Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: redmenace on September 10, 2005, 02:30:16 pm
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9173345/
-
Alright, assuming that the number is correct, which is uncertain, and assuming that they are all insurgents, which is again questionable, that's two hundred out of....what, thirty or forty thousand at least? Probably more. They've got people to waste, just like the Vietnamese. The insurgency won't run out of people any time soon.
-
Good to hear they freed a hostage, though.
I don't think this achieves anything, though; the nature of an insurgency is that the insurgents move from place to place anyways, due to numerical or technical inferiority (like in Falluja, or Mosul). It's really a self perpetuating cycle, I think; people will join the insurgency as long as there are foreign troops in Iraq, and the US can't be seen to withdraw their forces so long as there is any insurgency.
-
I keep saying: bring back Saddam. He's everything the US is looking in a leader: a secular strongman who can keep the various factions in check and give the government a certain air of legitimacy, plus he looks hella stylish in the latest released photos (this is actually true). Sure, a few history books will have to be rewritten, but still...
-
Just have a word with old Rummy, he'll talk to his pal Saddam and put in a good word with Shrub.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you your new President - Haddam Sussein!"
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Alright, assuming that the number is correct, which is uncertain, and assuming that they are all insurgents, which is again questionable, that's two hundred out of....what, thirty or forty thousand at least? Probably more. They've got people to waste, just like the Vietnamese. The insurgency won't run out of people any time soon.
I do wonder what 200 or so foreigners are doing in a iraqi city? True it is near a border, but really rictor, you don't think that the vast majority of these foreigners are up to any good?
-
I seem to remember there being a pic of Rummy getting along quite well with his old friend Saddam, just like Reagan funded al-Qaeda.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I keep saying: bring back Saddam. He's everything the US is looking in a leader: a secular strongman who can keep the various factions in check and give the government a certain air of legitimacy, plus he looks hella stylish in the latest released photos (this is actually true). Sure, a few history books will have to be rewritten, but still...
No.
No no no no.
Insurgency is nothing compared to a bloodbath he might initiate in order to get those pesky, uppity ****es and Kurds and swamp Arabs back to order.
SH: "Shia insurgents? Scramble Vipers!"
Aide: "Uhh sir we---"
SH: silence heathen.
[insert anti-Saddam insurgency and Saddam's countertricks, resulting in a ****load of bodies all over the place]
-
OK, was this picture of Rumsfield with Saddam after gassing the Kurds? Was this a diplomatic mission? Was this business or pleasure?
OK, in regaurds to Reagan funding al-Qaeda, we funded rebels fighting against the former Soviet Union. Yes, we helped them out by providing them RPGs to use against Russian Made HINDS. We didn't fund al Qaeda. Yes, our involvement might have moved it along a bit. But Radical, Islam has a long history that cannot be simply chalked up to simply being caused by one single thing.
-
It was during the Iran/Iraq war, probably right aroudn the same time as when he gassed the Kurds. We considered Iran to be the Big Threat (TM), so we supported Saddam. Nothing too extravagant, but we really need to get out of the habit of supporting strongmen who run contrary to our own philosophy.
-
The point I make is don't judge a person based on the fact he was photographed with someone. I mean using the same standard, we could criticize Churchill and FDR for being photographed with Stalin and being very polite and chummy with him.
-
Originally posted by redmenace
The point I make is don't judge a person based on the fact he was photographed with someone. I mean using the same standard, we could criticize Churchill and FDR for being photographed with Stalin and being very polite and chummy with him.
If they'd given Stalin picks for distribution in the gulags, they probably would have. That's the difference; when Churchill and FDR were allied with Stalin, it was against an aggressive attack by Germany that threatened all of europe and beyond. It's different from putting biological weapons in the hands of one tyrant fighting another, in a local war of attrition.
It's about consequences; the US funded islamic rebels in Afghanistan, taught them guerilla warfare tactics and provided heavy weapons like Stringers - and then abandoned them as soon as the big bad communists moved away, to see Afghanistan collapse into civil war and strife. And people who are abandoned, won't thank you for it later on. Possibly more importantly, it shown a Arab jihad could destroy superior forces of foreign aggressors (Because US support was covert). And that would be a stimulant to militancy.
And in Iraq, we have the support of a dictator, with active provision of weapons (including the satellite photos needed to gas Iranian formations), simply to fight a war by proxy. A dictator is a dictator, after all, regardless of their allegiance, and they use war to strengthen their position. Thousands of lives squandered by Iraq and Iran on a proxy war, and for what purpose? Selling some arms, playing a bit of politics?
I don't think any of these are unforseeable consequences.