The British position became increasingly difficult as their lines of communication were threatened by Tribesmen.
In the end a withdrawal was pursued but all but one of the remaining 16,000 British soldiers perished during the exodus.
This provides us with A situation in which a Foreign Power enters in support of a Minority Regime, suffers great losses due to the obligations of Occupation, then experiences massive loss of life simply evacuating.
Does this Mean that the Departure of US forces from Afghanistan and Iraq will involve even greater loss of US Troops (beyond the existing losses)?
Does this Mean that the Departure of US forces from Afghanistan and Iraq will involve even greater loss of US Troops (beyond the existing losses)?
Probably, yes.
[SIZE="4"]Does this Mean that the Departure of US forces from Afghanistan and Iraq will involve even greater loss of US Troops (beyond the existing losses)?
While one should never discount the importance of learning from history, the situation is far more complicated than looking at what happened in 1839 and saying the same thing will happen today. Also, you may wish to edit your post, because what you wrote is that 15,999 survived and 1 died. While I have never studied that particular war, judging by the context of the rest of your post, it appears you meant to say the opposite.
While one should never discount the importance of learning from history, the situation is far more complicated than looking at what happened in 1839 and saying the same thing will happen today. Also, you may wish to edit your post, because what you wrote is that 15,999 survived and 1 died. While I have never studied that particular war, judging by the context of the rest of your post, it appears you meant to say the opposite.
Thanks: post amended.
Withdrawing from Iraq would result in fewer casualties than staying. We have modern amenities, such as cars, tanks, and aircraft. Its very easy to get out without any real casualities.
Yeah. But really no.
Let's not forget that the weapons of war have also changed as a result of soldiers becoming mechanized. IEDs, roadside bombs, and anti-tank weapons are commonplace on the battlefield. Hell, even a well placed grenade can do some serious damage to a car. And let's not forget that it's been proven time and again in Afganistan when the mujahideen were fighting the Soviets that a rocket nearly always wins versus a chopper. Just because we can get out of there quicker by no means cements that we'd suffer fewer casualties.
And let's not forget that we aren't just looking at casualties suffered by the American Armed Forces here. If we pull out too quickly we're going to cause more casualties in the Iraqi people, civilian casualties as well as military when the regime gains enough power and enough confidence to wage a coup after we leave. Saddam may be dead, but his ideals certainly aren't.
Am I saying that there needs to be a permanent police force over there? Maybe. Does it need to be us? No. I just firmly believe that we'll only be creating more major short term problems if we pull out too quickly. The long term problems are going to be there no matter how we pull out. We leave to quickly, too soon, and the government is going to collapse.
Leaving won't cost us many lives at all. If they could kill people leaving Iraq in numbers, they'd have done so already. They haven't, so they can't.
Leaving is going to be an ideological victory for the groups acting against us over there, pure and simple. It's going to spur them onto bigger and better things, and what could be bigger and better than the fledgling government that we would have left. There's so many knives against it's throat now it's ridiculous (and yes, I am counting us as one of the said knives). Not to mention it's going to embolden groups acting in other areas of the region. Anyone remember we still have people in Afghanistan?
This is what frustrates me so much about the current opinion on the war by most people. They're still hung up on the fact that we should have never been there in the first place, that we were wrong to invade, that Saddam had no connections to Al-Quaeda (despite everything else he did), and that we need to leave and we need to leave now, despite the fact that leaving in droves would simply cause the collapse of the new nation we're trying to help build (and if we could succeed, it would be a powerful foot in the door in the area, though I doubt we'll see it in our, or our children's lifetimes). And who do I blame for this? The media. People are sheep. They're always going to believe whatever they watch on CNN and Fox News and the like. It's awful. Somewhere in the past 200 years of our countries existence, we've lost the ability to think for ourselves.
But I know I'm getting off track of the original point I was trying to make.
Leaving is going to cost us a great deal of lives, and not just in names that will go on another wall (which I doubt we'll see in our lifetimes with the way this war is being fielded at home... I've actually read opinions comparing our soldiers to terrorists themselves). It's costing us human lives all around. And it's going to, whether we stay or we go. If we go, the numbers are going to go up.
What happens to them?
Oh ya, they move the battlefield to America!
So we'll have soldiers AND civilians dying!
We're going to have a war whether we pull out or not, but if we stay we can keep it out of America.
Oh, pulling out or staying won't really make a difference as to the stability; the stability there is largely a sham, and nothing we do will fix it short of spending billions of dollars via a secularized school system and wait thirty years or so for those who went through the school system to take over the government.
Leaving won't cost us many lives at all. If they could kill people leaving Iraq in numbers, they'd have done so already. They haven't, so they can't.
They haven't because there's still large numbers of people there to defend those that are leaving. And because we are not completely withdrawing as of yet. When it's the last couple thousand, there will be blood. Look at the end of Vietnam. We had cars, tanks, APCs, helicopters, etc and still the last leaving were under fire and in constant danger. Still, it won't be even remotely as bad as the example in the OP. We'll probably lose some, but it will not be catastrophic.
So we'll have soldiers AND civilians dying!
How is that different from right now? Is it different because they'll be American civilians instead of foreign ones?
It might actually be better for Americans in one way: At least they will no longer be the terrorists.
How is that different from right now? Is it different because they'll be American civilians instead of foreign ones?
It might actually be better for Americans in one way: At least they will no longer be the terrorists.
You know what? Sure! America could stand to be ridiculed a little. American's tend to be stupid, so maybe we could learn a lesson with a few bombs.
Also, war tends to have civilian casualties, but it's best for them not to be YOUR civilians.
If we leave, then what about all the terrorists that we were fighting?
What happens to them?
Oh ya, they move the battlefield to America!
How? A daring magic carpet assault led by genie power?
You do realise that if they had the capability of launching an attack on America they would, whether troops were in their country or not.
America bankrupted themselves and caused a recession with the effort of making war over that distance. Iraq does not have the resources to fight a war halfway around the war.
We're going to have a war whether we pull out or not, but if we stay we can keep it out of America.
No we won't. You can relax and sleep easy.
P.S. A daring magic carpet assault led by genies... I am so using that in my campaign.
How? A daring magic carpet assault led by genie power? No we won't. You can relax and sleep easy.
Or I could move to Australia!
-Joni
Or I could move to Australia!
Sure, it's pretty great here, come on down.
(I'm Australian).
The Iraqi incumbent government makes an estimate of Iraqi dead and US media, in a worldwide report, downplays it?!?!?!? AND American dead are counted separately (and apparantly are more important) from Iraqi civilian dead? Heh. Good luck with that.
It's possible for the US to win this war, but it won't be with bullets and superior weaponry. It's time to take out the big guns and send in the teachers.
The thing is a huge megamess. The only way the US can win there is if it wins the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and it won't do that if it doesn't care about Iraqi civilian casualties. This is especially true when it makes a point of showing that it doesn't care about Iraqi civilian casualties.
The Iraqi incumbent government makes an estimate of Iraqi dead and US media, in a worldwide report, downplays it?!?!?!? AND American dead are counted separately (and apparantly are more important) from Iraqi civilian dead? Heh. Good luck with that.
It's possible for the US to win this war, but it won't be with bullets and superior weaponry. It's time to take out the big guns and send in the teachers.
Umm. Though I don't want to get into it, I must do it. I call BS. Why? Well our policy on engaging targets is somewhat similar to Vietnam. Not because of political reasons this time, though. Our targets are still limited (no mosques, etc). Hell, do you have any idea how much it costs us to drop a bomb nowdays? Any idea? It's damned expensive to drop what basically is a metal box of explosive. Guess what. It ain't the metal or explosive that's expensive. It's the guidance systems and related equipment on the delivery mechanism that's expensive. And these exorbitantly costly bombs were developed - by the US - for the sole purpose of striking precisely to avoid colateral damage and civilian death. We ain't killin' nearly as many civilians as the opposition is. We don't kidnap people, execute them and toss them in mass graves. The vast majority of civilian dead are not from our bullets, tanks and bombs but from their own friggin' countrymen.
To win a war you don't target the "hearts and minds" - unless it's with a bullet. Vietnam was all about touching the hearts and minds of the people. It ignored the fact that to win a war it must be brought to the people. And it was an extremely costly failure. Iraq won't be as bad, but it is worse in a way. It proves that the American military is an impotent force. It has been hamstrung and neutered by the public. American citizens want a good, clean fight. We don't want any extra blood. No loss of history. And that's why it's a huge friggin' mess. War is messy, bloody and terrible. If you cannot wage a terrible war you cannot win. The enemy knows that you lack commitment and will simply bide their time bleeding you out slowly until your people say they've had enough. Vietnam. If you come fighting - actually waging war - you have a chance. Otherwise, forget it.
This never should have happened. Never. The planning was so out of this world awful it should have been stopped before it started. I mean, we advertised our plan of attack on CNN. We told the enemy where we were going next. We skipped fighting in certain cities and were then surprised when the enemy moved from target cities into these and formed an effective insurgent force. And we went because of false info. Terrible. But, we're there and we can't leave just yet. The best course now is to allow the men to fight. Truly fight. Eliminate as many as you can and then pull out. Let them have whatever type of government they want. Let them have civil war if they want. But let them make their own damned decisions after we clean up our mess and get the hell out.
Iraq is a warzone over which the various mutually hostile factions are murdering each other over long dormant blood feuds. There IS no country because the only semblance of national identity and authority rested with Saddam Hussein and guess what happened to him?
It's the guidance systems and related equipment on the delivery mechanism that's expensive. And these exorbitantly costly bombs were developed - by the US - for the sole purpose of striking precisely to avoid colateral damage and civilian death. We ain't killin' nearly as many civilians as the opposition is. We don't kidnap people, execute them and toss them in mass graves. The vast majority of civilian dead are not from our bullets, tanks and bombs but from their own friggin' countrymen.
The effort is admirable. It's still not enough.
You have to treat each Iraqi civilian as if he were worth two American civilians. That's the only way you can impress upon them that you're really in this for their benefit (even if you really aren't).
Thing is, Americans don't even seem to value Iraqi casualties like pet deaths and that only alienates the Iraqis more and more. You HAVE to bend over backwards to avoid civilian deaths from your fire or you WILL take the PR hit. This is just the reality of that situation.
To make matters worse, some Iraqis blame US intervention for this sectarian killing. It does make some kind of sense for a certain perspective. Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not, but this is not about what's fair. This is about war and propaganda and what's fair has limited value.
You do not want to be treated fairly. What you want is to win. Period. So you take the crap they give you and do what you need to win anyway.
To win a war you don't target the "hearts and minds" - unless it's with a bullet. Vietnam was all about touching the hearts and minds of the people. It ignored the fact that to win a war it must be brought to the people. And it was an extremely costly failure.
Touching the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese? Are we talking about the same Vietnam war? This is the same Vietnam war where US soldiers massacred civilians by the village and used chemical warfare. That's hardly what I would call endearing.
The US failed in Vietnam because it failed to win support from the North Vietnamese. There were other reasons, of course. The Iraq situation has limited comparability.
Iraq won't be as bad, but it is worse in a way. It proves that the American military is an impotent force. It has been hamstrung and neutered by the public. American citizens want a good, clean fight. We don't want any extra blood. No loss of history. And that's why it's a huge friggin' mess. War is messy, bloody and terrible. If you cannot wage a terrible war you cannot win. The enemy knows that you lack commitment and will simply bide their time bleeding you out slowly until your people say they've had enough. Vietnam. If you come fighting - actually waging war - you have a chance. Otherwise, forget it.
Well, that IS one way - that's the way of genocide. Just massacre any Iraqi who doesn't jump when you say jump, and for good measure, kill off a couple who jumped anyway.
Then replace the Iraqis with homesteaders. If you kill enough Iraqis, that could work. Eventually, you establish an American colony and put what remaining Iraqis there are in reservations, if they still have enough to justify it.
It's brutal, cruel, terrible, and a crime against humanity, but it can work.
I'm not talking about this plan, though. I have this thing against genocide.
This never should have happened. Never. The planning was so out of this world awful it should have been stopped before it started. I mean, we advertised our plan of attack on CNN. We told the enemy where we were going next. We skipped fighting in certain cities and were then surprised when the enemy moved from target cities into these and formed an effective insurgent force. And we went because of false info. Terrible. But, we're there and we can't leave just yet. The best course now is to allow the men to fight. Truly fight. Eliminate as many as you can and then pull out. Let them have whatever type of government they want. Let them have civil war if they want. But let them make their own damned decisions after we clean up our mess and get the hell out.
You can't. In more than one way, the entire Middle East situation is an American mess, though other parties have had no small dealings in there, too. In WWII, these guys were your allies. In the Cold War, you guys armed these guys against Russian aggression.
Then post-WWII victorious Allies had the gall to rob their erstwhile allies of the holy land and give them to Jews out of some sense of misplaced guilt (or political puppetry depending on who you ask). It would have been okay if these guys were moderates who were willing to live and let live, but no, you HAD to get people who were willing to persecute the very people they displaced in addition to claiming sensitive land.
Can you blame them for hating you so much?
You can't fix this by pulling out of Iraq. McCain is right about one thing. That'll only make it worse. You should NOT have attacked in the first place, info or no info. Indeed, this "false info" was outright ludicrous. Only Americans believed it, and they did so because Americans seem to have this weird tendency to believe what their leaders tell them, regardless of how far-fetched it might seem.
Now that the US IS in this mess, you have a golden opportunity to show the Islamic world you can be a secular world power. You CAN wish Islamic people well and you CAN withhold judgment on religion on a national level because religion and statecraft don't mix.
Of course, you can't do this just by handing out cash and weaponry to whatever Iraqi faction leader you think is on your side. You have to genuinely WANT to help out the Iraqis. You have to genuinely value THEM as a people. You must weep when they kill each other.
Once you can put yourself in that mindset, what to do becomes clearer.
Countrymen? What country?
Iraq is a warzone over which the various mutually hostile factions are murdering each other over long dormant blood feuds. There IS no country because the only semblance of national identity and authority rested with Saddam Hussein and guess what happened to him?
Still, it's Iraquis killing Iraquis and not American soldiers doing the job as you implied eariler.
The effort is admirable. It's still not enough.
You have to treat each Iraqi civilian as if he were worth two American civilians. That's the only way you can impress upon them that you're really in this for their benefit (even if you really aren't).
Thing is, Americans don't even seem to value Iraqi casualties like pet deaths and that only alienates the Iraqis more and more. You HAVE to bend over backwards to avoid civilian deaths from your fire or you WILL take the PR hit. This is just the reality of that situation.
To make matters worse, some Iraqis blame US intervention for this sectarian killing. It does make some kind of sense for a certain perspective. Is this fair? Maybe, maybe not, but this is not about what's fair. This is about war and propaganda and what's fair has limited value.
Yeah, it's bad when it gets to PR. "Mission Accomplished" changed people's perceptions from conflict to non. So now it's a PR thing. But you can't win like this. Because feeling bad doesn't prevent death. And telling people you're sorry that they are still being killed doesn't stop them from being killed. To do that, you must stop those that are still fighting. And a hanshake and how-do-you-do just ain't gonna' do the job.
Touching the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese? Are we talking about the same Vietnam war? This is the same Vietnam war where US soldiers massacred civilians by the village and used chemical warfare. That's hardly what I would call endearing.
It was a term used during Vietnam. With the same results it can bring to Iraq - none. There were atrocities in Vietnam. And they were comitted by both sides. When that happens, things escalate.
The US failed in Vietnam because it failed to win support from the North Vietnamese. There were other reasons, of course. The Iraq situation has limited comparability.
The US failed because it was limited politically. Targets were avoided because of a fear of angering the Chinese. Tactical importance be damned. The USSR also played no small part in our failure. They beat us in Vietnam and we beat them in Afghanistan. Not fair to the people, obviously, but that is the way things went down.
Well, that IS one way - that's the way of genocide. Just massacre any Iraqi who doesn't jump when you say jump, and for good measure, kill off a couple who jumped anyway.
Then replace the Iraqis with homesteaders. If you kill enough Iraqis, that could work. Eventually, you establish an American colony and put what remaining Iraqis there are in reservations, if they still have enough to justify it.
It's brutal, cruel, terrible, and a crime against humanity, but it can work.
I'm not talking about this plan, though. I have this thing against genocide.
I never said anything about genocide. I'm only talking about a realistic expectation of what war is and needs to do if it is to be won. Nothing more.
You can't. In more than one way, the entire Middle East situation is an American mess, though other parties have had no small dealings in there, too. In WWII, these guys were your allies. In the Cold War, you guys armed these guys against Russian aggression.
Then post-WWII victorious Allies had the gall to rob their erstwhile allies of the holy land and give them to Jews out of some sense of misplaced guilt (or political puppetry depending on who you ask). It would have been okay if these guys were moderates who were willing to live and let live, but no, you HAD to get people who were willing to persecute the very people they displaced in addition to claiming sensitive land.
Can you blame them for hating you so much?
I don't blame 'em at all. They were used as all tools are. They fulfilled a purpose and when our goals changed they were no longer useful. Not good, but that's the way the world works. And that's what happens when governments see other people as tools instead of people. I do agree that we'd have a hell of a lot less trouble if we were not allies of Israel.
You can't fix this by pulling out of Iraq. McCain is right about one thing. That'll only make it worse. You should NOT have attacked in the first place, info or no info. Indeed, this "false info" was outright ludicrous. Only Americans believed it, and they did so because Americans seem to have this weird tendency to believe what their leaders tell them, regardless of how far-fetched it might seem.
That's not entirely true. It was - and is - a coalition effort. Other peoples were hoodwinked along with the American people. And the blood of this action is not just on the hands of American politicians. Many others are equally responsible. If we hadn't had allies going in, we would not have. Not that it's their fault, of course. But this could (possibly) have been prevented with a couple of "nos" from the peanut gallery.
Now that the US IS in this mess, you have a golden opportunity to show the Islamic world you can be a secular world power. You CAN wish Islamic people well and you CAN withhold judgment on religion on a national level because religion and statecraft don't mix.
Of course, you can't do this just by handing out cash and weaponry to whatever Iraqi faction leader you think is on your side. You have to genuinely WANT to help out the Iraqis. You have to genuinely value THEM as a people. You must weep when they kill each other.
Once you can put yourself in that mindset, what to do becomes clearer.
While a noble sentiment - and one I partially agree with - it's just never gonna' happen. We do need to show tolerance and stop this insane and aged approach of cramming democracy down peoples' throats "or else". We need to let people govern themselves - however they (as a majority) wish to do so. But doing all of this isn't going to stop them from killing themselves. They've been doing it for too long. And that's why I'll not weep for them when they do. It's a shame, but it's the way they want to be. Because so many deal in absolutes and have less leeway for deviation than we do they will always war. But we need to stay the hell out of it. That's true.
Still, it's Iraquis killing Iraquis and not American soldiers doing the job as you implied eariler.
Americans kill Iraqis. Americans have been reported to ****, kill, or accidentally shoot at innocent Iraqi civilians. Whether or not this is true, the mere fact that Americans have been reported to do this is unacceptable. It would be even worse if an American body were to find this to be true (and in some instances, it actually is).
This is a major, major, major PR hit. You cannot win allegiance like this.
Yeah, it's bad when it gets to PR. "Mission Accomplished" changed people's perceptions from conflict to non. So now it's a PR thing. But you can't win like this. Because feeling bad doesn't prevent death. And telling people you're sorry that they are still being killed doesn't stop them from being killed. To do that, you must stop those that are still fighting. And a hanshake and how-do-you-do just ain't gonna' do the job.
Who said anything about feeling bad and doing seances or what not and nothing else? This is a discussion about war. Feeling bad isn't normally going to do anything by itself.
This is not about telling people you're sorry. This is about telling Iraqis that you could've launched a missile attack against a militia group but didn't because you were EXTREMELY worried about Iraqi civilian casualties. Stress the importance you place on Iraqi lives. When American soldiers die defending Iraqi civilians, broadcast it like it's the 4th of July. MAKE your soldier defend Iraqi civilian interests (not partisan interests). When you do launch that missile attack, the Iraqis MUST want it, and then your casualties will be less because the people themselves will move out of the way to help you out.
Even when you get incidental losses, they will think that you're acting in their interests and will be more willing to overlook it.
Getting the wrong target and THEN downplaying the value of the Iraqi lives lost - that's just wrong.
No risk to Iraqi civilian life should be publicly announced to be acceptable and ESPECIALLY not where the Iraqis can hear it.
When you do your action, you MAKE IT COUNT.
You cannot put down insurgency with brute force unless you're willing to wipe entire populations off the face of the map (like Saddam was).
It was a term used during Vietnam. With the same results it can bring to Iraq - none. There were atrocities in Vietnam. And they were committed by both sides. When that happens, things escalate.
BS. Atrocities were committed. That alone makes it questionable whether the US really was in it for the Vietnamese themselves. The fact that the North Vietnamese may have used comparable tactics is irrelevant.
You do not commit atrocities on people you want to save, even when they're doing that to you.
I never said anything about genocide. I'm only talking about a realistic expectation of what war is and needs to do if it is to be won. Nothing more.
You have a poor understanding of insurgency if you think it'll take anything less than population wipe to get rid of it using brute force.
I don't blame 'em at all. They were used as all tools are. They fulfilled a purpose and when our goals changed they were no longer useful. Not good, but that's the way the world works. And that's what happens when governments see other people as tools instead of people. I do agree that we'd have a hell of a lot less trouble if we were not allies of Israel.
Heck, we're allies of Isreal and we don't have as much trouble as you do. It's the whole "send them entire bucketloads of military hardware and personnel and politically support their atrocities" that REALLY gets the hackles up.
I imagine more moderate Arabs would be more accepting of the US if American hardware WASN'T used to kill entire segments of their family trees.
That's not entirely true. It was - and is - a coalition effort. Other peoples were hoodwinked along with the American people. And the blood of this action is not just on the hands of American politicians. Many others are equally responsible. If we hadn't had allies going in, we would not have. Not that it's their fault, of course. But this could (possibly) have been prevented with a couple of "nos" from the peanut gallery.
DUDE. Every nation in Europe and beyond was against invasion and made no secret of it. In fact, the Philippine contingent went as a NONcombatant adjunct, and only because the US specifically asked with a nice hefty political club to back up the request.
Most of the military action during the invasion was American. The allied support was strictly nonessential. Whether or not it had allies, the US WAS ready to go in - it was just more palatable to the American public to say that it wasn't a unilateral action, even when it was in all but name.
It's well known that Tony Blair took a huge political hit for advocating for the invasion and that the British people, and the French people, among others, were strongly against it.
The UN itself advocated against the US plan of invasion. How many more "no"'s do you need?
While a noble sentiment - and one I partially agree with - it's just never gonna' happen. We do need to show tolerance and stop this insane and aged approach of cramming democracy down peoples' throats "or else". We need to let people govern themselves - however they (as a majority) wish to do so. But doing all of this isn't going to stop them from killing themselves. They've been doing it for too long. And that's why I'll not weep for them when they do. It's a shame, but it's the way they want to be. Because so many deal in absolutes and have less leeway for deviation than we do they will always war. But we need to stay the hell out of it. That's true.
That is no longer an option. The US is already smack dab square in this Middle Eastern insanity and anything it does with this will be forever more attached to its prestige and influence.
If the US hadn't invaded, you might have a case there, but it's too late for that.
You don't have to really care. You just have to pretend that you do. You have to pretend to care about Iraqi dead whenever there's sectarian violence. You HAVE to be the voice that says, "Can't we just all get along?" backed up with a BFG.
Saying, "I don't care," or "Woohoo! Kill them all!" doesn't not endear the US to anyone, least of all to Iraqis in general.
Whatever you might REALLY believe, you have to think like you care or you won't know how to properly react and institute proactive solutions. You can put in the meathooks later on.
[b]Americans kill Iraqis. Americans have been reported to ****, kill, or accidentally shoot at innocent Iraqi civilians. Whether or not this is true, the mere fact that Americans have been reported to do this is unacceptable. It would be even worse if an American body were to find this to be true (and in some instances, it actually is).
This is a major, major, major PR hit. You cannot win allegiance like this.
It's war. These things do happen - always. You'll get sickos in the military just like everywhere else. It is revolting and should be punished harshly. And publicly. My point was not that we don't have nut-job psychos practicing their craft in cammies, but that the vast majority of civilian dead are not killed by Americans. Not even close.
Who said anything about feeling bad and doing seances or what not and nothing else? This is a discussion about war. Feeling bad isn't normally going to do anything by itself.
This is not about telling people you're sorry. This is about telling Iraqis that you could've launched a missile attack against a militia group but didn't because you were EXTREMELY worried about Iraqi civilian casualties. Stress the importance you place on Iraqi lives. When American soldiers die defending Iraqi civilians, broadcast it like it's the 4th of July. MAKE your soldier defend Iraqi civilian interests (not partisan interests). When you do launch that missile attack, the Iraqis MUST want it, and then your casualties will be less because the people themselves will move out of the way to help you out.
I'm sure it would be comforting to the people the militia kills that we could have launched a strike but chose not to so we did not kill any civilians. It's great that we passed that job on to the militia. Let's keep it in-house.
It's a good idea. Really. But it's not practical. Unfortunately, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't because we did. If we broadcast a soldier's death - no matter how noble - we alienate our own people. They don't care about Iraquis as they do their own children. To ask them to do so is nuts. So, the Iraquis may honor the fallen man and his country, but his own people will cry for an exit because, to them, it's not worth it. And when the people give up 100%, it's over. And then we leave and come off worse than ever.
Even when you get incidental losses, they will think that you're acting in their interests and will be more willing to overlook it.
I doubt it. It's still death from an American mistake. And that never goes over well.
Getting the wrong target and THEN downplaying the value of the Iraqi lives lost - that's just wrong.
No risk to Iraqi civilian life should be publicly announced to be acceptable and ESPECIALLY not where the Iraqis can hear it.
Agreed.
You cannot put down insurgency with brute force unless you're willing to wipe entire populations off the face of the map (like Saddam was).
You can't stop it, no. But you can kill enough to make it too dangerous a business. Some non-combatants will die. That's how the game is played. But you don't need to wipe out entire villages, either.
BS. Atrocities were committed. That alone makes it questionable whether the US really was in it for the Vietnamese themselves. The fact that the North Vietnamese may have used comparable tactics is irrelevant.
You do not commit atrocities on people you want to save, even when they're doing that to you.
The US was in no way in it for the Vietnamese. Not even close. I also was not condoning the atrocities commited by American soldiers nor those of their counterparts. I was giving an explanation for why they happened. You torture and mutilate my guys and I'm gonna' get you back. That's the thinking. And it was done intentionally by the Vietnamese to make our people at home sick with war and sick with our warriors. It was a hit they were willing to take. They took the war to their own people and, in the way they did it, took the war to ours. Ours got sick before theirs did. And that's why we left.
And when a people commit atrocities against you, you kinda don't want to save them any longer.
You have a poor understanding of insurgency if you think it'll take anything less than population wipe to get rid of it using brute force.
I have no illusion of ridding the area of insurgency. War is a religion in this area. It always has been and always will be. But you can suppress it long enough to get things stable enough to leave. Once suppressed, we have to hope that the people can fix their problems enough to cease it. I don't think that's even possible. But we can probably calm it enough to get out.
Heck, we're allies of Isreal and we don't have as much trouble as you do. It's the whole "send them entire bucketloads of military hardware and personnel and politically support their atrocities" that REALLY gets the hackles up.
I imagine more moderate Arabs would be more accepting of the US if American hardware WASN'T used to kill entire segments of their family trees.
I can understand that. But they are an ally. And we are not generally permitted to go to our buddies' playgrounds and beat up the bully for them. When we do, we get Iraq. And to fight in Israel's stead would give the impression they are too weak to handle things themselves leading eventually to us being a permanent Israeli police force or the fall of an ally. Neither of which is acceptible to the gov't. So we give 'em guns. Just like China, Russia, Iran, etc do for their enemies. So they may be killed by American planes, but they kill with Chinese rockets. Pointing fingers here is just silly. It's not our fault our gifts are better than the ones the Arabs get from their pals. ;)
DUDE. Every nation in Europe and beyond was against invasion and made no secret of it. In fact, the Philippine contingent went as a NONcombatant adjunct, and only because the US specifically asked with a nice hefty political club to back up the request.
Most of the military action during the invasion was American. The allied support was strictly nonessential. Whether or not it had allies, the US WAS ready to go in - it was just more palatable to the American public to say that it wasn't a unilateral action, even when it was in all but name.
I certainly hope you wouldn't tell this to the many servicemen from European countries that gave their lives in Iraq. The Brits played (and still play) a major role. Polish special forces participated as well. Japan provided logistic support - since they are banned from aggressive military action. We took the most of it on because it was our (stupid) baby. And because we are a larger force than the others. We had support. Denying that is, well, a lie.
It's well known that Tony Blair took a huge political hit for advocating for the invasion and that the British people, and the French people, among others, were strongly against it.
The UN itself advocated against the US plan of invasion. How many more "no"'s do you need?
Yeah, that's fair. I concede the point. We would have went no matter what. Others compromised themselves and helped, but even if they did not we'd have still gone.
That is no longer an option. The US is already smack dab square in this Middle Eastern insanity and anything it does with this will be forever more attached to its prestige and influence.
If the US hadn't invaded, you might have a case there, but it's too late for that.
You don't have to really care. You just have to pretend that you do. You have to pretend to care about Iraqi dead whenever there's sectarian violence. You HAVE to be the voice that says, "Can't we just all get along?" backed up with a BFG.
Saying, "I don't care," or "Woohoo! Kill them all!" doesn't not endear the US to anyone, least of all to Iraqis in general.
Whatever you might REALLY believe, you have to think like you care or you won't know how to properly react and institute proactive solutions. You can put in the meathooks later on.
I think we're too far gone now to salvage any opinion of us in the region. And the area and it's peoples' penchant for conflict are not going to help us change that. That's why I think we'd be a lot better off doing this quickly. We aren't going to fool anyone so we need to just be done with it. Aggressive action with overwhelming force, attempt some stabilization and then get out. It's never going to be Germany or Japan. There will always be strife and blood. Thinking we can somehow change that by pretending to care (or actually caring) is a bit too optimisic to me. We never should have gone there because it's simply impossible for us to change anything. Nothing we can do will somehow help. Sectarian violence and tribal grudges aren't going to vanish if we pretend to care about Iraquis. Cuz they have always killed each other and always will. Until there is harmony between the people of the region, there will be blood shed. And it's arrogant to think anyone can do anything to change this.
It's war. These things do happen - always. You'll get sickos in the military just like everywhere else. It is revolting and should be punished harshly. And publicly. My point was not that we don't have nut-job psychos practicing their craft in cammies, but that the vast majority of civilian dead are not killed by Americans. Not even close.
That's irrelevant. Whenever an Iraqi is killed by an American, you take a PR hit. **** is not inevitable. They don't ALWAYS happen. For instance, you could do it like the Nazis did in WWII. Any observed **** or pillaging is immediately punishable by death, no trial necessary. That'll get them thinking twice, and at the very least, you kill the bad apples early on.
I'm sure it would be comforting to the people the militia kills that we could have launched a strike but chose not to so we did not kill any civilians. It's great that we passed that job on to the militia. Let's keep it in-house.
What does it matter if they're comforted or not? If they suffer, so much the better!
You've expressed your sympathy and you've advertised the risks and advantages. If they ask for it later, you give it and then they'll only have themselves to blame for asking if anything goes wrong. The point is to make yourself look good, not to comfort the suffering.
It's a good idea. Really. But it's not practical. Unfortunately, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't because we did. If we broadcast a soldier's death - no matter how noble - we alienate our own people. They don't care about Iraquis as they do their own children. To ask them to do so is nuts. So, the Iraquis may honor the fallen man and his country, but his own people will cry for an exit because, to them, it's not worth it. And when the people give up 100%, it's over. And then we leave and come off worse than ever.
This is one of the reasons why this was a bad war to get into. Americans REALLY can't care less about Iraqis. They'd condemn a hundred thousand Iraqi babies to death before accepting an American casualty. Some Americans openly laugh at Iraqi deaths.
Bad, bad, bad.
It's exceedingly hard to win the hearts and minds of a people when your own people think of them as subhuman.
I doubt it. It's still death from an American mistake. And that never goes over well.
You'd be surprised. Informed consent and rapport are wonderful things.
You can't stop it, no. But you can kill enough to make it too dangerous a business. Some non-combatants will die. That's how the game is played. But you don't need to wipe out entire villages, either.
When you're willing to suicide yourself against the hated Americans for a few men in exchange, nothing is too dangerous a business.
I have no illusion of ridding the area of insurgency. War is a religion in this area. It always has been and always will be. But you can suppress it long enough to get things stable enough to leave. Once suppressed, we have to hope that the people can fix their problems enough to cease it. I don't think that's even possible. But we can probably calm it enough to get out.
It's possible. It's hard, but it IS possible.
Pointing fingers here is just silly. It's not our fault our gifts are better than the ones the Arabs get from their pals.
It's not silly. It's reality. Arabs blame Americans for Isreal more because of the free arms the US provides Isreal, not to mention the money. If the US weren't so generous or were less blindly supportive, it would go over better.
A simple stern public rebuke at the way civilian Palestinians are being treated (a rebuke that's totally defensible on nearly every level) would have done much to improve American image in the Middle East.
Is that really so hard to do?
I think we're too far gone now to salvage any opinion of us in the region. And the area and it's peoples' penchant for conflict are not going to help us change that. That's why I think we'd be a lot better off doing this quickly. We aren't going to fool anyone so we need to just be done with it. Aggressive action with overwhelming force, attempt some stabilization and then get out. It's never going to be Germany or Japan. There will always be strife and blood. Thinking we can somehow change that by pretending to care (or actually caring) is a bit too optimisic to me. We never should have gone there because it's simply impossible for us to change anything. Nothing we can do will somehow help. Sectarian violence and tribal grudges aren't going to vanish if we pretend to care about Iraquis. Cuz they have always killed each other and always will. Until there is harmony between the people of the region, there will be blood shed. And it's arrogant to think anyone can do anything to change this.
Good PR and pretending to care gives you moral ascendancy and with moral ascendancy you can commit all manner of brute force actions that would otherwise be questionable - and those actions WON'T generate fanatic rebellion in the local observers.
Make yourself out to be the good guys and blast the damned violent fanatics into kingdom come. There ARE moderates in Iraq. In fact, most Iraqis are sick and tired of all the senseless killing. You paint yourself gold, then you level a gun and shoot at anyone else who's shooting, without regard for factions and politics. It's the core concept of the rule of law, and I daresay the average Iraqi will love it, even if he has to share his mosque space with a Sunni.
That's irrelevant. Whenever an Iraqi is killed by an American, you take a PR hit. **** is not inevitable. They don't ALWAYS happen. For instance, you could do it like the Nazis did in WWII. Any observed **** or pillaging is immediately punishable by death, no trial necessary. That'll get them thinking twice, and at the very least, you kill the bad apples early on.
Ask the Russians about this Nazi honor. There was none. Ask the Jews, the French and the Poles who's museums and homes were looted to furnish Hitler's personal museums and homes and Goering's art collection. **** is a part of war. It always has been. It's an expression of hatred for the people shooting you. It's terrbily wrong, of course, but it has always happened.
I'm quite surprised to see Nazis referenced as a point of good in war. They were brutal racists who were allowed to abuse the populace of any conquered land with impunity. They raped their way to Stalingrad. And the Russians - in reprisal - raped their way to Berlin. Hell, Nazis even sequestered Nordic (****) women in breeding centers for SS officers. While the punishment you've suggested is a good plan, the Nazis were not the men that used it.
What does it matter if they're comforted or not? If they suffer, so much the better!
You've expressed your sympathy and you've advertised the risks and advantages. If they ask for it later, you give it and then they'll only have themselves to blame for asking if anything goes wrong. The point is to make yourself look good, not to comfort the suffering.
I can get behind this. Really. It's just that I think it's far too late. We're at the point that we truly are damned no matter what (in)action we take. I understand what you're getting at and believe it would work. We have just messed things up too much to do this now.
This is one of the reasons why this was a bad war to get into. Americans REALLY can't care less about Iraqis. They'd condemn a hundred thousand Iraqi babies to death before accepting an American casualty. Some Americans openly laugh at Iraqi deaths.
That's a bit of an exaggeration - I hope. Americans really do care more for their own. Just like Iraquis care more for theirs. And yours for theirs. That's just how it works. We value the familiar more. Sad, but true. If it wasn't, war would be an impossibility.
Some Americans have laughed at Iraqi deaths. I don't doubt it. But American deaths have had the same treatment from many other people. I know we can't get the PR we want if we laugh. But there's ass***** everywhere. It's not an American problem. It's a people thing.
It's exceedingly hard to win the hearts and minds of a people when your own people think of them as subhuman.
Umm. I don't think anyone here thinks of them as subhumans. Well, I'm sure there's a few morons that do, but it's hardly the feeling of the nation. American soldiers, otoh, are though of as subhumans. Because they're not Arab and the support the Zionists. It's kind of hard to "save" a people that hates you on a spiritual level.
When you're willing to suicide yourself against the hated Americans for a few men in exchange, nothing is too dangerous a business.
That's very true. And that's why the force used needs to be pretty damned huge. If they use a mosque to plan, stage, incite or defend in an attack, for example, blow it off the face of the earth. We can't do that, so it makes it difficult to fight. It makes us look like we are not committed to the fight.. Which is true. But if we were allowed to take the choke chain off, I'm confident we could make it bad enough to temper things for a bit.
It's not silly. It's reality. Arabs blame Americans for Isreal more because of the free arms the US provides Isreal, not to mention the money. If the US weren't so generous or were less blindly supportive, it would go over better.
A simple stern public rebuke at the way civilian Palestinians are being treated (a rebuke that's totally defensible on nearly every level) would have done much to improve American image in the Middle East.
I'm not supporting the blind support of Israel. Not in the least. But there's a lot more going on in that region than meets the eye. What should we do? Abandon our ally and let Iran and her cronies wipe Israel off the face of the earth - literally? Honestly, I'd rather we just got the hell out of that region and let them kill each other like they're itching to do. But with Israel and oil, we can't. We'd have much less trouble if we'd let them kill Israel off, no doubt, but that's kind of hard to allow to happen to an ally.
Good PR and pretending to care gives you moral ascendancy and with moral ascendancy you can commit all manner of brute force actions that would otherwise be questionable - and those actions WON'T generate fanatic rebellion in the local observers.
Make yourself out to be the good guys and blast the damned violent fanatics into kingdom come. There ARE moderates in Iraq. In fact, most Iraqis are sick and tired of all the senseless killing. You paint yourself gold, then you level a gun and shoot at anyone else who's shooting, without regard for factions and politics. It's the core concept of the rule of law, and I daresay the average Iraqi will love it, even if he has to share his mosque space with a Sunni.
I don't think we'd be able to have enough influence to make everyone happy praying with a Sunni. As I've said, they've been killing each other since killing has existed. And they will continue. Even if it's possible to do a 180 with our PR over there, it takes time. And I'd rather be done now. So let's suck it up, do whatever it takes to clean it up enough to leave and then get out. It's too late. This is a black eye that's never going away. So suck it up and get out in the most efficient and safest way possible, IMO.
I'm quite surprised to see Nazis referenced as a point of good in war. They were brutal racists who were allowed to abuse the populace of any conquered land with impunity. They raped their way to Stalingrad. And the Russians - in reprisal - raped their way to Berlin. Hell, Nazis even sequestered Nordic (****) women in breeding centers for SS officers. While the punishment you've suggested is a good plan, the Nazis were not the men that used it.
Not as a rule, no, but certainly Rommel's command did so. The conflict between the Germans and the British in Africa was also known as the Gentleman's War and it wasn't because gentlemen raped as they went.
Ask the Russians about this Nazi honor. There was none. Ask the Jews, the French and the Poles who's museums and homes were looted to furnish Hitler's personal museums and homes and Goering's art collection. **** is a part of war. It always has been. It's an expression of hatred for the people shooting you. It's terribly wrong, of course, but it has always happened.
Not always.
For another reference, Genghis Khan's campaign of destruction against a Persian successor-state(?). Cities killed to a body systematically without taking any women.
I understand the modus operandi was rather straightforward. Surrender and no attack happens (no raping there) or resist and get killed to a man (no raping either).
I can get behind this. Really. It's just that I think it's far too late. We're at the point that we truly are damned no matter what (in)action we take. I understand what you're getting at and believe it would work. We have just messed things up too much to do this now.
You might be right there, but as long as you're in the field anyway, good PR practices is just good, professional, military practice.
That's a bit of an exaggeration - I hope. Americans really do care more for their own. Just like Iraquis care more for theirs. And yours for theirs. That's just how it works. We value the familiar more. Sad, but true. If it wasn't, war would be an impossibility.
Actually, I'm equally apathetic to all nationalities, even my own. This is one of the reasons why the Philippines is a peaceable nation.
I care for the Iraqis as much as I care about people in general, so while I can't say that I love them or anything, I also wouldn't condone nor would I be sympathetic to Philippine soldiers raping them or whatever.
Some Americans have laughed at Iraqi deaths. I don't doubt it. But American deaths have had the same treatment from many other people. I know we can't get the PR we want if we laugh. But there's ass***** everywhere. It's not an American problem. It's a people thing.
It's actually a nationalist problem. All peoples who rate foreign peoples as subhuman have this problem. It's definitely not a people problem in general.
Umm. I don't think anyone here thinks of them as subhumans. Well, I'm sure there's a few morons that do, but it's hardly the feeling of the nation. American soldiers, otoh, are though of as subhumans. Because they're not Arab and the support the Zionists. It's kind of hard to "save" a people that hates you on a spiritual level.
Iraqi lives are a statistic, nothing more. Bad news about most Northwestern peoples gets a great deal of sympathy from Americans in general. Bad news in Japan gets a significant feeling of sympathy as well. Heck Chinese tragedies get more of a rise from Americans.
Iraqi deaths numbering on the level of a nuclear attack? Nothing.
That's very true. And that's why the force used needs to be pretty damned huge. If they use a mosque to plan, stage, incite or defend in an attack, for example, blow it off the face of the earth. We can't do that, so it makes it difficult to fight. It makes us look like we are not committed to the fight.. Which is true. But if we were allowed to take the choke chain off, I'm confident we could make it bad enough to temper things for a bit.
NO force is great enough to dissuade a man who believes that his immortal life is on the line.
A mosque is not a building. A mosque is the people. Destroying the building only relocates the activity, nothing more. To destroy the mosque's essence, you have to eliminate its people.
I'm not supporting the blind support of Israel. Not in the least. But there's a lot more going on in that region than meets the eye. What should we do? Abandon our ally and let Iran and her cronies wipe Israel off the face of the earth - literally? Honestly, I'd rather we just got the hell out of that region and let them kill each other like they're itching to do. But with Israel and oil, we can't. We'd have much less trouble if we'd let them kill Israel off, no doubt, but that's kind of hard to allow to happen to an ally.
Well, the US did it to South Vietnam so it can't be that bad.
For that matter, the US invaded the Philippines while still technically under a military alliance. I mean, you can't think too highly of any alliance if you're willing to invade an erstwhile ally in a backstab like that.
If the US didn't behave like Israel's lapdog, perhaps Iran wouldn't be so hostile, and the oil would be much more available, yes?
In any case, I don't think Israel being gone would be too good for American prestige in the short term, but the US COULD at least be a little more critical of Israel's more morally reprehensible actions, right?
I mean, here China institutes local police action in Tibet (a traditionally orbital state) with what is a relatively bloodless control of violent rioting and everyone's up in arms. Israel institutes Palestinian hamletting and Americans are almost completely silent.
One of those is a clear violation of the Geneva conventions and it's not the Chinese action.
I don't think we'd be able to have enough influence to make everyone happy praying with a Sunni. As I've said, they've been killing each other since killing has existed. And they will continue. Even if it's possible to do a 180 with our PR over there, it takes time. And I'd rather be done now. So let's suck it up, do whatever it takes to clean it up enough to leave and then get out. It's too late. This is a black eye that's never going away. So suck it up and get out in the most efficient and safest way possible, IMO.
Shrug. Iran and Saudi Arabia aren't about to go to war with each other, so clearly those religious differences aren't nearly as necessarily violent as you suppose.
Make the image shine, force everyone to play nice, and kill everyone else who doesn't. The PR turnaround WILL take a lot of time on account of the terrible job the US military has done with it so far, but it IS doable.
Not as a rule, no, but certainly Rommel's command did so. The conflict between the Germans and the British in Africa was also known as the Gentleman's War and it wasn't because gentlemen raped as they went.
True. Rommel was of a different sort than most. But part of the reason it was fought this way was that there are less women in the open deserts where this was fought. And, though controlled by the enemy, the people were not Brits or Germans. Though that would not have mattered. There were a great many British Nazi sympathizers. The reason? Respect. And you don't **** the women of people you respect. That respect fell apart after the accidental bombing of London, of course, but by then it was too late for any sort of untoward action. The Germans (fascists) hated the Russians (communists) on a pretty epic level. So, in this theater, it was much more violent. American and Japanses soldiers also desecrated corpses of fallen enemies. Hmm. I guess it ties into your subhuman idea pretty well. Cuz that's what did it.
For another reference, Genghis Khan's campaign of destruction against a Persian successor-state(?). Cities killed to a body systematically without taking any women.
I understand the modus operandi was rather straightforward. Surrender and no attack happens (no raping there) or resist and get killed to a man (no raping either).
That's what I get for using too broad of terms. I should have just said it was common enough a behavior and left it at that. It is, of course, and there are many cases where it does not happen.
You might be right there, but as long as you're in the field anyway, good PR practices is just good, professional, military practice.
It's true. And they do try. We give a lot of equipment like radios, etc to civvies. It helps them keep in contact with family members and we do it in good faith as radios obviously could be used against us. It's a small gesture that gets little media representation (cuz it ain't abotu **** and killin') that does seem to help ever so slightly. But small deeds are just that - small. And we've gone past that point.
Actually, I'm equally apathetic to all nationalities, even my own. This is one of the reasons why the Philippines is a peaceable nation.
I care for the Iraqis as much as I care about people in general, so while I can't say that I love them or anything, I also wouldn't condone nor would I be sympathetic to Philippine soldiers raping them or whatever.
Fair enough. I just want to make it clear that I do not condone the abberant actions of American soldier-rapists/murderers.
It's actually a nationalist problem. All peoples who rate foreign peoples as subhuman have this problem. It's definitely not a people problem in general.
Very true. That's why I have little hope of ever coming to terms with radical Islamists. They hate in a different way. So there's no placating them. Look at the recent prisoner exchange between Israel and the Palestinians. The Israleis released several men. One, upon his arrival home, told the media that Israel needs to be destroyed and basically said he'd go right back over and kill some more kids. What did Israel get in return? Two bodies and taunting news of another missing man. And demands for more releases. These people cannot be reasoned with. By that I mean all people that feel that strongly about anything - nationality, tribal membership, religion, politics or whatever.
Iraqi lives are a statistic, nothing more. Bad news about most Northwestern peoples gets a great deal of sympathy from Americans in general. Bad news in Japan gets a significant feeling of sympathy as well. Heck Chinese tragedies get more of a rise from Americans.
Iraqi deaths numbering on the level of a nuclear attack? Nothing.
Actually, to most, Americans lost are just statistics too. We don't "get it" because we aren't there. If we are directly involved (family member, friend) then we feel. Still, I don't know how you get this since you are not an American yourself. Are we really portrayed as that heartless? I assure you it's not the case.
NO force is great enough to dissuade a man who believes that his immortal life is on the line.
True. I guess I mean killing enough of them will mitigate the damage they can cause. You're certainly not going to scare them off.
A mosque is not a building. A mosque is the people. Destroying the building only relocates the activity, nothing more. To destroy the mosque's essence, you have to eliminate its people.
I mean killing anyone in it or near it. If you take fire from a mosque, pull out like we normally do since we can't target them. Then have the AF drop a MOAB on it. Level the entire block. That is serious business. And it should send a message. Use a mosque and you will lose it. And a hell of a lot more. But it will never happen. And you're right. It won't solve the problem. It can, however, lessen the use of this tactic and pull the enemy from it's religious sanctuary. Still, you can't crush a religious fanatic without destroying his religion. And that means everyone that follows it. And that is impossible. And, of course, wrong on a very high level.
If the US didn't behave like Israel's lapdog, perhaps Iran wouldn't be so hostile, and the oil would be much more available, yes?
That's the common belief. I'm not too sure as they generally ask for more and more once you give them anything (see prisoner exchange commentary). It is a disinct possibility. But working with madmen fanatics is difficult at best. And that's what he is. "Death to Israel, death to the west! Oh wait, I didn't say that! Oh, and btw, there's no gays in my country." Riiight.
In any case, I don't think Israel being gone would be too good for American prestige in the short term, but the US COULD at least be a little more critical of Israel's more morally reprehensible actions, right?
Certainly. And that may actually help change some opinions about us - ever so slightly.
Shrug. Iran and Saudi Arabia aren't about to go to war with each other, so clearly those religious differences aren't nearly as necessarily violent as you suppose.
It is pretty bad, though. And Iran won't attack the Saudis while we're still suckling from their oil-teats. Oh, Saudis also own a hell of alot of this country, too. So, we kinda have to have their back. And everyone knows it. The UAE is exactly the same. They have no military to speak of because we'd absolutely have to save them. And everyone knows it.
Make the image shine, force everyone to play nice, and kill everyone else who doesn't. The PR turnaround WILL take a lot of time on account of the terrible job the US military has done with it so far, but it IS doable.
See, I like your style on this. I just think it's too far gone. I hope you're right and I hope the government eventually sees it and gives it a go. But I have little faith in it actually happening.
It's true. And they do try. We give a lot of equipment like radios, etc to civvies. It helps them keep in contact with family members and we do it in good faith as radios obviously could be used against us. It's a small gesture that gets little media representation (cuz it ain't abotu **** and killin') that does seem to help ever so slightly. But small deeds are just that - small. And we've gone past that point.
The military needs to take propaganda actions more seriously.
**** and murder charges NEED to be dealt with extremely harshly and publicly, not with kid gloves. This is not only to improve your own PR and to curtail possible future offenses, but is also cheaper in the long run. NOT having to fight an image of your forces as murdering psychopaths costs less and does more than giving radios away.
Radios are bad things to give away - they're justifiably seen only as surplus, not a dedicated effort to aid Iraqis. It's the difference between receiving a pencil from your pencil factory worker friend and receiving a engraved pen.
The fact that it can be used against you is even worse. This isn't about you. This isn't about what CAN be used against you or what you think is good faith. This is about them. This about what THEY think and what contributes to a good image. Secretly doling out radios is practically worthless as a PR action, even though it is a useful device and it tells some individuals that you're giving in good faith.
What you want is something big, magnanimous, and bombastic. It doesn't have to actually make their lives better. It just has to make you look good.
Eyes on the ball and all that.
Very true. That's why I have little hope of ever coming to terms with radical Islamists. They hate in a different way. So there's no placating them. Look at the recent prisoner exchange between Israel and the Palestinians. The Israleis released several men. One, upon his arrival home, told the media that Israel needs to be destroyed and basically said he'd go right back over and kill some more kids. What did Israel get in return? Two bodies and taunting news of another missing man. And demands for more releases. These people cannot be reasoned with. By that I mean all people that feel that strongly about anything - nationality, tribal membership, religion, politics or whatever.
We're not talking about reason. We're not talking about debate. What we're talking about is propaganda, and that doesn't HAVE to make sense. It just has to hit the right target.
You can placate a radical Islamist in the first place and most Iraqis aren't radical Islamists anyhow.
The one incident between Israel and Palestine is just an indication of how insane it's getting. Israel is going to have to eat a lot more uneven exchanges like that if they want to give the Palestinians the impression that they've turned over a new leaf.
Retaliation in kind just undermines positive propaganda. That's not good.
Actually, to most, Americans lost are just statistics too. We don't "get it" because we aren't there. If we are directly involved (family member, friend) then we feel. Still, I don't know how you get this since you are not an American yourself. Are we really portrayed as that heartless? I assure you it's not the case.
American deaths are reported nearly weekly in CNN and Fox. It also appears regularly in US papers. Iraqi deaths are not given as much attention.
An American marine is accused of a brutal **** against an innocent Iraqi and he's also accused of massacring all family and witnesses to cover it up; AND there's an indication that it's completely true (since some of his fellows have offered testimony against him in exchange for leniency).
Where is the outrage? If this had been perpetrated against a fellow American, the US media would be crying for blood. The nets would be ablaze with outrage. **** and THEN massacre the family to cover it up? That's horrific.
If an Iraqi force was suspected of doing any such thing to an American family in Iraq, it would likewise also generate a lot of outrage. Certainly, I can see it strengthening support for stronger military occupation.
Instead we get a great big blah. An Iraqi girl was brutally violated by Americans and her family killed and Americans don't care. Is that heartless? You decide.
Compare this to the South Koreans. An American with South Korean ancestry commits a massacre and THEY issue a public national apology. It's not even their fault and they're saying sorry.
True. I guess I mean killing enough of them will mitigate the damage they can cause. You're certainly not going to scare them off.
A martyr is worse than a live soldier. You can't kill insurgents who turn into martyrs. That just recruits more. What you want to is rob them of moral power, THEN kill them.
That's the common belief. I'm not too sure as they generally ask for more and more once you give them anything (see prisoner exchange commentary). It is a disinct possibility. But working with madmen fanatics is difficult at best. And that's what he is. "Death to Israel, death to the west! Oh wait, I didn't say that! Oh, and btw, there's no gays in my country." Riiight.
There's every indication that as far as public image is concerned, he's no more insane than Bush.
Which isn't saying much, but there you have it.
It is pretty bad, though. And Iran won't attack the Saudis while we're still suckling from their oil-teats. Oh, Saudis also own a hell of a lot of this country, too. So, we kinda have to have their back. And everyone knows it. The UAE is exactly the same. They have no military to speak of because we'd absolutely have to save them. And everyone knows it.
All the more reason to favor moderates - they can be threatened with force. Insane fanatics like the Taliban cannot.
See, I like your style on this. I just think it's too far gone. I hope you're right and I hope the government eventually sees it and gives it a go. But I have little faith in it actually happening.
I'm actually of like mind, but I do hope.
In any case, I don't think Israel being gone would be too good for American prestige in the short term, but the US COULD at least be a little more critical of Israel's more morally reprehensible actions, right?
Israel recently released a number of convicted terrorists to Lebanon in exchange for the return of two soldiers kidnapped several years ago by Hamas that triggered the Israeli campaign against Hamas in Lebanaon.
The soldiers returned to Israel were dead, and their bodies had been abused.
Nobody condemned the violations of international law in their treatment.
Among the terrorists returned to Lebanon was one who had murdered a man in front of his 4-year old daughter, then bashed the little girl's head in with a rifle butt. He was greeted as a hero, praised for his actions by both the Lebanese and Palestinian governments, and expressed his desire to kill again.
Nobody condemned the actions of those government representatives.
The US COULD be a lot more critical of the morally obscene actions of terrorists and the Arab states that treat them as heroes.
Actually, I'm equally apathetic to all nationalities, even my own. This is one of the reasons why the Philippines is a peaceable nation.
Does that include the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the 40 year war against separatists?
Then post-WWII victorious Allies had the gall to rob their erstwhile allies of the holy land and give them to Jews out of some sense of misplaced guilt (or political puppetry depending on who you ask). It would have been okay if these guys were moderates who were willing to live and let live, but no, you HAD to get people who were willing to persecute the very people they displaced in addition to claiming sensitive land.
What erstwhile allies? The Muslims of the Palestine Mandate supported the Germans, not the Allies during WW II.
Conversely the Jews of the Palestine Mandate had actively supported the allies during WW II, as they had during WW I.
As for finding moderates, the moderates were overwhelmingly in charge of Israel when it was created, and went out of their way to find accommodations with those they were willing to share the land with.
Further, a large number of the sites holy to Jews and Christians within the partitioned Palestine Mandate were originally within the Arab zone, and Jerusalem was supposed to be an open, international city. Following the 1948 war initiated by Arab extremists, Jerusalem was illegally claimed by Jordan, and Jews were expelled from almost all Arab countries.
Iraq is a warzone over which the various mutually hostile factions are murdering each other over long dormant blood feuds. There IS no country because the only semblance of national identity and authority rested with Saddam Hussein and guess what happened to him?
In case you have not gotten the news, there was this thing called the "Surge".
It has worked. The Islamic terrorists are abandoning Iraq and going to Afghanistan. Iraq, while still subject to terrorist attacks, has transformed from an open warzone.
The US has spent about $48 BILLION rebuilding Iraq, even while Iraq is projecting a budget surplus equal to or greater than that from surging oil revnues. The only people likely to stage a violent uprising against the US government over that are Americans.
Make the image shine, force everyone to play nice, and kill everyone else who doesn't. The PR turnaround WILL take a lot of time on account of the terrible job the US military has done with it so far, but it IS doable.
The US military has done an incredible job so far.
For the first time since Tacitus quoted Calgacus, an army turns those words around, and where an Arab nationalist (Saddam Hussein) and Islamic terrorists would have made a wasteland they are building a nation, and calling is "peace".
The only people who hate the US are those who are upset they are not getting the credit for the victory, or those who want to establish a terrorist world-state. The people the US are helping are quite pleased with being helped.
As for trying to blame Israel for existing and the US for supporting Israel, until all nations are subject to having their choice of allies subject to American and Israeli approval, any such condemnation is not worth treating seriously.
The US COULD be a lot more critical of the morally obscene actions of terrorists and the Arab states that treat them as heroes.
The US is already "fighting a war against terrorism." How much more critical can you get?
Does that include the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the 40 year war against separatists?
You don't really understand the specifics of that situation, so I don't think you should be bandying it about.
For the most part, these groups are bandits, not actual separatists, and the government allows them to live because the conflict justifies military budgeting and the kickbacks that go with it.
The decisive death of the Huks and the NPA and many other such groups illustrates that where there is political will, wiping out these little bandit groups is doable.
What erstwhile allies? The Muslims of the Palestine Mandate supported the Germans, not the Allies during WW II.
Conversely the Jews of the Palestine Mandate had actively supported the allies during WW II, as they had during WW I.
As for finding moderates, the moderates were overwhelmingly in charge of Israel when it was created, and went out of their way to find accommodations with those they were willing to share the land with.
Further, a large number of the sites holy to Jews and Christians within the partitioned Palestine Mandate were originally within the Arab zone, and Jerusalem was supposed to be an open, international city. Following the 1948 war initiated by Arab extremists, Jerusalem was illegally claimed by Jordan, and Jews were expelled from almost all Arab countries.
I don't know that Israel was "moderate" even when it was created. It seemed to have been on the wrong foot ever since it got founded.
In case you have not gotten the news, there was this thing called the "Surge".
It has worked. The Islamic terrorists are abandoning Iraq and going to Afghanistan. Iraq, while still subject to terrorist attacks, has transformed from an open warzone.
The US has spent about $48 BILLION rebuilding Iraq, even while Iraq is projecting a budget surplus equal to or greater than that from surging oil revenues. The only people likely to stage a violent uprising against the US government over that are Americans.
Relocating the warzone slightly in the face of a military occupation you can't really sustain isn't a viable solution.
The general consensus is that if you pull those guys out, the Islamic extremists have the people and the money to simply move back in.
The US military has done an incredible job so far.
For the first time since Tacitus quoted Calgacus, an army turns those words around, and where an Arab nationalist (Saddam Hussein) and Islamic terrorists would have made a wasteland they are building a nation, and calling is "peace".
An incredible job? Most people are calling the Iraqi invasion an outright disaster and there's justification for that.
Time will tell whether the PR and military activities the US has been doing lately can make them more successful (and make friendlies of the Iraqi people), but I don't think it's looking too good at the moment, even though it's definitely an improvement over the hellhole it used to be just after the invasion.
The only people who hate the US are those who are upset they are not getting the credit for the victory, or those who want to establish a terrorist world-state. The people the US are helping are quite pleased with being helped.
That's rhetorical nonsense. In some ways, the US IS a terrorist world-state. It certainly has no compunctions about using fear as a weapon and invading its enemies (or even nations that aren't its enemies).
I don't hate the US, but I do see it for what it is and that's no better nor worse than its enemies it thinks are beneath it.
Lots of people actually do hate the US and they neither want credit for "the victory," nor do they really want to do anything other than wipe the US off the face of the map.
As for trying to blame Israel for existing and the US for supporting Israel, until all nations are subject to having their choice of allies subject to American and Israeli approval, any such condemnation is not worth treating seriously.
Who said anything about condemnation? The fact is, Israel and US support for it is a public relations nightmare, especially as far as Middle Eastern nations are concerned. Don't be so sensitive about these things. All I care about is results, and the US-Israeli public image is not getting things done.
Samwise:
The US is already "fighting a war against terrorism." How much more critical can you get?
Fighting criminals is not denouncing or fighting those who support the criminals.
A national leader who calls a child murderer a hero should never be acknowledged publicly ever again.
You don't really understand the specifics of that situation, so I don't think you should be bandying it about.
Compared to your understanding of the history of Israel?
For the most part, these groups are bandits, not actual separatists, and the government allows them to live because the conflict justifies military budgeting and the kickbacks that go with it.
Which of course is why there is an autonomous region.
The decisive death of the Huks and the NPA and many other such groups illustrates that where there is political will, wiping out these little bandit groups is doable.
Except of course for the ones they just sanction as local government.
I don't know that Israel was "moderate" even when it was created. It seemed to have been on the wrong foot ever since it got founded.
Declaring independence and asking for peace is the wrong foot?
The Arabs declaring they wanted to be part of another country and going to war was the right foot?
Relocating the warzone slightly in the face of a military occupation you can't really sustain isn't a viable solution.
No, it is not. That is why Al Qaeda will lose in Afghanistan as well.
The general consensus is that if you pull those guys out, the Islamic extremists have the people and the money to simply move back in.
The general consensus was the Surge would not work.
The general consensus needs to stop advocating for political power plays and start reflecting reality in practice.
An incredible job? Most people are calling the Iraqi invasion an outright disaster and there's justification for that.
It was an outright disaster -
For Saddam Hussein.
It has been a continuing disaster -
For Al Qaeda.
For the rest of Iraq it has been considerably different.
Time will tell whether the PR and military activities the US has been doing lately can make them more successful (and make friendlies of the Iraqi people), but I don't think it's looking too good at the moment, even though it's definitely an improvement over the hellhole it used to be just after the invasion.
The US military has a lot of friends in Iraq. The situation has gotten even better since the surge. They have turned against Al Qaeda, and even the Mahdi Army has given up and wants to try hiding as a public service organization now.
That's rhetorical nonsense. In some ways, the US IS a terrorist world-state. It certainly has no compunctions about using fear as a weapon and invading its enemies (or even nations that aren't its enemies).
That is absolute truth.
The US has brought freedom to more people in the last century than any nation over any period of time ever.
It did use fear as a weapon, as did its rival, the Soviet Union, during the Cold War. That was a very unfortunate time, but it is a time that has passed.
As for invading enemies, that is what you do to enemies. You invade and stop them from causing harm to you or your allies.
Who said anything about condemnation? The fact is, Israel and US support for it is a public relations nightmare, especially as far as Middle Eastern nations are concerned. Don't be so sensitive about these things. All I care about is results, and the US-Israeli public image is not getting things done.
The condemnation of people who support terrorism should be welcomed as proving your actions are just. If Middle Eastern nations that refuse to make peace or even recognize another nation, engage in illegal economic embargoes, and give money and shelter to terrorists are upset that another nation supports those they want to destroy, there is no reason to take their distress seriously. They are the problem, and their complaints are irrelevant.
As for results, selling out a nation in the of an unjust peace is getting only one thing done - submitting to terrorists. I see no reason to be eager to get that done.
Fighting criminals is not denouncing or fighting those who support the criminals.
A national leader who calls a child murderer a hero should never be acknowledged publicly ever again.
That's certainly a fanatical viewpoint. You and I will not see eye to eye on this.
Which of course is why there is an autonomous region.
Every region in the Philippines is essentially an autonomous region.
Except of course for the ones they just sanction as local government.
No exceptions.
Declaring independence and asking for peace is the wrong foot?
The Arabs declaring they wanted to be part of another country and going to war was the right foot?
I think putting Israel in such a bad place is the wrong foot to begin with. Couldn't the Allies have given the Jews North Dakota or something?
No, it is not. That is why Al Qaeda will lose in Afghanistan as well.
One certainly hopes so. Not that it's all that likely.
The general consensus was the Surge would not work.
The general consensus needs to stop advocating for political power plays and start reflecting reality in practice.
Seriously, not the point.
It was an outright disaster -
For Saddam Hussein.
It has been a continuing disaster -
For Al Qaeda.
For the rest of Iraq it has been considerably different.
Yeah. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead ISN'T a disaster. What could I have been thinking? Of COURSE it's a good thing. Think of the population benefits!
Civilian infrastructure decimated is a GOOD thing - it paves the way for a construction boom.
Yeah.
The US military has a lot of friends in Iraq. The situation has gotten even better since the surge. They have turned against Al Qaeda, and even the Mahdi Army has given up and wants to try hiding as a public service organization now.
I haven't heard that the Mahdi Army is "giving up."
Iraq was hostile to Al Qaeda BEFORE the US invaded. It was only the US invasion that made it so friendly to that organization.
That is absolute truth.
The US has brought freedom to more people in the last century than any nation over any period of time ever.
It did use fear as a weapon, as did its rival, the Soviet Union, during the Cold War. That was a very unfortunate time, but it is a time that has passed.
As for invading enemies, that is what you do to enemies. You invade and stop them from causing harm to you or your allies.
The US is not about pursuing freedom for peoples in the world, despite what it says. For instance, there is no referendum whether the Iraqis want democracy or theocracy. They have absolutely no choice in that matter. No US colony ever has.
It also routinely interferes with less powerful nations in that nation's OWN interests and affairs, bringing their actual sovereignty into question, sometimes in ways that negatively affects them and benefits the US. This is not freedom.
Furthermore, the US supports dictators who limit their people's freedoms as long as that dictator is friendly to US interests, even at the cost of actual freedoms for those peoples. Case in point - Ferdinand Marcos. He wasn't only a dictator, he tacitly sanctioned murder and even child murders. And yet the US has always been chummy with him.
On the whole, I don't believe the US has been really any good at this in much any way. The Mongolian Empire was, in some ways, greatly superior. They allowed conquered peoples to live and govern themselves however they wished, with the exception that real tolerance for religion and secularism was promoted.
The condemnation of people who support terrorism should be welcomed as proving your actions are just. If Middle Eastern nations that refuse to make peace or even recognize another nation, engage in illegal economic embargoes, and give money and shelter to terrorists are upset that another nation supports those they want to destroy, there is no reason to take their distress seriously. They are the problem, and their complaints are irrelevant.
Spoken like a true warmonger.
As for results, selling out a nation in the of an unjust peace is getting only one thing done - submitting to terrorists. I see no reason to be eager to get that done.
I said nothing about "selling out" Israel, unless you mean that being critical of their morally questionable actions is "selling them out."
Using diplomacy and propaganda to get things done is BETTER than hating people just because they have a justifiable axe to grind against you and then waging war out of righteous indignation or personal self-interest.
IF YOU CAN GET these nations to WANT to make peace with you, then that is better than wiping them off the face of the earth, yes? Or perhaps you believe that outright genocide is really better. After all, it worked for the American West.
That's certainly a fanatical viewpoint. You and I will not see eye to eye on this.
It is fanatical to not want to associate with people who praise child killers?
Indeed, we will not see eye to eye on that assertion.
I think putting Israel in such a bad place is the wrong foot to begin with. Couldn't the Allies have given the Jews North Dakota or something?
The Allies did not "give" the Jews anything.
The UN recognized the existence of a state primarily inhabited by Jews, one the Jewish people chose to make a secular and not a religious state, in its historical area, based on a population that lived there.
I suppose they could have offered to give the Jews the Phillipines or something, arranging a population transfer such as they did of Germans, but that would have been rejected by the Jewish people. They wanted to live in their ancestral homeland, not someone else's.
One certainly hopes so. Not that it's all that likely.
That is what was said about Al Qaeda losing in Iraq.
Seriously, not the point.
Seriously, the entire point.
Yeah. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead ISN'T a disaster. What could I have been thinking? Of COURSE it's a good thing. Think of the population benefits!
As opposed to the millions dead because of the war with Iran?
The thousands dead because of the use of poison gas against the Kurds?
The dead in Kuwait?
The dead in southern Iraq?
The dead due to routine political opporession?
I haven't heard that the Mahdi Army is "giving up."
Check the news.
Iraq was hostile to Al Qaeda BEFORE the US invaded. It was only the US invasion that made it so friendly to that organization.
Iraq supported international terrorism. Now it does not.
Some of the people of Iraq thought they could ally with Al Qaeda against the US. They were wrong, and not they are actively hostile.
The US is not about pursuing freedom for peoples in the world, despite what it says. For instance, there is no referendum whether the Iraqis want democracy or theocracy. They have absolutely no choice in that matter. No US colony ever has.
Which of course is why the Phillipines is still a US colony.
Oh wait . . .
And there were quite a few calls by Iraqis asking to be free from Hussein.
It also routinely interferes with less powerful nations in that nation's OWN interests and affairs, bringing their actual sovereignty into question, sometimes in ways that negatively affects them and benefits the US. This is not freedom.
And those nations routinely interfere with the interests of the US, bringing our sovereignty into question, often in ways that negatively affects us and benefits them. That is reciprocity.
Furthermore, the US supports dictators who limit their people's freedoms as long as that dictator is friendly to US interests, even at the cost of actual freedoms for those peoples. Case in point - Ferdinand Marcos. He wasn't only a dictator, he tacitly sanctioned murder and even child murders. And yet the US has always been chummy with him.
Until of course the US stopped supporting him and he was ousted.
As you said though, "Don't be so sensitive about these things."
On the whole, I don't believe the US has been really any good at this in much any way. The Mongolian Empire was, in some ways, greatly superior. They allowed conquered peoples to live and govern themselves however they wished, with the exception that real tolerance for religion and secularism was promoted.
Whether you believe it or not does not change how the Iraqi and Afghani people feel.
Spoken like a true warmonger.
Not caring about the feelings of nations that will not make peace and support terrorists is being a warmonger?
I think you are a bit confused about your terms.
I said nothing about "selling out" Israel, unless you mean that being critical of their morally questionable actions is "selling them out."
Calling for unilateral condemnation is selling out, yes.
Using diplomacy and propaganda to get things done is BETTER than hating people just because they have a justifiable axe to grind against you and then waging war out of righteous indignation or personal self-interest.
What justifiable axe?
And how justifiable is it when it is expressed as terrorism?
As for waging war out of righteous indignation or personal self-interest, I suggest you do a check on the motives of Al Qaeda and various Arab governments in the Middle East.
IF YOU CAN GET these nations to WANT to make peace with you, then that is better than wiping them off the face of the earth, yes? Or perhaps you believe that outright genocide is really better. After all, it worked for the American West.
If, sure.
If not, letting them continue to murder innocent people is hardly rational.
As for the American West, that tradition was inherited from others, and long since repudiated. The only people still advocating such are the Islamic terrorists you think want to make peace.
It is fanatical to not want to associate with people who praise child killers?
Indeed, we will not see eye to eye on that assertion.
No. It is fanatical to only view yourself as right and not see reason.
The Allies did not "give" the Jews anything.
The UN recognized the existence of a state primarily inhabited by Jews, one the Jewish people chose to make a secular and not a religious state, in its historical area, based on a population that lived there.
That in itself was a mistake. It should not have characterized the state AS being for Jews, but simply being there - if Jews were the majority, their ascendancy would have asserted itself sooner or later, as long as the state was secular.
Naming your country "Israel," does not reflect a secularist stand.
I suppose they could have offered to give the Jews the Phillipines or something, arranging a population transfer such as they did of Germans, but that would have been rejected by the Jewish people. They wanted to live in their ancestral homeland, not someone else's.
They could have done so without all this grief.
That is what was said about Al Qaeda losing in Iraq.
So?
As opposed to the millions dead because of the war with Iran?
The thousands dead because of the use of poison gas against the Kurds?
The dead in Kuwait?
The dead in southern Iraq?
The dead due to routine political oppression?
And, none of those were disasters?
Check the news.
Still nothing.
Iraq supported international terrorism. Now it does not.
Some of the people of Iraq thought they could ally with Al Qaeda against the US. They were wrong, and not they are actively hostile.
The US supports covert military action even when it's done for the purpose of creating fear to further its goals. Since Iraq is now a US ally, it does so, too. The only thing that's changed is sides. As far as Al Qaeda is concerned (you know, the point?), Iraqi was hostile BEFORE the US invaded. The US invasion did nothing to improve that. Some people in Iraq NOW still think they could ally with /insert terrorist organization here/ against the US.
Which of course is why the Phillipines is still a US colony.
Oh wait . . .
And there were quite a few calls by Iraqis asking to be free from Hussein.
In many ways, the Philippines really is still a US colony. We cannot, for instance, choose to convert to communism even if we wanted to.
And those nations routinely interfere with the interests of the US, bringing our sovereignty into question, often in ways that negatively affects us and benefits them. That is reciprocity.
Hardly.
Until of course the US stopped supporting him and he was ousted.
As you said though, "Don't be so sensitive about these things."
The US supported Marcos all throughout that crisis. It even airlifted him out of the palace and offered him political asylum when he was wanted for trial in the Philippines.
The fact that the US supported him during his reign and after is beyond question - a matter of historical fact. That he was a dictator is likewise. The US supports the limitation of freedom as long as it furthers its interests.
Whether you believe it or not does not change how the Iraqi and Afghani people feel.
What does that have to do with it? This is just irrelevant crap.
Not caring about the feelings of nations that will not make peace and support terrorists is being a warmonger?
I think you are a bit confused about your terms.
Not wanting to have peace except on your own terms is being a warmonger. In this respect, your view is no different in format and essence from any Arab terrorist who will not want peace except after the dissolution of Israel.
Calling for unilateral condemnation is selling out, yes.
Who said anything about unilateral?
What justifiable axe?
And how justifiable is it when it is expressed as terrorism?
As for waging war out of righteous indignation or personal self-interest, I suggest you do a check on the motives of Al Qaeda and various Arab governments in the Middle East.
You do realize that you just used Al Qaeda thinking to justify your own viewpoint?
I advocate the use of propaganda and diplomacy to END wars. I do NOT want war. You do.
If, sure.
If not, letting them continue to murder innocent people is hardly rational.
Yeah. The only options are surrender or war.
Again, with the warmonger viewpoint.
You can do things that will make these people more reasonable. This is not impossible. You just have to know what to do and say, and you have to want peace more than you do war.
As for the American West, that tradition was inherited from others, and long since repudiated. The only people still advocating such are the Islamic terrorists you think want to make peace.
If I thought they wanted to make peace, I wouldn't say that the PR the US has is a problem. Check my posts, please.
No. It is fanatical to only view yourself as right and not see reason.If it is fanatical to see any reason in praising childkillers, I will happily suffer being called a fanatic for that.That in itself was a mistake. It should not have characterized the state AS being for Jews, but simply being there - if Jews were the majority, their ascendancy would have asserted itself sooner or later, as long as the state was secular.
In a secular state there should be no reason for any religious group to assert its ascendency as a religious group. That is a critical concept you are missing.Naming your country "Israel," does not reflect a secularist stand.
Why not?They could have done so without all this grief.
Really? You would casually accept displacement from your home to make room for people with absolutely no connection to the land?
If so then why do you feel such a connection to others expressing so much outrage over the same?So?
So it means those same people predicting defeat in Afghanistan have little to no credibility.And, none of those were disasters?
They certainly were.
Removing the person responsible for all of them power was thus a highly admirable goal, despite the costs.Still nothing.
You need to look harder.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121786142643310131.html?mod=hps_us_whats_newsThe US supports covert military action even when it's done for the purpose of creating fear to further its goals. Since Iraq is now a US ally, it does so, too. The only thing that's changed is sides. As far as Al Qaeda is concerned (you know, the point?), Iraqi was hostile BEFORE the US invaded. The US invasion did nothing to improve that. Some people in Iraq NOW still think they could ally with /insert terrorist organization here/ against the US.
Hostile to Al Qaeda does not mean peaceful to the rest of the world.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.In many ways, the Philippines really is still a US colony. We cannot, for instance, choose to convert to communism even if we wanted to.
How do you know? Have you tried?Hardly.
Very much.The US supported Marcos all throughout that crisis. It even airlifted him out of the palace and offered him political asylum when he was wanted for trial in the Philippines.
If they had supported him he would have died in office.
Many exiles are given asylum without sanctioning their previous actions.The fact that the US supported him during his reign and after is beyond question - a matter of historical fact. That he was a dictator is likewise. The US supports the limitation of freedom as long as it furthers its interests.
As does every other government in the world.
It is only wrong when the US does it? I do not think so.What does that have to do with it? This is just irrelevant crap.
It is irrelevant if the people you accuse the US of oppressing do not think they are oppressed?
They have to submit to your colonial-style dictation of their political agenda?Not wanting to have peace except on your own terms is being a warmonger. In this respect, your view is no different in format and essence from any Arab terrorist who will not want peace except after the dissolution of Israel.
Offering peace in exchange for peace is the absolute opposite of offering peace in exchange for national suicide. You have to stretch an inordinate amount to equate those.Who said anything about unilateral?
When you make similar denouncements of the Arab governments I will believe you meant it as bilateral.You do realize that you just used Al Qaeda to justify your own viewpoint?
How else would justify the need for war but because of the existence of an enemy bent on your destruction?
You are the only one appealing to self-aggrandizement here, not me.I advocate the use of propaganda and diplomacy to END wars. I do NOT want war. You do.
Propaganda and diplomacy have historically done very little to win wars.
Nor do I want war, I want peace.Yeah. The only options are surrender or war.
Again, with the warmonger viewpoint.
That is the Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist viewpoint. I would be quite happy to accept a simple mutual peace. Unfortunately peace takes two. When the other side refuses negotation, there is nothing outrageous in choosing to win the war rather than surrender.You can do things that will make these people more reasonable. This is not impossible. You just have to know what to do and say, and you have to want peace more than you do war.
No. You cannot. It is impossible. They have no interest in peace other than to prepare for further war. Their goal is absolute world hegemony. They have stated this repeatedly. Just because think they are just posturing does not mean their goals are otherwise.If I thought they wanted to make peace, I wouldn't say that the PR the US has is a problem. Check my posts, please.
I am looking at the paragraph you wrote just before this one.
And the ones before that.
If it is fanatical to see any reason in praising childkillers, I will happily suffer being called a fanatic for that.
It's fanatical to not want to deal peaceably with a leader in any way whatsoever other than war who happened to praise a man who thought that killing children was a good idea, especially when it's obvious that the leader was doing so for the purpose of political reasons.
In a secular state there should be no reason for any religious group to assert its ascendency as a religious group. That is a critical concept you are missing.
I mean in a secular fashion.
Why not?
It's a clear label saying "Jew country." Certainly, I wouldn't expect any Palestinian residents to identify all that well with it.
Really? You would casually accept displacement from your home to make room for people with absolutely no connection to the land?
If so then why do you feel such a connection to others expressing so much outrage over the same?
See here, that's the thing. If the UN were simply making an obvious label in making the country Israel and it would be completely secular, then NO ONE would be displaced, since it's supposedly just a nominal change.
It's not.
If Israel truly were a secular country, no one would be displaced either, since newcomers would simply NOT have land - previous owners still own theirs, no one displaced.
They COULD have been a bit more reasonable about this and avoided all the grief.
So it means those same people predicting defeat in Afghanistan have little to no credibility.
Why do you listen to people anyway? Pay attention to facts and events, not people.
They certainly were.
Removing the person responsible for all of them power was thus a highly admirable goal, despite the costs.
That would mean that the current Iraqi death toll is ALSO pretty much a disaster, going by those parameters. In fact, those parameters make it out to be a pretty major one, relatively speaking.
You need to look harder.
The group said that its goal was the removal of American forces. Since a timetable for withdrawal is in the works already, it strikes me as appropriate and reasonable that they would scale back militancy to facilitate what they wanted all along.
I certainly don't think that it constitutes "giving up."
Hostile to Al Qaeda does not mean peaceful to the rest of the world.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
So what? As far as Al Qaeda is concerned, this is true.
How do you know? Have you tried?
Every movement for communism in the country has been opposed and aborted by US supporters and representatives.
If they had supported him he would have died in office.
Many exiles are given asylum without sanctioning their previous actions.
Rubbish. There is no way the US could have reinforced Marcos militarily without appearing to invade the country, since most of the major military forces were already aligned against him.
The fact that they supported him by word and favor is also a matter of record. Just because they didn't back that with an aircraft carrier doesn't mean that that support was withdrawn.
Asylum further supports continued US support for Marcos. This asylum is not necessary to prove that the US sanctioned Marcos' actions. It already did so while he was in office.
As does every other government in the world.
It is only wrong when the US does it? I do not think so.
Eye on the ball, dude. You said that the US had given more peoples freedom than any other nation in history. Not true.
Offering peace in exchange for peace is the absolute opposite of offering peace in exchange for national suicide. You have to stretch an inordinate amount to equate those.
Actually, no.
When you make similar denouncements of the Arab governments I will believe you meant it as bilateral.
The US's public statements of condemnation of Saddam's dictatorial activities were perfectly justified.
How's that?
This is not about supporting or NOT supporting whoever or whatever. I am not a fanatic like you seem to be.
How else would justify the need for war but because of the existence of an enemy bent on your destruction?
You are the only one appealing to self-aggrandizement here, not me.
That would work better if Al Qaeda was an actual nation, and if invading Iraq were actually tied to opposing Al Qaeda.
Propaganda and diplomacy have historically done very little to win wars.
I disagree. The only way wars have ended is WITH diplomacy and propaganda. Witness the endless insurgency with the Irish. Was that won and ended with guns? No. Huks? No. NPA? No.
Begging your pardon, but you do not appear to be well acquainted with the methods for dealing with insurgents and guerrilla wars.
You do not win such wars with weapons but with diplomacy, PR, and propaganda. That or genocide.
That is the Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist viewpoint. I would be quite happy to accept a simple mutual peace. Unfortunately peace takes two. When the other side refuses negotiation, there is nothing outrageous in choosing to win the war rather than surrender.
No.
You'd be happy to accept mutual peace as long as your side gets all the good stuff. Clearly, both sides are of this opinion and therefore nothing is going to get settled peaceably.
Your POV is very similar to Iranian and Al Qaeda tracts in this regard. Remarkably so.
Typically, I expect Arabs would be happy to accept peace if you offer them enough land and money and you get the heck out of their hair. Certainly, the Saudis and the UAE peoples are peaceable enough.
I suspect that such terrorist organizations would be a lot less powerful if only the US were willing to negotiate honestly.
No. You cannot. It is impossible. They have no interest in peace other than to prepare for further war. Their goal is absolute world hegemony. They have stated this repeatedly. Just because think they are just posturing does not mean their goals are otherwise.
Again with the warmonger perspective.
Look at the Mahdi army. All they want is for the US to get out. Since they're getting what they want, they've decided that cooperating to facilitate that is a more logical choice. And this from a supposedly hardliner cleric who's out to cleanse the US from Iraqi soil through the gun.
You offer the carrot and "persuade" them to take it with a nice big gun. Telling them that you're only after their total and complete annihilation because they're all crazy megalomaniacs only inspires them to try harder, not stop.
Every nation's goal is world hegemony. Heck, the US is quite naked in its efforts at preserving its own hegemony. You can hardly blame them for wanting something the US itself aims and aspires to.
Wanting to kill them for being the same as you (and them feeling likewise) is why we have wars. You say you want peace, but the peace you want the peace of total military victory.
I am looking at the paragraph you wrote just before this one.
And the ones before that.
Then you're reading it wrong. That's me telling you a fact, since I'm considered the ultimate authority on the meanings of things that I say myself.
[The military needs to take propaganda actions more seriously.
**** and murder charges NEED to be dealt with extremely harshly and publicly, not with kid gloves. This is not only to improve your own PR and to curtail possible future offenses, but is also cheaper in the long run. NOT having to fight an image of your forces as murdering psychopaths costs less and does more than giving radios away.
The certainly do need to deal with them harshly. Can't be on moral high ground and allow that BS to continue. I'd be fine making rapes commited by soldiers against the people of the occupied lands considered treason - which allows for their execution. I don't want to be associated with that kind of garbage in any way. And there should be no room for anyone to assume even the smallest level of tolerance.
Radios are bad things to give away - they're justifiably seen only as surplus, not a dedicated effort to aid Iraqis. It's the difference between receiving a pencil from your pencil factory worker friend and receiving a engraved pen.
The fact that it can be used against you is even worse. This isn't about you. This isn't about what CAN be used against you or what you think is good faith. This is about them. This about what THEY think and what contributes to a good image. Secretly doling out radios is practically worthless as a PR action, even though it is a useful device and it tells some individuals that you're giving in good faith.
What you want is something big, magnanimous, and bombastic. It doesn't have to actually make their lives better. It just has to make you look good.
Radios are actually a very welcome supply. It allows families to keep n contact over fair distance and they do appreciate them. They're of a fair cost, too. This isn't a Radio Shack kiddie walkie-talkie. It is a high quality set. Still, it is a small gesture and not much more.
We're not talking about reason. We're not talking about debate. What we're talking about is propaganda, and that doesn't HAVE to make sense. It just has to hit the right target.
You can placate a radical Islamist in the first place and most Iraqis aren't radical Islamists anyhow.
True. Most are moderate. But it's generally the psychos that gain power. Propaganda will not be enough, IMO, to fix anything. It's just too sticky a region.
The one incident between Israel and Palestine is just an indication of how insane it's getting. Israel is going to have to eat a lot more uneven exchanges like that if they want to give the Palestinians the impression that they've turned over a new leaf.
Retaliation in kind just undermines positive propaganda. That's not good.
But why should they have to? They are letting their enemies defeat them in every way possible. They take daily rocket attacks on civilian populations - done for the sole purpose of killing any Israeli (war to the people, blah) - and cannot respond without some sort of rebuke. The people they deal with are insane. They kill civilians as a stated military and religious goal. They lose their minds when a civilian is killed by Israel (generally accidentally - or at least spun that way). They can never be reasoned with and these unfair exchanges will only serve to weaken Israel. They do not consider Israelis to have the right to exist. They want them all dead. And you can't change peoples' minds about that kind of hate. Ever. There's too much hate there to change anything. And it will remain. And the killing will continue.
American deaths are reported nearly weekly in CNN and Fox. It also appears regularly in US papers. Iraqi deaths are not given as much attention.
That's true. But there are more parents of American soldiers here than Iraqi insurgents so it makes a little sense. Again, regional stuff. Americans care more about Americans than Iraqis. And vice versa.
An American marine is accused of a brutal **** against an innocent Iraqi and he's also accused of massacring all family and witnesses to cover it up; AND there's an indication that it's completely true (since some of his fellows have offered testimony against him in exchange for leniency).
Where is the outrage? If this had been perpetrated against a fellow American, the US media would be crying for blood. The nets would be ablaze with outrage. **** and THEN massacre the family to cover it up? That's horrific.
If an Iraqi force was suspected of doing any such thing to an American family in Iraq, it would likewise also generate a lot of outrage. Certainly, I can see it strengthening support for stronger military occupation.
Instead we get a great big blah. An Iraqi girl was brutally violated by Americans and her family killed and Americans don't care. Is that heartless? You decide.
Well, to be honest, there was some outrage. The incident was reported on daily for a time and new updates get plenty of news. In fact, the media chose to spin it to make the soldiers look guilty (which from what I've read - they are) before anything other than hearsay was available. We don't like our fighting men very much here. Still, there should have been more international coverage - furnished to those agancies by us. We are embarrased by this. So, we keep it in-house. Which, IMO, is more embarrasing. We should have had it more open and sought the highest punishment possible. Not just because it would be good for the image. But because it would have been the right thing to do. Now we have to live with the perception that we're sweeping this under the rug. Which is not the case.
Compare this to the South Koreans. An American with South Korean ancestry commits a massacre and THEY issue a public national apology. It's not even their fault and they're saying sorry.
South Koreans have a very different culture than our own. (I know a well known South Korean fairly well.) I was impressed with this gesture but wholly unsurprised. They just look at the world in a different way. We (and most other countries), to be honest, simply don't care as much. It's more about the individual. I guess all I'm trying to get at is that the cultural differences make this an unfair comparison. An example of a beautiful gesture, to be sure, but not one most countries will ever do.
Oh. Just wanted to add that it was not necessary, IMO, but still very nice.
A martyr is worse than a live soldier. You can't kill insurgents who turn into martyrs. That just recruits more. What you want to is rob them of moral power, THEN kill them.
That's hard to do - if not impossible. They kill because they truly believe that the god that gives their lives purpose commands them to kill. You can't rob someone of moral power given to them by god himself. Unless you're god, that is.
There's every indication that as far as public image is concerned, he's no more insane than Bush.
Which isn't saying much, but there you have it.
Bush is a wacko. No doubt there. But this guy is out of his nut insane. Well, that's not fair. I'm sure a good deal of it has to do with religious fervor and political posturing.
All the more reason to favor moderates - they can be threatened with force. Insane fanatics like the Taliban cannot.
Right. So what then? Threaten the guys that aren't so bad to take out guys like the Taliban on their own? I'm truly trying to understand, here. No sarcasm implied.
I'm actually of like mind, but I do hope.
I've always been a hardcore pessimist. And I generally have little faith in people as a whole. Still, it would be nice.
The certainly do need to deal with them harshly. Can't be on moral high ground and allow that BS to continue. I'd be fine making rapes commited by soldiers against the people of the occupied lands considered treason - which allows for their execution. I don't want to be associated with that kind of garbage in any way. And there should be no room for anyone to assume even the smallest level of tolerance.
Well, to be honest, there was some outrage. The incident was reported on daily for a time and new updates get plenty of news. In fact, the media chose to spin it to make the soldiers look guilty (which from what I've read - they are) before anything other than hearsay was available. We don't like our fighting men very much here. Still, there should have been more international coverage - furnished to those agencies by us. We are embarrassed by this. So, we keep it in-house. Which, IMO, is more embarrassing. We should have had it more open and sought the highest punishment possible. Not just because it would be good for the image. But because it would have been the right thing to do. Now we have to live with the perception that we're sweeping this under the rug. Which is not the case.
It would nice if the military could be persuaded to own up to their mistakes honestly and if we could have more transparency about how such crimes are dealt with.
General understanding is that even soldiers convicted of rapes in other countries get by with a slap on the wrist back home, even when their own US court martial convicts them. It may or may not be true, but it is a general perception and the military needs to do more to clean up its name, since it carries the name of the entire US along with it.
A very public and severe punishment of an erring soldier would do much to discipline the ranks and promote good will amongst the occupied population. Labeling the offender a criminal and aberrant is fair to your soldiers on the ground and eases civilian fears. It'll make them think you actually care about the rule of law.
I think American soldiers are great fighting men in general. The way their military is besmirching their names with its dishonorable behavior is unsightly and unfair.
The way the PR guys handle these sorts of things is thoroughly underhanded and that's what leads to these "sweep under the rug" perceptions, even when it's untrue. Most unfortunate.
True. Most are moderate. But it's generally the psychos that gain power. Propaganda will not be enough, IMO, to fix anything. It's just too sticky a region.
That's hard to do - if not impossible. They kill because they truly believe that the god that gives their lives purpose commands them to kill. You can't rob someone of moral power given to them by god himself. Unless you're god, that is.
You don't rob them of belief. You rob them of moral power - moral ascendancy. If the people think that YOU'RE in the right, then you have free rein to blast him away and still be a hero.
You need propaganda to pave the way for your guns to blast so killing one insane person doesn't generate 4 more.
But why should they have to? They are letting their enemies defeat them in every way possible. They take daily rocket attacks on civilian populations - done for the sole purpose of killing any Israeli (war to the people, blah) - and cannot respond without some sort of rebuke. The people they deal with are insane. They kill civilians as a stated military and religious goal. They lose their minds when a civilian is killed by Israel (generally accidentally - or at least spun that way). They can never be reasoned with and these unfair exchanges will only serve to weaken Israel. They do not consider Israelis to have the right to exist. They want them all dead. And you can't change peoples' minds about that kind of hate. Ever. There's too much hate there to change anything. And it will remain. And the killing will continue.
Well, there's actually a reason for that. Palestinians are people, too, and hate is rarely completely without basis. You don't randomly hate people you just met.
They're outraged over the atrocities and daily persecution Israeli government and civilians have rained down on them over the decades. They hate the civilians because in many cases, its the Israeli civilians who beat them, take their lands, or sometimes even shoot them.
These aren't always innocent bystanders being caught in gunfire, understand.
They CAN be reasoned with, but you first have to address their towering anger and resentment. You CAN change people's minds even about this kind of hate, or at the least, change the minds of their children. Just don't go over and beat them up every afternoon.
South Koreans have a very different culture than our own. (I know a well known South Korean fairly well.) I was impressed with this gesture but wholly unsurprised. They just look at the world in a different way. We (and most other countries), to be honest, simply don't care as much. It's more about the individual. I guess all I'm trying to get at is that the cultural differences make this an unfair comparison. An example of a beautiful gesture, to be sure, but not one most countries will ever do.
Oh. Just wanted to add that it was not necessary, IMO, but still very nice.
Exactly my point. This gesture increased the respect Americans have for South Korea and South Koreans in general. And what did it cost? Nothing. Something for nothing.
Right. So what then? Threaten the guys that aren't so bad to take out guys like the Taliban on their own? I'm truly trying to understand, here. No sarcasm implied.
You use enough propaganda to make yourself look good. Use the threat of force to encourage the moderates to stay out of it. Then you use overwhelming firepower to wipe the extremists off the face of the planet.
It would nice if the military could be persuaded to own up to their mistakes honestly and if we could have more transparency about how such crimes are dealt with.
General understanding is that even soldiers convicted of rapes in other countries get by with a slap on the wrist back home, even when their own US court martial convicts them. It may or may not be true, but it is a general perception and the military needs to do more to clean up its name, since it carries the name of the entire US along with it.
A very public and severe punishment of an erring soldier would do much to discipline the ranks and promote good will amongst the occupied population. Labeling the offender a criminal and aberrant is fair to your soldiers on the ground and eases civilian fears. It'll make them think you actually care about the rule of law.
I think American soldiers are great fighting men in general. The way their military is besmirching their names with its dishonorable behavior is unsightly and unfair.
The way the PR guys handle these sorts of things is thoroughly underhanded and that's what leads to these "sweep under the rug" perceptions, even when it's untrue. Most unfortunate.
Yep. But since funding is sorta tied to public perception, they feel the need to hide everything. If a serviceman does wrong, he should be publicly tried and punished. At the very least it should help prevent others from doing the same.
Oh, it can be a harsh punishment. For this particualr incident, it would certainly be a bad one. But you're right, if we don't tell the world what we do to these guys, how will they know?
You don't rob them of belief. You rob them of moral power - moral ascendancy. If the people think that YOU'RE in the right, then you have free rein to blast him away and still be a hero.
You need propaganda to pave the way for your guns to blast so killing one insane person doesn't generate 4 more.
I get it, I just can't see that happening. If you believe you are the chosen people of god, why would you believe some white dude over the guys that look like you, live where you live, speak the same language, share the culture, share the religion, have gone through what you have, etc? It would be great if this could work, but I don't see it.
Well, there's actually a reason for that. Palestinians are people, too, and hate is rarely completely without basis. You don't randomly hate people you just met.
They're outraged over the atrocities and daily persecution Israeli government and civilians have rained down on them over the decades. They hate the civilians because in many cases, its the Israeli civilians who beat them, take their lands, or sometimes even shoot them.
These aren't always innocent bystanders being caught in gunfire, understand.
They CAN be reasoned with, but you first have to address their towering anger and resentment. You CAN change people's minds even about this kind of hate, or at the least, change the minds of their children. Just don't go over and beat them up every afternoon.
It's both sides' fault. If they stop rocketing the Israelis they can then expect to have some sort of demand met. They can get the moral high ground. But they hate so much they won't. So the Israelis retaliate by reducing the amount of power, etc going into their areas. So they hate more. And this cycle will continue because neither side thinks that any blame falls on them.
Exactly my point. This gesture increased the respect Americans have for South Korea and South Koreans in general. And what did it cost? Nothing. Something for nothing.
True. Now if we'd only do the same when a soldier does something abominable, maybe there'd be a little progress.
You use enough propaganda to make yourself look good. Use the threat of force to encourage the moderates to stay out of it. Then you use overwhelming firepower to wipe the extremists off the face of the planet.
The problem here is that you cannot make yourself look good by threatening force. You can't look good to the moderates at the same time you're threatening them. That's how you change moderates to extremists, actually. Well, one way at least.
It's fanatical to not want to deal peaceably with a leader in any way whatsoever other than war who happened to praise a man who thought that killing children was a good idea, especially when it's obvious that the leader was doing so for the purpose of political reasons.
So you do have a double standard.
The US must submit its foreign policy purely to the requirements of others, despite any obvious political basis for such policy or those foreign government are justified in only using war against the US, but the US is not allowed to require others to modify their political posturings in order to have dealings above the level of basic peace with the US.
And do note that last. I said nothing about only going to war with such powers. Only you are asserting that. I said just have no relations with those leaders at all. That is a vast distance away from declaring war.
It's a clear label saying "Jew country." Certainly, I wouldn't expect any Palestinian residents to identify all that well with it.
Which of course is why there are so many Christians and Druze in Israel that identify with it. They qualify as "Palestinians".
See here, that's the thing. If the UN were simply making an obvious label in making the country Israel and it would be completely secular, then NO ONE would be displaced, since it's supposedly just a nominal change.
No one was forced to displace in the area Israel was formed, so it was just a nominal change.
No one is now casually dispossesed of any land which is then given to others.
You really seem to not have know what is happening there.
Why do you listen to people anyway? Pay attention to facts and events, not people.
I am paying attention to facts and events. That is my whole point. And those facts and events show the defeat of the terrorist insurgency in Iraq, and suggest the inevitable defeat of the terrorist insurgency in Afghanistan.
That would mean that the current Iraqi death toll is ALSO pretty much a disaster, going by those parameters. In fact, those parameters make it out to be a pretty major one, relatively speaking.
The death toll that is constantly dropping?
It is a disaster that the terrorists are being stopped?
The group said that its goal was the removal of American forces. Since a timetable for withdrawal is in the works already, it strikes me as appropriate and reasonable that they would scale back militancy to facilitate what they wanted all along.
There is no hard and fast timetable for withdrawal.
There always was a general statement that withdrawal would happen when there was stability and peace in the region.
I certainly don't think that it constitutes "giving up."
So changing from a militia that engaged in constant violence to a theoretical social support group is not giving up?
I know you favor propaganda, but there are limits to how you can you use language to spin something.
So what? As far as Al Qaeda is concerned, this is true.
Awesome. That will make it easier for them to be defeated. I love it when the enemies of my country are stupid.
Every movement for communism in the country has been opposed and aborted by US supporters and representatives.
So because people support the US they are not allowed to oppose communism? The people of the Phillipines are not allowed to express such a combination of views? I thought you supported freedom?
The fact that they supported him by word and favor is also a matter of record. Just because they didn't back that with an aircraft carrier doesn't mean that that support was withdrawn.
There are many degrees of support. Most people take the fall of a government to indicate a rather significant lack of support.
Eye on the ball, dude. You said that the US had given more peoples freedom than any other nation in history. Not true.
My eye is on the ball dude, that is totally true.
Actually, no.
Actually, yes.
The US's public statements of condemnation of Saddam's dictatorial activities were perfectly justified.
But not taking action against them.
Denunciations have done so much to stop what is happening in Darfur.
They did so much in Bosnia and Kosovo.
If you want to look at facts instead of listening to people, the facts speak of a very particular trend there.
How's that?
Quite poor.
This is not about supporting or NOT supporting whoever or whatever. I am not a fanatic like you seem to be.
Uh huh.
That would work better if Al Qaeda was an actual nation, and if invading Iraq were actually tied to opposing Al Qaeda.
Transnational groups are all the rage these days.
And invading Iraq seems to have providing a truly significant engagement with Al Qaeda. Once again, the facts are against you.
I disagree. The only way wars have ended is WITH diplomacy and propaganda. Witness the endless insurgency with the Irish. Was that won and ended with guns? No. Huks? No. NPA? No.
So the Vietnam wars ended with diplomacy instead of the destruction of South Vietnam?
World War II ended without guns?
War after war after war ended without guns?
Begging your pardon, but you do not appear to be well acquainted with the methods for dealing with insurgents and guerrilla wars.
You do not win such wars with weapons but with diplomacy, PR, and propaganda. That or genocide.
I am very well acquainted with them, thank you very much. History has shown that wars are won on the ground. All talking does is settle the borders afterwards. That is winning the peace, not the war. A rather significantly different thing.
No.
You'd be happy to accept mutual peace as long as your side gets all the good stuff. Clearly, both sides are of this opinion and therefore nothing is going to get settled peaceably.
What good stuff? Peace? I am perfectly willing to share all the peace with everyone.
And what is with your warmonger talk? You are deciding that there must be war for other people? No thank you. Kindly start wars only for yourself, and let my country resolve its conflicts on its own.
Your POV is very similar to Iranian and Al Qaeda tracts in this regard. Remarkably so.
It is in direct opposition.
Typically, I expect Arabs would be happy to accept peace if you offer them enough land and money and you get the heck out of their hair. Certainly, the Saudis and the UAE peoples are peaceable enough.
Wait, I thought you said I wanted to keep all the good stuff for myself? Why should I pay someone off for peace? Why should I give them something that is not theirs? If the neighborhood bully walks by and demands your house and wallet, do you consider it reasonable to pay him off just so you can have peace?
I suspect that such terrorist organizations would be a lot less powerful if only the US were willing to negotiate honestly.
Above you said they are not real countries. Now you say they should be given land. You said that negotiation should be giving them whatever they want. Now you call that dealing "honestly".
No.
Sorry.
You do not get peace by giving in to extortionists. You may not understand that lesson, but I do. "Once you pay the Dane-geld, you never get rid of the Dane." Or to update it, "One you pay the jiyza, you never stop being a dhimmi."
Again with the warmonger perspective.
I know. I wish you would stop it.
Look at the Mahdi army. All they want is for the US to get out. Since they're getting what they want, they've decided that cooperating to facilitate that is a more logical choice. And this from a supposedly hardliner cleric who's out to cleanse the US from Iraqi soil through the gun.
No, they are not. They are getting nothing. The US is leaving on its schedule, not theirs. They are giving up their arms. They are not getting political power. They lost, and now they are trying to salvage anything they can.
You offer the carrot and "persuade" them to take it with a nice big gun. Telling them that you're only after their total and complete annihilation because they're all crazy megalomaniacs only inspires them to try harder, not stop.
Except the only carrot they were offered was not getting the stick. And it most certainly has made them stop.
Every nation's goal is world hegemony. Heck, the US is quite naked in its efforts at preserving its own hegemony. You can hardly blame them for wanting something the US itself aims and aspires to.
For a nation going for world hegemony, we do not seem to be annexing all that much. The problem is not in US goals, but in your misinterpretation of them.
Wanting to kill them for being the same as you (and them feeling likewise) is why we have wars. You say you want peace, but the peace you want the peace of total military victory.
No, the peace is the peace of no military action at all. I have said that repeatedly. All you have offered is submission, paying of tribute, and propaganda.
Then you're reading it wrong. That's me telling you a fact, since I'm considered the ultimate authority on the meanings of things that I say myself.
Yet you have no trouble declaring I am warmonger based on what you think I have written means, despite me saying that it is absolutely not what I mean.
I seem to recall we (or actually, the CIA) sold a lot of the factions there the weapons they're now using against us?
Obviously, the U.S. completely forgot about what happened to the Russians just a few years prior to us going there.
I seem to recall we (or actually, the CIA) sold a lot of the factions there the weapons they're now using against us?
Not a comparable example.
The Soviets failed to establish any base among the Afghan people.
Likewise the Taliban shifted itself to a foreign dominated organization, leading to it being just as hated as the Soviets, and just as vulnerable to having external allies sought to expel it.
As for weapon sales, those went to the groups that eventually formed the government such as the Northern Alliance. Other nations supported the Taliban.
now if people would read their home mortgage and credit papers, understand them, and apply that understanding, we'd be all set!
That's not entirely true. It was - and is - a coalition effort. Other peoples were hoodwinked along with the American people. And the blood of this action is not just on the hands of American politicians. Many others are equally responsible. If we hadn't had allies going in, we would not have. Not that it's their fault, of course. But this could (possibly) have been prevented with a couple of "nos" from the peanut gallery.
.
80% of the British public opposed the invasion, millions marched in Rome and across Italy. But most European leaders simply ignored public opinion (at least Bush probably had public opinion on his side however much lying it took to get it).
Is not a thread about the futility of a war in Afghanistan political?