a nation by nation basis, it produces far more beneficial results far more quickly (if 40 years can be considered "quickly").

And they are still their own nations.

The primary problem we face is the aftermath of exposure of primitive cultures to colonialism, and the sudden withdrawal of colonial powers from those very nations - the continuing instability in the Middle East and Africa are symptomatic of that destabilization. Then as the rest of the world moved ahead in every area, those nations were left behind - because it was in both Americas interest and that of Europe to keep those areas (rich with natural resources) too poor and disorganized to do anything except fight amongst themselves in either civil war or local wars.

It is a very good plan and a very good idea to bring order to those areas, whether they like it or not. We could, of course, just wait. But since it is quite apparent that none of those nations are going to repeat the success of the Meiji Period in Japan, where a backward nation came forward in 40 years, they may have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the current era.

Germany and Japan are more outstanding success stories than the former Soviet republics, or African nations that gained independence. Less overall disorder, less corruption, and far more economic success.

Japan and Germany had been defeated and became peaceful under occupation allowing a smooth transition to democratic civillian control.

More relevant to Iraq is the case of South Vietnam that was never peaceful and never able to foster a successful democracy. Elections were held several times.

Germany and Japan were not invaded to effect change. They were aggressors beaten back. And Germany already had as along as history of democracy as most in Europe at that time.

And in both cases huge expense went into providing the safet, security, and rebuilding via ECONOMIC aid to strengthen their economies as they recovered.


If you want to effect change, you need to change the status of the citizenship - not just the look of the government. Invasion in and of itself does not accomplish that - rather it does the opposite. Governmental changes may occur from within as an attempt to acheive the same ends, but government imposed is rarely effective without an incredible support system.

GW attempted to do this on the cheap. His team correctly surmized that the technological advantages available to the US forces could brush aside the IRaqi military with ease. However beating the army is one thing. Winning the war and providing the security needed to secure the peace are two very seperate things.


Invasion is easy. Changing the mindset of a people you have just been shooting at is a much more intensive proposition.

Let us consider this for a minute.

Most of the influential Shia imams for the most part recognize the leadership of Ayatollah Sistani. What does Sistani have to say that might have a bearing on this? Well, there is an interpretation of Islamic teachings called "wilayet al-fiqh" ("rule by religious jurisprudence") which says that basically you should have a government by a council of clerics. This is accepted by most Shia clerics in Iran, and hence you have Iran's form of government - which is not pure government *by* clerics, but clerics do indeed have a big say, in fact an overriding say, in what goes on. Sistani is *vehemently* opposed to that theory, he supports a different theory of separation of chirch and state. So if offered to form the government he (and most other influential Shia clerics) would refuse. Sistani supports democracy, hence his recent "those who refuse to vote will burn in hell" fatwa.

Moqtada Al-Sadr is the leading Shia proponent of "wilayet al-fiqh". Obviously he is very good friends with Iran. He is not very influential though... the only people who would follow him over Sistani are the young toughs from the slums.

Then you have the Sunni clerics. By and large they do recognize "wilayet al-fiqh" and would readily jump at the chance to form a governing council of clerics... only two problems: one, they represent a small minority of the population, under 5-10% (I am excluding the moderate pro-secular-government Sunni)... and two, they are very good friends with Al-Qaeda (e.g. see the cooperation between Fadhili and Zarqawi).



An excellent plan if it were not for the fact that the imams who would be willing to do this *are themselves* an extremist, jihadist faction.


Please note I said "Best Chance" after very dodgy dealings by the Bush administration with Iraq's natural resources. All that said and done your assessment is highly colored by a western view of the Middle East. In Islamic society political authority flows from the theological. If the US cannot obtain a solid support from a majority of the Clerics the insurgency will not stop.

So let's look at the coming year in Iraq. The election will be held, (and except for the small faction that wins) the results will be questioned by everyone, especially the Sunni. The Government will be Shia, and there's a better than even chance that they may actually ask us to leave depending on who wins. What do we do then, do we pack up or do we stay with our thin diplomatic cover blown.

If we leave the Iranians have a million men on the border waiting to covertly flood into Iraq to back up their brother Shia and turn the Sunni into the human "Lawn Jockeys" the Shia were under Saddam. Baghdad will be ethnically cleansed, and Southern Iraq will become part of Iran.

If we stay the insurgency will get worse by a high factor because the Shia will join in to the same level the Sunni are going at it now. The only thing holding the Shia back is the idea that we may give them Iraq without a fight. Basra could make Fallujah look like a day in the park. US casualties will at least quadruple as the insurgency shifts up a gear.

Is it democratic to force democracy on a people?

Forcing a democracy on anyone is impossible by definition. Forcibly preventing a minority from taking over is ok.

Is it democratic to force three nations to unite?

Assuming you are talking about Iraq... most areas have a mixed population, the country can no more be separated in three than (say) Switzerland can be separated in three.

Is war not terrorism itself?

No, it is not. War has rules.

If war brings peace, how could it be war?

That is a paradox, but not an uncommon one. People *always* go to war in order to get peace - a better peace than the one they started with.

If the Iraqis love and support the coalition so much, why don't they show it?

For the same reason they did not get rid of Saddam by themselves.

Are the Iraqis better off with a bloody war than a tyrannical dictator?

Yes.

Are the Iraqis better off with a tyranical government and no bloody war or a tyrannical government and after a bloody war?


A government willing to crush internal rebellion totally ruthlessly will be required to stop the existing bloody war. This government will be required to do the heavy lifting as the USA has insufficient troops to carry out this task. If successful in crushing the rebellion Iraq will be peaceful and in the control of a government backed by a massively large (100,000 to 200,000 strong) brutal and bloodied internal security force. The Sunni minority (the crushed ones) 10 - 15% will be highly resentful and supported in their resentment by the rich tyrannical Sunni states in the area. These conditions do not bode well for a peaceful democracy, but rather favour development of a highly repressive state.

If America wishes to create a successful democracy it must crush the rebellion itself, probably by the deployment of 80,000 to 100,000 additional American troops. This will allow an Iraqi government to take power without bloodying its hands too much.


Or America could leave Iraq and hope for the best.

America lost 4000 citizens in a massive attack launched by a Sunni run, Sunni funded, Sunni staffed terrorist group motivated by a Sunni state religion.

On the basis of these attacks the President of America launched an attack against a mainly Shia state run by a secular dictator with no links to Sunni terrorists.

In WW2 the US was attacked and lost thousands in a massive attack launched by Japan, which was an ally of Germany, and on that basis one of the first military actions taken was to invade Tunisia and fight the French there.

It makes sense... the direct approach is not always the best one. You always have to look at the tactical and strategic advantages and disadvantages created by each action. Iraq is a classic opening of a wide front that threatens the flanks of neighboring hostile powers, at a time and place of our choosing - something very common in WW2. "Strategic offensive, tactical defensive" is the timeless advice, and it is precisely what we are doing.

Germany and Japan were not invaded to effect change. They were aggressors beaten back.

Plainly, they were invaded to effect change. We could have either destroyed them from a distance, or stopped at the borders and given our ultimatums, backed by nuclear weapons. But we wanted to *change* them, which is why we invaded.

Also let's not ignore all the other post-WW2 successes, it is not just Germany and Japan.

And in both cases huge expense went into providing the safet, security, and rebuilding via ECONOMIC aid to strengthen their economies as they recovered.

Which is precisely what we are doing now.

Believe me, at the time things looked as glum, as hopelessly entangled, and as devoid of real progress and full of risk as Iraq does now. You may want to look up some newspapers from back then.

All that said and done your assessment is highly colored by a western view of the Middle East. In Islamic society political authority flows from the theological.

Really? This is particularly ironic coming after my half-page post dedicated to discussing the political views of different clerics and the theological interpretations they come from.

If the US cannot obtain a solid support from a majority of the Clerics the insurgency will not stop.

We *have* the solid support of a majority of the clerics - or rather, the course we propose Iraq to follow has that support.

So let's look at the coming year in Iraq. The election will be held, (and except for the small faction that wins) the results will be questioned by everyone, especially the Sunni.

The way the election is set up prevents the possibility of a winner-take-all scenario. There will be no single group that wins... probably a half-dozen groups will put together a coalition controlling >60% of the vote. It is possible that none of them will be Sunni.

The Government will be Shia, and there's a better than even chance that they may actually ask us to leave depending on who wins. What do we do then, do we pack up or do we stay with our thin diplomatic cover blown.

They will not ask us to leave - yet. Numerous reasons, but let's just say it won't happen.

If we leave the Iranians have a million men on the border waiting to covertly flood into Iraq to back up their brother Shia.

Works both ways. You are assuming the Iraqis want to leave in a province/protectorate/copy of Iran. That is not true; rather Iranians want to live in a copy of the new Iraq.

If we stay the insurgency will get worse by a high factor because the Shia will join in to the same level the Sunni are going at it now. The only thing holding the Shia back is the idea that we may give them Iraq without a fight.

Iran certainly tried to make that happen already. It was a storm in a teacup (Mahdi army). If anything it strengthened our hand tremendously, as now many people have a first-hand experience of how bad the alternatives are.

Zadomians: Post whatever you want... I don't think there's much that would be considered inappropriate, as long as it is minimally civil.

Actually, most of the major positive changes in the world have occured without invasion. Did we invade the Soviets to have them eventually fall apart into many countries now building democracies? No.

Zep, that is at best naive, at worst disingenuous. Obviously we didn't invade the Soviet Union but we sure were fighting all around the edges... Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Egypt, most of South/Central America, etc... do you realize that the amount of Soviet military materiel that was destroyed in Vietnam was more than their entire army *had* at any one time? They didn't fall apart, they were pushed.

Did anyone invade most of the African countries that eventually tossed out their Colonial Governments to build democracies? No.

The Colonial Powers left, they were by no means tossed out. In many cases they only sort-of-left (French in Cote d'Ivoir, Central African Republic, etc.)

Did anyone invade any of the Carribean or Central American countries that have built themselves up into democracies? No.

Yes.

Who did get invaded? North Korea?

South Korea is what the product of an invasion by us is like... a very decent place to live and vastly better than the North which should be credited to Chinese influence.

In WW2 the US was attacked and lost thousands in a massive attack launched by Japan, which was an ally of Germany, and on that basis one of the first military actions taken was to invade Tunisia and fight the French there.

The Vichy French in question being acknowledged allies of Germany and Japan. This was indeed a classic opening of a wide front. It was neccessary because Germany was invulnerable to American invasion at the time. At the time Germany enjoyed technical advantage over America in land warfare.

There is no equivalent Germany in the current conflict that makes opening a wide front necessary.

It makes sense... the direct approach is not always the best one. You always have to look at the tactical and strategic advantages and disadvantages created by each action. Iraq is a classic opening of a wide front that threatens the flanks of neighboring hostile powers, at a time and place of our choosing - something very common in WW2. "Strategic offensive, tactical defensive" is the timeless advice, and it is precisely what we are doing.


A wide front is not helpful. American military has most effectiveness when they have overwhelming concentrated firepower. A wide front dilutes the concentration of firepower and degrades the effectiveness of the American military. The enemy's greatest strength is their ability to hide amoung local populations and recruit from local populations. The wider the front, the greater the population, the stronger the enemy.

To operate a wide front campaign successfully America needs either more soldiers (probably from a draft) or greater effectiveness (read more firepower / more ruthlessness) from the existing troop numbers.



However even with the unnecessary opening of a wide front the situation can still be remedied. America has a truly awsome military force capable of destroying the Sunni funding for the terrorist groups. It would be useful if this was done.

Really? This is particularly ironic coming after my half-page post dedicated to discussing the political views of different clerics and the theological interpretations they come from.

We *have* the solid support of a majority of the clerics - or rather, the course we propose Iraq to follow has that support.

The way the election is set up prevents the possibility of a winner-take-all scenario. There will be no single group that wins... probably a half-dozen groups will put together a coalition controlling >60% of the vote. It is possible that none of them will be Sunni.

They will not ask us to leave - yet. Numerous reasons, but let's just say it won't happen.

Works both ways. You are assuming the Iraqis want to leave in a province/protectorate/copy of Iran. That is not true; rather Iranians want to live in a copy of the new Iraq.

Iran certainly tried to make that happen already. It was a storm in a teacup (Mahdi army). If anything it strengthened our hand tremendously, as now many people have a first-hand experience of how bad the alternatives are.

Agreed the elections are important, they will legitimise Allawi or whoever wins as the representative of the Iraqi people. They are absolutely neccessary.

Also a point you did miss is that the Iranian Shia are Persians and the Iraqi Shia are Arabs. Persians and Arabs have been fighting for thousands of years, they were unfriendly well before Islam was born.

Germany and Japan were not invaded to effect change.

Regime change definitely was a prime reason for invasion. So, we invaded to stop aggression, but it would have been OK for Hitler to stay in power had he not committed suicide? I think not.

Hilariouse how some people still want to believe that the Americans are good guys.

Plainly, they were invaded to effect change. We could have either destroyed them from a distance, or stopped at the borders and given our ultimatums, backed by nuclear weapons. But we wanted to *change* them, which is why we invaded.

Also let's not ignore all the other post-WW2 successes, it is not just Germany and Japan.



Which is precisely what we are doing now.

Believe me, at the time things looked as glum, as hopelessly entangled, and as devoid of real progress and full of risk as Iraq does now. You may want to look up some newspapers from back then.

Oh bullshit!

For starters, you never invaded Japan, and for seconds the war was started loooong before you could "destroy them at a distance", nor did you have the quantity of nuclear materials at hand to destroy both, and nor did you ever even threaten Germany with nukes. The US was maintaining an isolationist attitude right up until Pearl Harbour forced a response. Yes, once you got into the war then you - of course - wanted new regimes in place afterwards to ensure a more likely peace, but calling regime change the reason for the war is pure unadulterated bullshit!

Oh bullshit!

For starters, you never invaded Japan, and for seconds the war was started loooong before you could "destroy them at a distance", nor did you have the quantity of nuclear materials at hand to destroy both, and nor did you ever even threaten Germany with nukes. The US was maintaining an isolationist attitude right up until Pearl Harbour forced a response. Yes, once you got into the war then you - of course - wanted new regimes in place afterwards to ensure a more likely peace, but calling regime change the reason for the war is pure unadulterated bullshit!
Actually the nukes were originally intendet to be used against Germany. But they coudn't finish them before the war in Europe was over. But I can only imagine how overjoyed the US was that Japan still hadn't surrenderd. Now they still had a chance to test the effect of the new bombs under real live conditions.

Zep, that is at best naive, at worst disingenuous. Obviously we didn't invade the Soviet Union but we sure were fighting all around the edges... Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Egypt, most of South/Central America, etc... do you realize that the amount of Soviet military materiel that was destroyed in Vietnam was more than their entire army *had* at any one time? They didn't fall apart, they were pushed.


Equating proxy wars such as Afghanistan, Egypt, most of South/Central America to an invasion is disingenuous on your part. And exactly how much of a democracy was left at the end of the war in Vietnam?

You examples rather prove my point.

The Colonial Powers left, they were by no means tossed out. In many cases they only sort-of-left (French in Cote d'Ivoir, Central African Republic, etc.)


Yes, in many cases they left of their own accord as the population made it very clear that they no longer wanted to be a part of somebody elses empire. This was generally a prudent move by countries such as Britain as the other option was to re-implement a more military-oriented rule and deal with insurgencies. The realization was that this would be expensive wasted effort on causes guaranteed to lose and only result in countries less likely to succeed.


Yes.


Really? Which ones? Like when the US overthrew popular, democratic uprisings to get rid of military juntas in countries like the Dominican Republic simply to keep things favourable for US sugar and fruit companies?


South Korea is what the product of an invasion by us is like... a very decent place to live and vastly better than the North which should be credited to Chinese influence.

No. South Korea was your ally in a war against the Comunist forces of the North. you did not invade south Korea to effect a change in governmental style or leadership.


Now, once again, point out the SUCCESSES where you went in and invaded a country for the purposes of a change in government where it actually worked. The list is VERY short as compared to the much larger list of failures.

In WW2 the US was attacked and lost thousands in a massive attack launched by Japan, which was an ally of Germany, and on that basis one of the first military actions taken was to invade Tunisia and fight the French there.

It makes sense... the direct approach is not always the best one. You always have to look at the tactical and strategic advantages and disadvantages created by each action. Iraq is a classic opening of a wide front that threatens the flanks of neighboring hostile powers, at a time and place of our choosing - something very common in WW2. "Strategic offensive, tactical defensive" is the timeless advice, and it is precisely what we are doing.


Wow... I guess those three whole divisions of German troops - including the 10th Panzer division - plus the three Italian infantry divisins didn't exist in Tunisia as the remaining Axis forces needed to be driven out of North Africa after Monty had pushed Rommel back at the second battle of El Alamein, they weren't squeezed into the general regions of Lybia and Tunisia by the landings of the Americans under Operation Torch to the West and they didn't select Tunisia as the more defensible option thanks to it's hills along the south border and the Atlas Mountains to the West plus a couple of good deep water ports tha made for easy resupply via sicily, and nor was the Vichy French government a German puppet at that time.....


Oh, and for the record, the Vichy broke with the Axis, negotiated the North African Agreement with Eisenhower, and fought alongside the allies against the German and Italian forces.


History really isn't your forte is it?

:D No. They weren't fighting there. The 200,000 + German and Italian troops where in fact tourists on an excursion to the ruins of Carthage. The French however......

Exactly... it was the couple of thousand French allies who were the problem. The Germans were too busy working on their tans to be any danger!



Whoops - using the current vernacular, let me rephrase my earlier post to refer to the "Vichy Freedoms"


Silly me for overlooking that....

why not just wait until the elections, get an anti-US government elected, and then use their legitimate authority ask us to leave?

Because every single candidate up for the Iraqi election is pre-approved by the United States. That's why.

Oh, and for the record, the Vichy broke with the Axis, negotiated the North African Agreement with Eisenhower, and fought alongside the allies against the German and Italian forces.
History really isn't your forte is it?

On paper only. And only in North Africa. Having French as allies in modern times basically amounts to them promising to not shoot at you, and to stand in your chow lines. Other than that, they were essentially useless. Pitifully so.

Having French as allies in modern times basically amounts to them promising to not shoot at you.
Unlike Americans. Who promise you the same and shoot at you anyway.

Yes, it did spring out of a pre-existing condition, namely Saddam. In medical terms, they had an operation to remove a tumor, and are now getting antibiotics to deal with the secondary infections ;)


Ever hear of "The operation was a successs but we lost the patient" ;)

EDIT:

Geez i didn't know the thread was this long already.

On paper only. And only in North Africa. Having French as allies in modern times basically amounts to them promising to not shoot at you, and to stand in your chow lines. Other than that, they were essentially useless. Pitifully so.


You know, I had a little bet with myself that someone would jump in at any mention of the French to post that standard, purile, "cheese-eating surrender monkey" type comment.

Thank you for not disappointing me.

Of course, the fact that we were discussing North Africa at the time seems to have escaped your attention....

I find it interesting how the complaint about how quickly the French were overwhelmed in WWII by the already battle-hardened and better equiped German forces also always fails to note that the Germans also took out the Belgian, Dutch, and British armies at the same time without people calling those nations cowards, ignores the work of the French Resistance and the Free French, and forgets about how the citizens of France repaid those of their own countrymen who collaberated during the occupation after liberation.

Oh yeah, and if the US army had been there in 1940, it would have got squashed too given it hadn't modernized anything worth speaking of since WWI at that point.

You want to complain about allies? Where the hell was the US for it's allies in '39, '40, and '41?

You want to complain about allies? Where the hell was the US for it's allies in '39, '40, and '41?
Busy decalring "neutrality" in the conflict by selling arms to the British.


At reduced prices.

You know, I had a little bet with myself that someone would jump in at any mention of the French to post that standard, purile, "cheese-eating surrender monkey" type comment.

Thank you for not disappointing me.

Of course, the fact that we were discussing North Africa at the time seems to have escaped your attention....

I find it interesting how the complaint about how quickly the French were overwhelmed in WWII by the already battle-hardened and better equiped German forces also always fails to note that the Germans also took out the Belgian, Dutch, and British armies at the same time without people calling those nations cowards, ignores the work of the French Resistance and the Free French, and forgets about how the citizens of France repaid those of their own countrymen who collaberated during the occupation after liberation.


The French Resistance was organized by British and American spy agencies. Also supplied by the same. It is likely that the French Resistance would not have existed at all, and in fact, prior to the initial organization actions taken by the SOE, it did not exist at all.

The British, notably, did not surrender. That they retreated at Dunkirk to return to fight again is admirable in a way that no French action during the war can match.

The British, notably, did not surrender. That they retreated at Dunkirk to return to fight again is admirable in a way that no French action during the war can match.

Umm, the British had somewhere to retreat to. Are you suggesting that the French military should have abandoned their country and their families to head to Britain in the hopes that the British would re-arm them for an invasion at a time when the German Army seemed unstoppable? I mean, the Brits evacuated men but had to leave almost all of their arms behind to get them out.

And had they tried, how many would have made it? The evacuation at Dunkirk took up every available vessel to try and scramble to get the troops out, and even then many were left behind. Some French DID also escape to Britain at the same time, but it's not like the Brits would have left even more of their boys behind in favour of the French when they were filling the boats up.

Yes, I think that the French government surrendered too quickly. The army could have fought on for a while before the inevitable defeat, but a longer inital resistance would have inflicted some losses on the German army. The French soldiers, however, can't be faulted for surrendering upon given orders to do once the surrender was signed. The generals were, after all, against surrendering. However, from the French government's stanpoint it was obvious that the battle was lost, and wasting lives in a futile gesture was deemed to be a poor option.


It is odd how you have no problem casting a wide net and blaming French soldiers for the orders given by their civilian leaders when I'm damn sure that you would never do the same about American troops.

There is a word for that. It's "hypocrite".

Contrary to popular accounts, the German army was not as "mobile" as you might imagine in 1940, and still had most of its logistical train hauled by horse.

The French Army was better equipped (including better aircraft) than the Germans. The fact that they had adopted an idiotic strategy in the Maginot Line didn't help.

They had the rest of France to retreat and fight from. They knew the war was coming, yet did the idiotic things.

The Russians held some individual cities far longer than the French held all of France, and that was without really retreating very far (consider Stalingrad, where they retreated to the river).

I suppose the Russians found out that to surrender to the Germans was a far worse fate than being killed fighting them.

Contrary to popular accounts, the German army was not as "mobile" as you might imagine in 1940, and still had most of its logistical train hauled by horse.

The French Army was better equipped (including better aircraft) than the Germans. The fact that they had adopted an idiotic strategy in the Maginot Line didn't help.

They had the rest of France to retreat and fight from. They knew the war was coming, yet did the idiotic things.

The Russians held some individual cities far longer than the French held all of France, and that was without really retreating very far (consider Stalingrad, where they retreated to the river).

I suppose the Russians found out that to surrender to the Germans was a far worse fate than being killed fighting them.

So, if the German Army sucked so bad? How did they manage to take out over 300,000 French, nearly 70,000 Brits, plu aboiut 30,000 Dutch and Belgians with a loss of only about 30,000 of their own?

Answer? Well, just before the war started they had all of their tanks radio-equipped to aid in working as units and to aid in calling in arterlliery fire. Communication is everythig in battle, but no other army in the world had thought to go that far up until then. Now, your assertion about the planes is almost true. Yes, the brand new Dewoitine 520 was a great aricraft with a higher ceiling than the 109, however it still was at a speed deficiency to the ME in that it had a top speed of 329 compared to the ME's 348. There were also only a couple of squadrons of these planes available when the Germans hit the borders with several more still undergoing conversion to them.

And, of course, the most critical factor was that the combined French, British, Dutch, and Belgian fleet of available modern fighters was around 780 planes. The Germans had 1264. The British could have contributed more but
Churchill refused.

Before the surrender was signed, the Dewoitine's shot down 175 german fighters compared to only 44 losses, so you can't state that the French fighters were not holding up their end of the war.

And what the French and British Air forces did NOT have was a precision dive-bomber like the Stuka which was responsible for heavy damage against allied tanks. The French did not lose the war in the air. They held their own there. They lost it on the ground.

People also like to look at the total strength of the French forces, and completely forget how much of it was stationed overseas in their colonies.

But hey - everyone likes to call the French names these days right?

WAs the reliance on the Maginot line a piss-poor decision? Yep. Were the French and British tactics of using their tanks to support the infantry rather than the other way around outdated? Yep. They learned that the hard way. The fact that the US got to benefit by learning from this new strategy by the time they engaged doesn't mean that their pitiful forces and equally outdated tactical doctrines wouldn't have got the snot kicked out of them too in '40 had they been engaged.

Hey, if you want to talk tactical errors, how smart was tying up all of the battleships in Pearl Harbor in a nice line for convenient straffing and bombing?

So, if the German Army sucked so bad? How did they manage to take out over 300,000 French, nearly 70,000 Brits, plu aboiut 30,000 Dutch and Belgians with a loss of only about 30,000 of their own?
<snip good crunchy stuff>
Hey, if you want to talk tactical errors, how smart was tying up all of the battleships in Pearl Harbor in a nice line for convenient straffing and bombing?

The problem is that the British, the Russians, and the US, while they suffered tactical defeats (or strategic ones as well), were far more willing to sacrifice lives and make strategic and tactical changes than the French, who seem to have experienced a mental fossilization that they could never overcome.

It's the same guiding principle that has the French trying to counter unarmed protesters in the Ivory Coast by machinegunnning hundreds down. Today.

The problem is that the US were far more willing to sacrifice lives.
As long as they weren't American lives they were more then willing to sacrifice as many as needed.

Answer? Well, just before the war started they had all of their tanks radio-equipped to aid in working as units and to aid in calling in arterlliery fire.

Plus the German tanks ran on ordinary gasoline. While Allied tanks used cerosine.(sp) In huge quantities. While the Germans could just pull up to the next gas station and fill up.

As long as they weren't American lives they were more then willing to sacrifice as many as needed.

I don't recall the majority of casualties on the Western Front being non-American. Nor the majority of casualties in the invasion of Italy.

The Germans, on the other hand, really knew how to treat an ally. During attempted retreats from Stalingrad, the Germans shot the Italians off Italian trucks and took the vehicles.

The problem is that the British, the Russians, and the US, while they suffered tactical defeats (or strategic ones as well), were far more willing to sacrifice lives and make strategic and tactical changes than the French, who seem to have experienced a mental fossilization that they could never overcome.



Oh, so the fact that the Brits and Americans got to learn from the new tactics used in the battle of France and use them to continue the war makes them superior? It's always nice to be someone elses scapegoat I guess.

Tell me though, why don't the citizens of every other country that the Germans conquered still get vilified for it by Americans? Are the Poles, Belgians, Dutch, Spanish, etc. all still shit on for loosing their battles with Germany? Nope. Do you blame every single country that was occupied by the Soviets for nearly 50 years for their inaction and equate them to being cowards? No.


So why the French?

Because they have no problem telling you to get stuffed when you ask them to do something that they don't want to do.


It's.... childish.

But hey, if you want to compare instances of misuse of force, shall we start at My Lai and work forwards? Or work backwards from Iraq?

I don't recall the majority of casualties on the Western Front being non-American. Nor the majority of casualties in the invasion of Italy.
I was talking about the Russians. The western allies requested the Russians to step up their offensive in the East prior to D-Day. So that even more German troops would be relocated from the West. Which would result in a higher Russian bodycount.

So why the French?

Because they have no problem telling you to get stuffed when you ask them to do something that they don't want to do.


No, because they have a long history of losing. The other countries you named (even Germany) managed some resistance without outside help. They managed not to lose constantly.

Why the French? Because they're really, really upset that they aren't a real world superpower, and can't stand being completely impotent from a military standpoint since the Napoleonic Wars. Because if it weren't for their vote at the UN, no one would even ask their opinion or for their help. That's why they don't want to go along with the US - it's sheer jealousy.

Aside from the Foreign Legion and a few nuclear missiles, their ability to project power is marginally better than Canada's.

No, because they have a long history of losing. The other countries you named (even Germany) managed some resistance without outside help. They managed not to lose constantly.

Why the French? Because they're really, really upset that they aren't a real world superpower, and can't stand being completely impotent from a military standpoint since the Napoleonic Wars. Because if it weren't for their vote at the UN, no one would even ask their opinion or for their help. That's why they don't want to go along with the US - it's sheer jealousy.

Aside from the Foreign Legion and a few nuclear missiles, their ability to project power is marginally better than Canada's.
I guess it's more the US not wanting to get along with France. Cause the French have a big enough self esteem to not look up to the US in awe. Thats something Americans just can't understand. How it is possible that someone can NOT worship them. How is it possible that someone does NOT want to be like them. Like in Iraq. Where they expected to be welcomed with flowers and got bullets instead. :D You can find this mentality in movies:
We are here to help the Vietnamese, because
inside every gook there is an American trying to get out.
Full Metal jacket.

.. That's why they don't want to go along with the US -several countries did not want to go along...Even the people of England did not want to go along.

It was all Blair.

No, because they have a long history of losing. The other countries you named (even Germany) managed some resistance without outside help. They managed not to lose constantly.

Why the French? Because they're really, really upset that they aren't a real world superpower, and can't stand being completely impotent from a military standpoint since the Napoleonic Wars. Because if it weren't for their vote at the UN, no one would even ask their opinion or for their help. That's why they don't want to go along with the US - it's sheer jealousy.

Aside from the Foreign Legion and a few nuclear missiles, their ability to project power is marginally better than Canada's.


Or maybe you are just assuming what other people are "upset" or "jealous" about, and it doesn't occur to you that seeing who is waving the biggest military dick doesn't equate to greatness for most of us.


For the record, very few people on this planet are jealous of the US military power. Those that are are the Kim jong Ils of the world - not the Frances or Canadas.

I'm sure it's quite important to the French government who has more ability to project power. It's certainly important to France's oil companies, who had exclusive contracts in Iraq prior to the invasion.

Could that be the reason they didn't want a US invasion? That and the bribes they were already getting from Oil for Food?

Or are the French completely careless in regards to their economy and oil companies? I recall in their protests to the US prior to the invasion that they mentioned their own oil companies directly.

I'm sure it's quite important to the French government who has more ability to project power. It's certainly important to France's oil companies, who had exclusive contracts in Iraq prior to the invasion.

Could that be the reason they didn't want a US invasion? That and the bribes they were already getting from Oil for Food?

Or are the French completely careless in regards to their economy and oil companies? I recall in their protests to the US prior to the invasion that they mentioned their own oil companies directly.
Could the reason for the invasion be that the US was jealouse of the relative good French relations in Iraq? That Haliburton& Co desired said oil contracts for themselves? A new way to eliminate competition. Hmmm...doesn't sound so far off does it?

Could the reason for the invasion be that the US was jealouse of the relative good French relations in Iraq? That Haliburton& Co desired said oil contracts for themselves? A new way to eliminate competition. Hmmm...doesn't sound so far off does it?

Doesn't sound far off at all. But then you'll have to admit the French knew it was coming, and were jealous themselves.

Now, did they actually have the interest of the Iraqi citizens ahead of their own, or did the country that's more than willing to shoot unarmed third world people down in the street hundreds at a time in the Ivory Coast get upset that they were losing big oil contracts?

Doesn't sound far off at all. But then you'll have to admit the French knew it was coming, and were jealous themselves.
Knew that whats coming? And jealous of what exactly?

Now, did they actually have the interest of the Iraqi citizens ahead of their own, or did the country that's more than willing to shoot unarmed third world people down in the street hundreds at a time in the Ivory Coast get upset that they were losing big oil contracts?
Unarmed 3rd world citizens? When was this? During the riots a few weeks back? When armed mobs tore apart the capitol hunting for every white person they could find and attacking French companies? After the government army attacked the French peace keeping forces?
I quit sure that they were upset about loosing contracts to the Americans. Who technicly simply stole them. But France is also somewhat more concerned about human rights and peace and stability then the US. So I guess both reasons played part in their opposition to the warmongers.

Knew that whats coming? And jealous of what exactly?


Unarmed 3rd world citizens? When was this? During the riots a few weeks back? When armed mobs tore apart the capitol hunting for every white person they could find and attacking French companies? After the government army attacked the French peace keeping forces?
I quit sure that they were upset about loosing contracts to the Americans. Who technicly simply stole them. But France is also somewhat more concerned about human rights and peace and stability then the US. So I guess both reasons played part in their opposition to the warmongers.

The people I saw on video from the Ivory Coast were unarmed, and were just standing outside the French Embassy. They weren't even near the walls, or doing anything except making a lot of noise, and the FFL decided to "clear the street".

A couple of long bursts from a belt-fed machinegun, and it's the French solution to a potential riot. Potential. It wasn't in progress.

Guys, guys... I propose we get back on the original topic (Iraq). WW2 was a long time ago, and the relative merits of France are pretty peripheral to Iraq.

Zep: okay, actually the first landings were in Morocco, at Lyautey and Casablanca, where there was some fighting with French troops who eventually decided to surrender/change sides. The Germans were in Tunisia. The point is that this is a damn long way from Tokyo.

One correction, you said the Vichy government switched sides to the Allies, this is not true... the French who fought on the Allied side did so under de Gaulle and the Free French government, the Vichy never switched.

Zep is referring to Vichy troops in North Africa, who negotiated an agreement through their commander.

A near run thing, as well. They almost didn't agree to help.

As for any other Vichy, they fought alongside the Germans.

Because every single candidate up for the Iraqi election is pre-approved by the United States.

Do you have any evidence of that?

Guys, guys... I propose we get back on the original topic (Iraq). WW2 was a long time ago, and the relative merits of France are pretty peripheral to Iraq.

Zep: okay, actually the first landings were in Morocco, at Lyautey and Casablanca, where there was some fighting with French troops who eventually decided to surrender/change sides. The Germans were in Tunisia. The point is that this is a damn long way from Tokyo.

One correction, you said the Vichy government switched sides to the Allies, this is not true... the French who fought on the Allied side did so under de Gaulle and the Free French government, the Vichy never switched.

The Vichy French government of Tunisia, which was nominally under the direction of the german-aligned occupation government of France did indeed switch sides when it signed the treaty to ally themselves with the Allies in North Africa. The Vichy government of France of course never switched, nor did I intend to imply that.

As far as it being a long way from Tokyo, I'm pretty sure that noone will try and tell you that this was in any way part of the campaign against Japan. Germany declared war on the US right after Pearl, and this was the first US ground action against the Nazis.

It may all get lumped in as one war with multiple theatres in the history books, but given the lack of coordination or cooperation between Germany and Japan, I think it is best viewed from a strategic standpoint (which is the standpoint that you were looking at it from as I recall) as two seperate but concurrent wars.

The Vichy French government of Tunisia, which was nominally under the direction of the german-aligned occupation government of France did indeed switch sides when it signed the treaty to ally themselves with the Allies in North Africa. The Vichy government of France of course never switched, nor did I intend to imply that.
The French Vichy government was placed under german military control in 1942.

Now, once again, point out the SUCCESSES where you went in and invaded a country for the purposes of a change in government where it actually worked. The list is VERY short as compared to the much larger list of failures.

I think you're confused about terms.

First, invade="put troops in". I don't think it is possible to distinguish between "invasion" and "friendly visit" based on either intent or popular sentiment or anything else. Every military deployment abroad that involves combat is an invasion. We invaded France in WW2 and South Korea in the Korean War, as well as Kuwait in Gulf War I and Afghanistan more recently. The Latin roots of invade mean "to go in". That's all there is to it.

Second, we may go to war for any number of reasons, but we invade always in order to change (or support, or reinstate, or otherwise affect) the government. I challenge you to find a case when that was not so.

Based on this... we went to war with Germany and Japan because they attacked us, but we invaded them in order to change their governments. (and yes, we invaded Japan - first in Okinawa, and second by putting troops in after their surrender).

Most American invasions that were successful militarily were also political successes (I'm still trying to think of counter-examples, so for now I'll say "most" instead of "all").

Whoops. I'm sorry, I thought this thread was about oil. My mistake.

Well, if we're trying to explain Iraq, and figure that the US went it alone because they didn't think they could get assistance or approval from the UN (or perhaps thought they were authorized under a previous resolution), we might wonder how the US came to the conclusion that the UN was a worthless, impotent organization.

Since we're naming successes, name a UN success - one that involves military action and regime change - that does not involve the US. You could also include any major massacres stopped in their tracks and the perpetrators brought to the Hague, or countries liberated by the UN without US help.

I think it is best viewed from a strategic standpoint (which is the standpoint that you were looking at it from as I recall) as two seperate but concurrent wars.

I disagree. I think it was one war... the common link is ideas, if you will. There is a good reason why each country ended up on the side it did.

Germany and Japan may not have traded a lot of material good, but they did exchange technical data, as far as I know.

I disagree. I think it was one war... the common link is ideas, if you will. There is a good reason why each country ended up on the side it did.

Germany and Japan may not have traded a lot of material good, but they did exchange technical data, as far as I know.

Hmm... I'm getting the feeling that you may be saying that the US tends to view things as related - while other nations may see things as separate wars, agendas, etc.

The US acts as though they are related, and the rest of the world does not. Is this the point you're leading to?

Hmm... I'm getting the feeling that you may be saying that the US tends to view things as related - while other nations may see things as separate wars, agendas, etc.

The US acts as though they are related, and the rest of the world does not. Is this the point you're leading to?

Yes, pretty much (at least on our better days).

I think Iraq is a campaign in a broader war, somewhat similar to the Spanish Civil War '36-39 as part of WW2. It is not the showdown - not even close - it is merely the first clash of arms, an early test of strength and commitment, and a way to gain experience and test doctrine. Most participants are not fighting on their own territory.