Forsake the troops gets destroyed!

[Lucius]

Well he is spanish after all. But I don't know, I had spanish for two years in high school and I can't speak a word of it. Why is it always when it's too late that you realize you should have paid more attention in class? :D

 

Edit: Good point Aponez, Danish Freedom Fighters in WW2 were probably considered terrorists by Nazi Germany as well. Although I will say this, some foreign groups of islamic extremists are very much 'terrorists' (and probably some Iraqi groups as well), I'm talking about those who behead civilians on TV and blow up markedplaces filled with innocents, those who would execute unarmed people who are injured or have already surrendered... This one goes for US troops as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well Lucius in Irak now there are terrorism and resistance, but when you heard the US news they only talk about terrorism, for them they are all terrorists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know, there's not many gray areas only absurd degrees of black and white.

[Aponez]

2.- A nice photo about Irak

 

Demagogy at its finest. A widely extended practice to be sure, but taken to an absurd degree in my country.

 

Oh, well. I'll stop now before I'm accused of being a fascist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

As you know 213374U my english is very bad, then I'll answer you in spanish.

 

Demagogia por que y de quien? USA ocup

[213374U]

Terrorista es el que utiliza el terror como instrumento, sean cuales sean los fines. En algunos casos el terror est

[SteveThaiBinh]

Demagogia por que y de quien? USA ocup

[SteveThaiBinh]

Terrorista es el que utiliza el terror como instrumento, sean cuales sean los fines. En algunos casos el terror est

[213374U]

Shock and awe?

"Shock and Awe" could indeed be considered a terrorist doctrine. However, war (as in an army against another) always has had a strong psychological component. I'm not sure every tactic aimed at decreasing the enemy morale is terrorism, but I suppose that depends on the standpoint. But at any rate, the war's over.

[Aponez]

Terrorista es el que utiliza el terror como instrumento, sean cuales sean los fines. En algunos casos el terror est

[Walsingham]

Right. Have been taking notes this time, so I hope I won't miss anything.

 

I'll mainly respond to Steve Thaibin, since he did us the courtesy of typesetting all his stuff. I don't agree with him :D but at least I can see clearly what I'm disagreeing with. So I've highlighted some points, and my responses below (which is your cue to go to sleep)

 

US DOMINANCE IS ABUSED AND SCARES FOREIGNERS?

 

Yes, plenty of people are scared by the US. But if you think that's because they are well informed and independently decided that, you are over-simplifying. It may surprise some folks that foreigners have their own societies and media-streams. By far and away the people who are most annoyed with the US are the power-brokers and journos in the countries where unrest is high. Leaving aside how great a democracy America is, the US/UK tend to insist that people move towards democracy. This understandably puts the willies up the local chiefs/warlords/mullahs/wisemen/editors. Because it threatens their stranglehold over the luckless peasants. So, yeah maybe we make it worse, and give them more excuses for feling this way by being all butch. But make no mistake they would not want us to get involved however nice we were being.

 

As for abusing dominance. I find it extraordinary that people in the west are even trying to get the US to ramp back in the way they are. When China really gets up steam we are going to be laying out the red carpet just like we were when the Soviets were looming on the border. So, yeah, maybe they are enjoying dominance a bit much, but what's the alternative? The United Nations? Speak to someone who works there, and they'll quickly disabuse you of any romantic notions.

 

TERRORISM :ph34r: IS JUST AN ACT OF WAR BY OTHER MEANS?

 

People very frenquently confuse guerrilla warfare with terrorism. Guerrilla war is the use of irregular forces, exploiting the benefits of local logistic support, and small unit size and commitment to hit the weak spots in what on paper is a superior military force. Fighting a guerrilla army is no kind of fun, and it isn't pretty, but it is a world away from modern terrorism.

 

Modern terrorism is aimed at nothing more nor less than the creation of abject chaos. They attack targets of opportunity to destroy the infrastructure of the state, both physical and psychological. If you want to get all intellectual you can read about this in Mao's work. If you want to keep your feet on the ground, it is the old principle of making yourself bigger by making others small. The theoretcial ending for these b****rs is that the state they are attacking will become so weak and fractured that they can waltz in and make demands. However, in the meantime, the poor bastards who live in the state concerned have to put up with constant fear and ever worsening conditions.

 

The more complex and sophisticated our systems of state, society, and culture become the easier it is for some malcontent half-wit to jam a spanner in the works and bring it all tumbling down. We HAVE to stop trying to be all touchy huggy about terrorism, before one of these little groups finally pulls off a proper mass-casualty attack that makes 9/11 look like a tea-party.

 

There are some parallels between this and 'shock and awe'. However, there is a difference between acts of war committed by a duly elected body, and a bunch of self-appointed nuts. In the same way that a state is allowed to incarcerate an individual, but a lynch mob aren't.

 

THE AL-SHIFA PHARMA FACTORY WAS NOT PRODUCING CHEMICAL WEAPONS.

 

You are quite right, according to an old acquaintance of mine who has been working in Sudan for years. However, there was substantial rumour at the time that there really had been a much smaller lab in operation in the city. The suggestion was that the plant was targetted due to poor communications between the Forces and CIA. However, it could also have been a total balls up.

 

On the other hand any pharmaceuticals factory is capable in principle of running out chemical and some biological agents. You have to know what you are looking for. It doesn't make the place suddenly look like a James Bond villain lair.

 

Yes, if the attack on the factory had been 'successful' and it had been the correct target chem agents would have gone all over the place. Is that the US being crappy, or the SOBs who built a chemical weapons factory in a residential area? Note that subsequent to the attack the US have developed new bombs specifically designed to deal with chem weapons facilities more safely. They're still not safe, but they're working on it.

 

SUDAN IS NOT AN ENEMY OF THE US?

 

I have no idea where you got that statement from. Not only has the Sudanese government consistently attacked the US by diplomatic means, it has also for many years hosted terrorist training camps, including those run by Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden helped run the country by building roads and other facilities, in exchange for their cooperation. Moreover, if a country which engages in deliberate ethnic cleansing isn't our enemy I want it added to the list right now.

 

THE US HAS KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IN IRAQ, AND MILLIONS ELSEWHERE? <_<

 

I'd like to see your sources for that. According to my best understanding, the studies which showed the casualties in Iraq were upwards of 100,000 sufferred from being from unverifiable sources, double-counting, and people listing dead soldiers as civilian casualties. I refer to the site www.iraqbodycount.com ; which has several different studies linked to it.

 

 

~~~~~

 

The war isn't over, in my opinion. In fact it is now far more serious. If we lose at this stage and Iraq collapses it will be the most monumental shot in the arm for the Global Jihadists. The country will dissolve into civil war. Turkey will intercede in the North, throwing that country into unrest. Iran will intercede in the South, bringing Shia Islam into confrontation with extremist Wahabbi Sunni Islam in the form of the insurgents. Lord knows what will happen to Saudi Arabia. But expect the scale and ferocity of attacks to increase in the West, in every country.

 

I do not believe we can afford at this stage to lose.

 

I believe whatever our political stripes we must get behind the continued assistance and pacification of Iraq. Once that is done, and we have discharged our duty there, we can get back to the business of calling each other names.

[213374U]

Don't know about you but I think war is far from over and is going to last for a long long time, far more then any dude from the pentagon thought it would last....

No. The war is officially over. The democratically elected Iraqi government is not in a state of war with the US. No amount of criminals trying to sabotage the democratic process is going to change that.

 

 

Bueno en cuanto a libertad mas libre era el regimen de Jos

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

No amount you say.....either you're just foolish or you don't watch the news....and those "criminals" are making major damage to the "democratic" process in Iraq every single day.....if the US pulled out of Iraq, the new goverment wouldn't last for more then 2 months....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Which is why they are still there not looking so much like invaders now eh ? Democracy relies on compromise and since fanatics dont it's better to wipe them all out then we can have some peace and quiet.

 

I grew up in Ireland until my folks moved us out and it's not what I would call a pleasent experince.

[metadigital]

No amount of criminals trying to sabotage the democratic process is going to change that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No amount you say.....either you're just foolish or you don't watch the news....and those "criminals" are making major damage to the "democratic" process in Iraq every single day.....if the US pulled out of Iraq, the new goverment wouldn't last for more then 2 months....and the fanatics that blow themselfs up, they have those waiting in lines just to have a chance to kill "the enemies of Islam", because they are 100% sure if they die in jihad, the muslims believe they go strait to haven where there are 72 virgins waiting for them (not kidding)....they are just convienced in that like you and me are that if we put our arm in fire that we would get burned.....the future is far more cloudy then you see it....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know about your two-month timeline for the Iraqi government without US support. For a start there are more members of the Iraqi security force than US armed forces personnel in Iraq now, and secondly I doubt whether they would ever run out of funding to keep these forces better equipt than the insurgents.

 

I also think the insurgents will not be able to do any more damage than they are doing now. Even if the state turns into another Lebanon, the focus of UN attention and US funds is sufficient, I think, to keep a militant government in power. (Whether this is a good idea we will not know for a long time.)

 

 

Reminds me of an anecdote, apparently from the Chinese Ambassor. He was asked about his opinion on the outcome of the French Revolution. his response was that it is still too early to tell.

 

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

......and nothing gives you the right to just whipe out someone, even the terrorist, violence is the wrong way to combat terrorism on the global scale (not referring to combating insurgents in Iraq)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's just not being applied on a large enough scale. I'll scale it down for you your hiding a criminal in your house. I ask you to step out the way so I can get him. You dont so I flatten your house with him and you in it. Now I wouldnt feel bad about that at all since I gave you the chance to hand them over.

 

One thing to note about the insurgents is they are quite happy blowing up thier own people so there is no nobility in their cause and they are not doing it for the good of the people.

 

Tons of aid has been sent to various countries all it results in is well fed terrorists.

 

go here http://www.flat-earth.org/ it will give an idea of the sort of mind numbing ignorance out there.

[213374U]

.......and nothing gives you the right to just whipe out someone, even the terrorist, violence is the wrong way to combat terrorism on the global scale (not referring to combating insurgents in Iraq)

War might not be the way to fight the terrorists, but I don't see you offering a better alternative.

 

 

We would have to concentrate to main roots of terrorism which are: poverty.....uneducation......religious intolerance........bad sides of rather "violent" globalism......

Sorry, but what we have came at the cost of bloody wars and revolutions. If the rest of the world can't keep up, it's a shame, but that doesn't give them the right to point the finger at us and use it as an excuse for terrorism.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I'll mainly respond to Steve Thaibinh...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you've responded to a collection of ideas that have been put forward by several people, some rather more actively than myself. Still, I'm happy to contribute.

Yes, plenty of people are scared by the US. But if you think that's because they are well informed and independently decided that, you are over-simplifying. It may surprise some folks that foreigners have their own societies and media-streams...

 

As for abusing dominance. I find it extraordinary that people in the west are even trying to get the US to ramp back in the way they are. When China really gets up steam we are going to be laying out the red carpet just like we were when the Soviets were looming on the border.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How 'well-informed' do people need to be before their opposition to US policy is considered legitimate? How well informed are US citizens about foreign affairs?

 

Ordinary people across the world are angry with the US for a great many reasons. As a group, they are too diverse and too numerous just to be dismissed out of hand, and mostly they are not uneducated dupes of 'local chiefs' or journalists. Criticism of US policy has come just as strongly from democratic countries with a free press, such as India, Argentina and Spain.

 

China will become extremely economically powerful in the coming years, as will India, Brazil and others. I can live with that. I certainly don't want to be forced into a new cold war so that the US can safeguard its position as global number one. Many US policy-makers are too influenced by Huntington's Clash of Civilizations ideas - it's not just US policy in Iraq that people oppose, it's a whole way of looking at the world in oversimplistic terms.

People very frenquently confuse guerrilla warfare with terrorism. Guerrilla war is the use of irregular forces, exploiting the benefits of local logistic support, and small unit size and commitment to hit the weak spots in what on paper is a superior military force. Fighting a guerrilla army is no kind of fun, and it isn't pretty, but it is a world away from modern terrorism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are groups and actions which are clearly terrorist, other which are clearly 'guerilla', but many that occupy a blurred ground in the middle. What if you have 'local logistical support', but only of a proportion of the population? How large does that proportion need to be? Do they need to wear uniforms? Why should they? What constitutes a uniform and what doesn't? And who has the right to judge that? Is kidnapping a form of warfare, of terrorism, or of criminality? And so on. I don't think there are easy answers here.

 

In the absense of clarity, people who need a certain kind of false clarity, such as Mr. Bush, bring in a simple answer - a terrorist is anyone who I say is a terrorist; anyone who opposes US interests. Not very helpful if you're looking to understand the situation better.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

So you go around flattening people houses, killing terrorist but also in the process you keep killing civilians and destroying infrastructure ( US term - collateral damage ) and this is your solution.....by this you would just be making more and more terrorists rather then reducing their numbers and you would end up "flattening" half of the world...

 

The insurgents aren't only Iraqis, there are numerous foreign fighters that come to Iraq to kill the Americans and in process they kill Iraqis who they see as casulties of Jihad and they make the majority of the suicide bombers...

 

Tons of aid has been sent and the result is well fed terrorist - I don't feel like commenting on this because it's a ignorant and stupid thing to say.....and if some of that aid do comes to terrorist hands, then the west should be careful who they send aid to and control what do countries that receive that aid do with it....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep eventually people get the idea your not to be messed with and leave you well alone.

 

And they have no business being there. It's not their country and it's not their war ergo they have nothing to lose by their actions since they dont give a rats arse about Iraq.

 

So dont send aid in case it falls into the hands of terrorists sounds fine to me but totally contradicts what you said eariler. And if its so ignorant and stupid why are you acknowledging that it is in fact true that a aid gets diverted to terrorits... Cant have it both ways.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

This terrorist wouldn't get your idea and they would be just more and more determined to kill you whereever you are....

 

Yes they don't care about Iraq, they care only about killing Americans and Iraqis (who they see as collaborators)...and with Americans coming so close it's a perfect opportunity for them to inflict damage upon them.

 

...and last, don't put words in my mouth, I only said if that was the case they should be more carefull where they send their aid and who uses it....I didn't say: 1)don't send it; 2)it's all diverted to terrorists....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh they would they would then pick on softer targets.

 

In other words they are scum

 

and if some of that aid do comes to terrorist hands, then the west should be careful who they send aid to and control what do countries that receive that aid do with it....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your words not mine. The only way to guarentee that those people following the aid trucks are not terrorists is to not send the aid. Unless of course you have alternative to offer

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

of foreign fighters would increase and their whole endeavor would boost, as would the help of Syria and Iran to help bring down the US puppet state of Iraq by means known to them so they could humilate the US before the eyes of the world

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

George really couldnt ask for a better scenario.

 

They wouldnt humiliate the US they would give it perfect justifaction to invade.

[metadigital]

You cannot negotiate with a terrorist. Any form of aquiecence to extortion will necessarily grant carte blanche to all future demagogues to use the tactics to gain whatever results they want.

 

The only way to deal with terrorism is to refuse to deal with it.

 

This presents the dilemma of how to netiate a settlement to an intractable conflict (like the centuries of skirmish in Northern Ireland).

 

At some point, negotiation is possible, but it requires the cessation of all use of force and especially terrorism.

 

Until that point, it is a war. And war is ugly. War has few rules, except that the winner is right. (Chemical and biological weapons banned by the Geneva convention? Who has the largest stockpiles of biological weapons? Countries of the former USSR, the US, the UK and China. And they have a LOT, including smallpox, the only virus that humans have ever destroyed.)

[Walsingham]

I'm enjoying the debate. But there's been a bit of a family crisis here. May have to drop out for a while. Apologies for not responding to any points extant...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Some of them are fanatics that you can't reason with, yes....but the solution isn't just: they are evil scum, kill them all.....we should really ask ourselfs why are they like that, what is the reson for that behaivour and how did they become like that, where do they come from, so in the future we can help the children, the young minds of those places tainted by terrorism; educate them, help the economy of their usually poor countries and increase the level of living conditions, respect their cultural and religous diferences and respect the international law.....with this you would inflict a far greater blow terrorism then any bomb. Maybe this sounds lame to you, but this is the only formula to uterly beat terrorism.

 

To your other part about sending aid, you can never be sure of anything, so you can't always know 100% who is getting the aid in some country, but that is not the reason not to send help. The best way to control aid distribution is to send UN envoys with the aid, they could control directly on the ground to whom is that aid being given, help the goverments to prevent that aid being diverted to terrorists, and with all of the things mentioned above the terrorists wouldn't have an argument to sponsor and boost the terrorism within the people...that is the best way to combat terrorism, to leave them without direct reasons for them to provoke and conduct terrorism.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It not only sounds lame it is lame. In order to be in a position to do that you would have to be in control, or be welcome in the country. These folks dont want to change, change threatens there very being since they live in an ideolgy bubble.

So unless you go in sort everyone who is against you out you cant do it. The Romans did it , but those who would not "romanise" died of course the romans were not as respectful of life as we are which ironically worked in their advantage.Dont forget you got to keep your religion and the romans incorporated it into theirs too.

 

But the idea that you can just pop over and feed and educate people is quite frankly laughable. You can educate people once you sweep away the ignorant and fanatics but not before.And the current regemes dont want their people educated, they want them weak stupid and easy to control.

 

We have freedom of religion and all that stuff and they dont want it they want one religion and they want it to be theirs and thats were the negotiation ends with the fanatics.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I'm sorry but if you hadn't known Syria and Iran are/were sponsoring various organisation seen as the US as terrorist, such as Hezbollah ( sponsored by Iran) and many other.....and who do you think funds the Palestinian organizations seen as terrorist by Israel and the US, The Arab League, and especially Syria and Iran who fund those organizations through so called help to the Palestinian people(your example of aid diverted to "terrorist", just the whole Arab countries see those organizations as liberators - the fact is, if there wasn't for those organizations Palestinians never would have a chance for an independet state)

Syria and Iran do this deleberatly and the US and Isreal know this, that is why they are on bad terms with each other...

 

P.S. Bush can't afford to invade 2 more countries in his mandate (maybe one), because the cost of war in Iraq will soon top the cost of WW2...and the budgit deficit is around 700$ billion, US army is far too stretched, if they wanted to invade 2 more countries the draft would be unavoidable and we know what sh*t would that cause..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No you missed the point. If the US pull out and Syria and Iran step up trying to destabalise Iraq which is a democratic nation with its own elected representatives then America is doing the right thing by helping them out and it would likely bring the other nations on board too.

 

Well the Arabs did band together and attack Isreal shortly after it was recognised and Isreal beat them so I cant say I have much sympathy for them.The terrorists are just prolonging things they cant win and they already have the notice of the international forum so all they are doing by continuing is giving Isreal the same mandate to defend itself by building all those walls and stuff.

[SteveThaiBinh]

To your other part about sending aid, you can never be sure of anything, so you can't always know 100% who is getting the aid in some country, but that is not the reason not to send help. The best way to control aid distribution is to send UN envoys with the aid, they could control directly on the ground to whom is that aid being given, help the goverments to prevent that aid being diverted to terrorists, and with all of the things mentioned above the terrorists wouldn't have an argument to sponsor and boost the terrorism within the people...that is the best way to combat terrorism, to leave them without direct reasons for them to provoke and conduct terrorism.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not a good idea to link development aid with efforts to reduce terrorism. Where it's been tried (Mindanao is a good example), it's usually failed. In Palestine, for example, support for terrorism arises less from poverty than from the perception of injustice, of belonging to a community that has been oppressed or mistreated. If the US spent more time pushing for diplomatic and peaceful solutions to conflicts in Palestine, Mindanao, Kashmir and others, that would do more to reduce support for terrorism. Sadly, it cannot do so now, as the Iraq war has destroyed what moral authority the US had. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...

[SteveThaiBinh]

Screw the UN (Useless Nations). If we did things the way they wanted with Iraq, by the time they finally gave us approval to go in, Saddam would have already dug in his forces and we would have had a much more difficult time taking him down. I believe that the UN is not what it used to be. It sits and debates rather than taking action when it needs to. All it does is stall things, and frankly I'm sick of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If we had done things the way the majority of the UN security council wanted, the weapons inspectors would have concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and there would have been no war.

 

The UN talks, it negotiates, it builds relationships and gives everyone a forum where they can let off steam. It's not perfect, but that's because it's the product of its disparate member states. If it fails to sanction a US war of aggression, that's to the UN's credit.

[11XHooah]

Screw the UN (Useless Nations). If we did things the way they wanted with Iraq, by the time they finally gave us approval to go in, Saddam would have already dug in his forces and we would have had a much more difficult time taking him down. I believe that the UN is not what it used to be. It sits and debates rather than taking action when it needs to. All it does is stall things, and frankly I'm sick of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You sound just like the stubborn Anakin in ep2 and ep3 where he talks about the senate (in this case the UN) being "useless and just talking instead of taking action and stuff like that"......and you know where that path took him ...where it could take the US

 

See you in 2 weeks...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What I'm saying is that when the trouble with Iraq started, the UN held us back. In retrospect, it was basically like giving Saddam a heads up that we were coming in, and telling him "you better hide your WMD's or get them out of country quickly, as well as prepare your troops."

[213374U]

When you say I don't give an alternative, look up because you qouted my ways of dealing with terrorism.

No, you don't. You just say that "poverty and stuff" should be eradicated, but you don't really give any specific solutions to terrorism. That's the same stuff everyone would wish was true in a perfect world, but that is just that, wishful thinking.

 

 

To your other part of comment....and what gives you the right to dictate the rest of the world (US in particulare) what to do, what is right, what isn't, tell them how should they develop, what T-Shirts to ware, to give in to the "coca-cola" globalisation.....and in that process get exploited and used by corporations and goverments of the west.....

I thought we had already gone over this. Their might gives them the right. The US have worked their way to the top. Nobody gave them anything for free. They are today's "Roman Empire", with everything that entails. You don't like it? Then get into politics and try to make your country an alternative. But no, all you people do is whine and moan about how Evil the US are.