Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on January 09, 2005, 03:22:59 pm
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/
Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers.
Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.
-
Did they learn NOTHING from Afghanistan?
-
*gets out the crayons*
-
If you're drawing pictures of Iraq ten years from now you'll need more red.
-
"The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."
well, there you have it folks.
-
It makes sense. If you want to stop insurgents then stop the leaders.
-
What part makes sense? Training a new one-day-will-be al-Queda?
-
No, collective punishment of the population. Illegal imprisonment. Assasinations and violating yet another country's sovereignty. That makes sense.
...just like it made sense in El Salvador, and Nicaragua, and Columbia and Afghanistan and...
-
I have flu, I'm in a bad mood, therefore I'm perfectly happy for everyone to die....
-
I've had the flu for the past week, I have an exam 2morrow, and I can't study.
You don't see me going pathological...
-
Yet.
And - haha, you've got to sit exams :p
And moving swiftly back on topic - what the **** are they thinking? Their big tactic on this claimed 'war-on-terror' is....terrorism?
-
It's all for the sake of democracy! ;)
-
Well, they do have a point. Currently terrorists, from outside Iraq, are being protected and supported by Sunnis, not all of them, but enough that insufficient pressure can be brought to bear politically. The only real viable alternative is to carpet bomb sunni concentrations to try and make them see the light.
-
You're saying that bombing an entire religious sect is a viable alternative? :eek2:
-
Right. Nobody fly off the handle and flame the place out. I want to understand this.
Liberator: Are you being serious? That's a genuine question, btw, not some "you crazy merkin wtf?!?!?!?!!111" type thing. I want to know - do you honestly think that? If so, why? What do you base it on?
And I repeat, to anyone else thinking of saying something unhelpful: leave it. We all know what you're going to say, so please don't. I want to understand this....
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Well, they do have a point. Currently terrorists, from outside Iraq, are being protected and supported by Sunnis, not all of them, but enough that insufficient pressure can be brought to bear politically. The only real viable alternative is to carpet bomb sunni concentrations to try and make them see the light.
Ah, so you're supporting terrorism as long as its Muslims being killed and not Americans?
-
Lib, I hate to break it to you buddy, but the US isn't exactly popular in Iraq. Has it ever occured to you that the Iraqis might actually prefer "the terrorists" to the US? In which case, it is the United States who are the terrorists.
For God's sake, at least stop saying you're doing it on behalf of the Iraqis, and just face up to the fact that its naked agression on America's part. They want you gone man, or at least some of the more moderate ones do. The rest want you dead. Why do you think the insurgency is getting so much popular support? You can't fight the insurgents on behalf of the Iraqi people if its clear that Iraqi people are, to oversimplify it, on their side.
The 9/11 hijackers thought that the entire US population should be punished because some of them support the the US government, which has the blood of countless victims on its hands. So they crashed two planes into the WTC. And now, you're saying that the Sunnis should be punished because some of them support the insurgents, who have the blood of American soldiers (not civilians, soldiers) on their hands.
See the logic?
Not to mention the fact that the Iraqi insurgency is involved in a legitimate struggle to end an illegal occupation by a foreign power, while American agression over the years has never been defensive in nature.
-
Not entirely related, but interesting;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4145585.stm
[q] While the world's attention has been on the disaster in Asia, the situation in Iraq has deteriorated so much that the insurgency has developed into near-open warfare.
The head of Iraq's intelligence service Gen Muhammad Shahwani now puts the number of insurgents at 200,000, of which 40,000 are said to be the hard core and the rest active supporters.
Until recently, the US military has talked of there being about 25,000 fighters in Iraq.
Gen Shahwani has not just upped the estimate, but has put it into the wider context of the active guerrilla support which perhaps gives a truer picture. There are 150,000 US troops.
Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington commented: "The Iraqi figures do... recognise the reality that the insurgency in Iraq has broad support in Sunni areas, while the US figures downplay this to the point of denial."
[/q]
-
The last point is debatable. You need to put a time limit of the last 50 years or so to make it correct.
EDIT: As a note, I was referring to Rictor's post.
-
yeah, sorry I should have mentioned that. I'm counting since the end of WW2, though with the exception of WW2 itself and WW1, you could probably include the past 100 years, since the US was very acitve in Sotuh America around the turn of the century.
-
No, I don't support the bombing of an entire religious sect. I support the bombing of regions that are known to support terrorists. I'm saying if we're gonna go to war to eliminate the maniulative bastards who have conned half the population of the world into believing that we are The Great Satan, we need to take the stops of the wheels.
They are the ones who want war, by God, all I'm saying is lets give it to them.
The continue existence of the regions that support those bastards is an affront to the memories of lost sons and daughters of every nation to those murdering bastards and I'm saying it needs to end.
We all want the war to stop and the only way it's going to stop is when the body count gets high enough, when that time comes I want friendlies to be the short column. We are letting them win by not treating them like a serious threat and not using the high altitude bombers.
The fires of freedom are spreading across the world, at no time in history have more people been free to pursue their dreams and find a life that makes them happy. Those murderous bastards aren't clerics, they are warlord wannabe kings who rule not with fairness and wisdom, but with fear and manipulation. Their time is ending and they know it, that's why they are fighting so hard. All I'm saying that we need to speed them on their way.
-
Even WW1 is debatable. It wasn't a defensive war (oh noes! American casualties on a British ship in the middle of a war zone!) and the US was more than happy selling arms to both sides. I'm honestly surprised that both the Axis and Allies had such a high view of the US during WW2 when they were being played as fools a few decades before.
-
They are the ones who want war, by God, all I'm saying is lets give it to them.
read that sentence carefully Lib. Now, what do you think my response is likely to be?
-
Originally posted by Liberator
No, I don't support the bombing of an entire nation. I support the bombing of regions that are known to support these murderers. I'm saying if we're gonna go to war to eliminate the maniulative bastards who have conned half the population of the world into believing that we are terrorists, we need to take the stops of the wheels.
They are the ones who want war, by Allah, all I'm saying is lets give it to them.
The continue existence of the regions that support those bastards is an affront to the memories of lost sons and daughters of every nation to those murdering bastards and I'm saying it needs to end.
We all want the war to stop and the only way it's going to stop is when the body count gets high enough, when that time comes I want friendlies to be the short column. We are letting them win by not treating them like a serious threat and not using the high altitude bombers.
The fires of freedom are spreading across the world, at no time in history have more people been free to pursue their dreams and find a life that makes them happy. Those murderous bastards aren't businesspeople, they are warlord wannabe kings who rule not with fairness and wisdom, but with fear and manipulation. Their time is ending and they know it, that's why they are fighting so hard. All I'm saying that we need to speed them on their way.
Wow, only a few words need to be edited and you're saying the exact same thing as the other side.
Which is a sign of the fact that both of you need to be stopped.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
No, I don't support the bombing of an entire religious sect. I support the bombing of regions that are known to support terrorists. I'm saying if we're gonna go to war to eliminate the maniulative bastards who have conned half the population of the world into believing that we are The Great Satan, we need to take the stops of the wheels.
If the terrorists have the support of the population, they're not terrorists - they're a militia.
They are the ones who want war, by God, all I'm saying is lets give it to them.
No, they want their country back. How about giving that to them?
The continue existence of the regions that support those bastards is an affront to the memories of lost sons and daughters of every nation to those murdering bastards and I'm saying it needs to end.
I may be wrong in a few weeks, but at present no-one is being forced to join the US Army. They know what they're signing up for, the invasion was illegal - not to mention immoral - and I'd like to point out that the Iraqis aren't the ones sniping little kids trying to get to the hospital.
We all want the war to stop and the only way it's going to stop is when the body count gets high enough, when that time comes I want friendlies to be the short column. We are letting them win by not treating them like a serious threat and not using the high altitude bombers.
You realise the bombing of civillians was pretty much outlawed after WW2 and when the UN became moved to impose sanctions on America only to have them veto'd - it'd pretty much destroy the United Nations and any semblance of a balance of power preventing the then-former member nations from nuking the goddamn **** outta America, right?
The fires of freedom are spreading across the world, at no time in history have more people been free to pursue their dreams and find a life that makes them happy.
Firstly - that's only because there have never been as many people on the Earth before.
Secondly - even taken as a percentage of the total population, that's bull****. Everyone throughout history, with the exception of slaves, has been able to do what the **** they wanted, when the **** they wanted. You're just classifying 'freedom' as living in a capitalist democracy.
Those murderous bastards aren't clerics, they are warlord wannabe kings who rule not with fairness and wisdom, but with fear and manipulation. Their time is ending and they know it, that's why they are fighting so hard.
No, they're 'fighting so hard' because their country has been invaded.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
read that sentence carefully Lib. Now, what do you think my response is likely to be?
:lol: I think we were all thinking it actually Rictor :)
-
Giving an open mandate for one group to eliminate people belonging in another group sure is a good idea and will not lead to innocent casualties, massive PR hit and the entire thing eventually biting the US in the tail, because it never has, never.
Never.
Ok, quite often.
On the other news, here's (http://andrewsullivan.com/) Stratfor's current stance. That is axtually just a sample, I am not going to post the entire thing here. It's very interesting and good.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
We all want the war to stop and the only way it's going to stop is when the body count gets high enough, when that time comes I want friendlies to be the short column. We are letting them win by not treating them like a serious threat and not using the high altitude bombers.
How about the body count of civillians?
Or do we not care about them any more? I thought this war was about their liberation - what is it now about? The liberation of their heads and limbs from their torso?
America went into Iraq and created a ****ing mess. Any good capital they had, any chance of winning public opinion over, they blew. The military aspect of it, they screwed up - too few troops, too much dependency on local goodwill. The political situation, wrecked - elections only in the parts that aren't fighting the US (to generalise the insurgency) - how is that going to lead to a representative government? The humanitarian case - destroyed; we had gitmo, now we have Abu-Ghraib and accidental shootings of the few Iraqi police not shot by insurgents.
And the biggest shame of it, for me, is that my countries government supported this fiasco. And I've had to wait 2 years for the oppertunity to finally do something to change that.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
How about the body count of civillians?
Or do we not care about them any more? I thought this war was about their liberation - what is it now about? The liberation of their heads and limbs from their torso?
no it was the WMDs no wait, ok - it was the terrorists ****, erase that, ok here' a good one, "Baathists want to conquer the world!", no no that doesn't cut it either, it's about liberating the Iraq people, no wait ****, let's just say its about terrists because everyone know terrists are evil, it's because the containment policy didn't work and that's why Iraq was conquering those countries and developing those nuk--- damn it's a foothold no it's not it's a SHINING BEACON OF FREEDOM AND LIBERTY at least we're not fighting them on the US soil so ok?
-
It's a big giant oil well.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
How about the body count of civillians?
Civvies are always in the Friendly column. Unless there are mitigating circumstances.
How many civilians have the Terrorists killed aldo?
Total Americans killed since hostilities began - 1100 +/-
Total non-hostile Iraqi killed by acts of terrorism - 2500? more? I haven't ever seen a total for those fatalies reported on a news channel, have you? Of course not, because it doesn't fit in with the the picture of the war that they are trying to paint. They are trying, actively taking action, to make this look like a Vietnam type conflict.
Ask yourself, dispassionately, who has the most to gain from making the US look incompetent under the current leadership, and in general? Don't let you're personal stance color you're thinking either. Which group has the most to gain by humiliating the United States?
-
Anyone except the united states? Europe? China? Developing Nations?
-
No one needs to humiliate the US Liberator, they can humiliate themselves pretty well...
Also, the body count
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Civvies are always in the Friendly column. Unless there are mitigating circumstances.
How many civilians have the Terrorists killed aldo?
Define terrorist - do you mean the insurgents fighting guerilla warfare, the common criminals kidnapping for ransom, or the actual terrorists?
Originally posted by Liberator
Total Americans killed since hostilities began - 1100 +/-
Total non-hostile Iraqi killed by acts of terrorism - 2500? more? I haven't ever seen a total for those fatalies reported on a news channel, have you? Of course not, because it doesn't fit in with the the picture of the war that they are trying to paint. They are trying, actively taking action, to make this look like a Vietnam type conflict.
Ah, good old paranoia rears it head - blame the 'liberal' media. What's the total of non-military Iraqis killed as collateral damage? I believe the estimate is about 15-17,000 justnow?
Originally posted by Liberator
Ask yourself, dispassionately, who has the most to gain from making the US look incompetent under the current leadership, and in general? Don't let you're personal stance color you're thinking either. Which group has the most to gain by humiliating the United States?
Any group with an interest in not kow-towing to the US, I'd wager. I've no doubt that the UN and 'old Europe' would breathe a bit easier if the US was licking its wounds rather than rampaging across the world starting unecessary wars.
Certainly, I'd feel a lot safer if the Us wasn't busy turning the Islamic world against it and my country by association.
anyways - look incompetent?
-
Actually Ghostavo, that count includes deaths from the war also, I was actually wanting to see a ratio of dead civilians resulting from unintended fire since the cessation of hostilities on Iraq as a whole and the reconstruction of Iraq began and those resulting from terrorist actions.
-
Son, you might not like it - but the war didn't end just because you said so. The other guy kept fighting.
-
Lib, that body count is for the total of civilians killed... I don't care if they were killed during the invasion or not, they were killed nonetheless...
-
I found an estimate of 4,300 non-combatants killed during the war.
Simple subtraction means at least 10,000 killed since the war.
Of course, that's excluding the likes of the Lancet survey which estimated 100,000 extra deaths had been caused as a result of the impact of the war.
EDIT; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war_casualties
[q]Dead
* Iraqis:
o Total:
+ estimated 100,000 excess deaths (8,000 to 194,000 at 95% confidence interval), with roughly three times as many injured (by September 2004 (from a study in The Lancet).
o Military/combatants (very rough estimates):
+ during the 6 weeks of "major combat" in March–April 2003:
# 30,000 (estimate by General Tommy Franks)
# 6,119 to 15,925 (from a compilation of incident reports)
# 4,895 to 6,370 (one study's estimate)
# 13,500 to 45,000 (one journalist's estimate)
+ around 124,000 U.S. troops believe they killed one or more Iraqi combatants in 2003
o Civilians:
+ estimated >36,533 during March-October 2003 ("100% sure" tally by survey in Iraq that assumes paramilitary bodies are not brought to morgues)
+ 14,378 to 16,514 reported by two or more news organizations (These include "all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, car bombings and beheadings by the "insurgents" and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.") (as of November 14, 2004)
+ around 41,000 U.S. troops believe they killed one or more Iraqi civilians in 2003
* Coalition (figures as of December 19, 2004 if not otherwise dated):
o Military:
+ 1,353 U.S., at least 1,060 by hostile forces (as of January 9, 2005 [1] (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000727180))
+ 76 U.K.
+ 84 from all other coalition countries
o Civilians:
+ at least 202 contractors/security personnel
# 68 U.S.
# 134 other (includes some from non-coalition countries)
+ more than 150 UN personnel/foreign civilians
+ more than 30 journalists
[/q]
-
And most of the dead journalists were killed by US forces...
Like the shelling of the Palestine hotel, the bombing of the Al-Jazzerah iraqi office, and, and...
.. aaaah, who cares?!
It´s curious how the US is fighting this war just like Israel is fighting the palestinians. Kill the press, so no one knows what you are doing, bulldoze homes to drive people off, kill civilians left and right and call them "insurgents"...
How soon until they start building a wall around Sadr City, Mossul, Najaf and Fallujah, eh?
-
Thing is that America has to practice what it preaches here, otherwise it is no better than the people it is fighting against.
So say Terrorism is terrible and then almost condone something that works along the same lines is no better than condoning torture and abuse in the light of Gitmo Bay.
Basically, if America is pissed off with the world getting annoyed at them then stop giving them ammunition.
There are more fires than fires of Freedom, and they are far far easier to feed, especially with mistrust and double-standards.
I'd love to see America's reputation in the world improve, I actually like the country, but your policies are damaging you greatly.
I think a lot of American TV leaves the viewer with a much lower estimation of the intelligence of your average Iraqi. I also think your leadership defines what is 'right' or 'wrong' as what is 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' from their point of view.
I think your leadership and your policies are letting you down, and the people of America have been left to take a large amount of Flak from that, and, human nature is such that if you live in any situation for long, you consider it 'normal' and everything else as 'deviant'.
Europe doesn't trust the US, the US doesn't trust the UN, and yes, we can all throw accusations and websites at each other, but what, exactly, does that do to solve the problem? Those that don't want to accept won't no matter how much proof you give them, they are too closed minded, so all it leaves is an increase in tension between the 'middle ground' people.
All I'm saying is that if America wants to represent Freedom, then do so, but at the moment, you should be aware that you are not.
If the UN wants to advise America and help them, then do so, but remember, America is a 'Teenager' in country terms, they are trying to find a single identity and purpose. 250 years into the establishment of our own countries, I doubt we would have been inclined to listen to anyone else either. Also, of course, just because we are 'older' countries does not mean we are always right ;)
As for this little grudge between the two, all I can say to both sides is 'Grow up!'. I mean, we are talking about a group of people who hold, quite literally, billions of lives in their hands between them, and they act like two kids arguing over a toy pony :(
-
And once again we wonder why Flip doesn't run for public office...any public office.
-
Lib: thought you might find this interesting. Its a take on the story using only quotes from various sources.
http://billmon.org/archives/001645.html