[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor

aldo: Though I by no mean support al Sadr, I do support soverignty (jeez, I can never spell it right) for the Iraqi people. If a fundamentalist is who they want, then thats who they get. Of course, I believe that basic rights for women and such should be upheld, no matter who is in power. This would take more than US presence, it would take a UN effort on the ground.

After years of Saddam's secular Iraq, the people are hungry for some religion. The fact that Muqtada al-Sadr's father and uncle were killed by Saddam for their religious views only strengthens him. I think a moderate theocracy with someone like al Sistani is the best that can be hoped for.

Point is, is it any more of a democracy if the troops controlling the place are militia in black shirts?  Iraq is currently held together by a thread.... if the 'coalition' pulls out, the country could very well disintigrate into a Yugolsavia style civil war along ethnic or religious lines.  It could very well be trading a secular dictatorship for a religious fundamentalist one - and quite possibly against the wishes of the people.

[Gank]

Originally posted by Flipside
It's phsychology, not Maths that will win though, it's not ALL Iraqis that are in the uprising, I have no real idea of numbers at the moment. But I personally feel that if America really cut loose with some of the stuff they've got over there, the outcome would be horrific.

When you're occuping a country, maths matter. You simply cant control a population of 20 million with 200k soldiers. And they cant let loose with some of the stuff they've got over there because they're supposed to be liberating the people, remember?

The 'Bombs' aren't for Iraq, they are to stop everyone else interfering, in the politest possible way, of course.

Its not going to stop anyone interfereing. Theres been reports of some of the newest veriosn of russian weapons being found in Iraq and Syria and Iran are getting as many volunteers across the borders as they can. US military is kinda stretched thin atm.

Control is often achieved by possesing the ability to destroy things, and (and this is important) demonstrating this once in a while so people don't think you have grown feeble. This has worked since before Man was Man, if you believe in evolution.

The ability to destroy something is not control. Theres a fly in the room with me at the minute, I can destroy that fly but I cant control where it goes. If I did destroy it, I'd actually be demonstrating my inability to control it. I can take a swing at it and hope it doesnt come back, but thats not control.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Gank

 The ability to destroy something is not control. Theres a fly in the room with me at the minute, I can destroy that fly but I cant control where it goes. If I did destroy it, I'd actually be demonstrating my inability to control it. I can take a swing at it and hope it doesnt come back, but thats not control.

 if you destroy, you don;t need to worry about the control part tho, do you?

[Gank]

Nope, but you cant destroy everything you dont contol.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Gank
Nope, but you cant destroy everything you dont contol.

unless you have a large number of nukes........

which leads us nicely back onto the **** pre-emptive strike (i.e. 'you looking at me?') strategy.

[Flipside]

If you have ten men, and show that you have the will and ability to destroy one of them, the others will tend to do what you say, because no-one wants to be No. 2.
This equation works at country level and beyond, in fact, it's one of the main 'human' equations, it's a question of appearances now, and **** is aggressive enough to keep turning up the heat till Iraq is in flames rather than stand down in front of the world community.

As far as countries supplying arms to the Iraqis, that's not what I meant, this is a minor irritation, not a danger. It would take a unilateral demand from the rest of the world, coupled with a threat of isolation, no trade with any other country to effect America, and that just isn't going to happen, because several countries would be utterly bankrupt long before America stopped rolling along on Internal Economics. And the current American administration is certainly stubborn enough to say no to the entire planet anyway.

[Kazan]

normally I don't mind foreigners, and I'll defend them from some of my more bloodsucking country men

but right now you're ****ing pissing me off - DO NOT equate every american with that bloodsucking warmonger in the white house - DO NOT wish death on men and women who are simply following the orders of an asshole.


[edit]
furthermore that guerilla news source implicated themselves for being extremely biased via their language - whoever wrote that article was a muslim fundamentalist

[Flipside]

Personally, I'm not, I'm saying the current American Administration is the problem, not America

[aldo_14]

I think it should be safe to assume America = American Government in these threads.

[Rictor]

Thats what I mean when I say "America" anyways. And no Kazan, following orders is not a valid excuse in my book. The way I see it, anyone in the American military as a career has to demostrate a healthy disregard for human life and the prinicples of justice.

Oh ****, I'm going to get smacked by someone, I'm not going to say who.

*puts on asbestos suit*

[Gank]

Originally posted by Flipside
If you have ten men, and show that you have the will and ability to destroy one of them, the others will tend to do what you say, because no-one wants to be No. 2.
This equation works at country level and beyond, in fact, it's one of the main 'human' equations, it's a question of appearances now, and **** is aggressive enough to keep turning up the heat till Iraq is in flames rather than stand down in front of the world community.

The equation doesnt work flipside, else the Iraqis wouldnt be fighting the US atm. Saddam ruled by fear, and he had a constant civil war with the Kurds, several major uprisings and constant coup attempts to deal with. It doesnt work full stop, look at Israel and the palestinains, the more you kill, the more you destroy, the deeper the hatred gets.

As far as countries supplying arms to the Iraqis, that's not what I meant, this is a minor irritation, not a danger. It would take a unilateral demand from the rest of the world, coupled with a threat of isolation, no trade with any other country to effect America, and that just isn't going to happen, because several countries would be utterly bankrupt long before America stopped rolling along on Internal Economics. And the current American administration is certainly stubborn enough to say no to the entire planet anyway.

Its not a minor irritation, its pretty major. World opinion is not going to drive the americans out of Iraq, no more than it stopped them going in. Guerilla warfare, continued to the point where the US is gaining nothing by occupation is. And in this respect, modern weapons capable of taking out abrams or apaches are not minor irritations.

Kazan I suggest you go and read some of the muslim fundamentalist sites and get a bit of perspective here. Thats a lefty site, not an islamic one, theres nothing islamic about any of the language. And of course its ****ing biased, look at the name ffs. You're sounding a bit like liberator

[Flipside]

Yes, Saddam was plagued by coups and assasination attempts, but he still ruled. I'm not saying the Equation is perfect or incorruptible, but it works long enough. The Iraqis are fighting the Americans who are attempting to use fear, just as they fought Saddam who attempted to use fear, but Saddam kept enough of them in fear to stay in control, I'm just hoping America doesn't come to the same conclusion.

I agree that a 'worst case scenario' is unlikely, I don't see America dropping nukes on Iraq or the like, but if America are pushed out, I can garauntee that the current administration will not just bring them home, **** does NOT want another Vietnam this close to election, from his own bigoted point of view, it may seem better to bomb the living sh*t out or Iraq, I can see the speech now :-

'Many nations have condemned this, but America has a right to protect itself against Terrorism. These people, by attacking and killing American Men and Women have sided with Terrorism and against Freedom. For this reason I we decided that saturation bombing was the only way to be sure we got everyone involved. Civilan casualties were high, but, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is War and War is Hell.'

That'll pretty much be it, but with a speech impediment

Edit : As I recall, this Russian 'anti-jamming' device didn't work, and most of the other weapons may cause irritation, the may take down a helicopter or two, kill 20+ soldiers etc, then the owner would get hit be a clusterbomb or the like and that's the problem solved.

[Kazan]

Gank: how am I acting like liberator by pointing out an obvious bias - and if you missed it that's your own fault (hint: religiously tainted wording)

Rictor: "healthy disreguard for human life and the principlies of justice" what are you a ****ing retard?  Most of these people joined for one of the following reasons

A) college $
B) protect US (that does not include invading other countries)
C) Family tradition


How do any of those show a "disreguard for human life and the principles of justice" -- ESPECIALLY B

Rictor get your head out of your posterior

[Corsair]

If **** wins the election, he'll restart the draft, flood the area with troops, and get thousands of Americans and millions of Iraqis killed. I'll be dead, and the world will be a suckier place.

Mmmmmm Vietnam.

[Rictor]

a) killing people for money is no excuse. tough. get a job or something.
b) the us has not fought a defensive war since, well, does WW2 count? If not, then the last one would be maybe the war of 1812?
c)again, its not a valid excuse. All this shows is that you are incapable of making decisions for yourself, but I guess thats why people join up, eh?

If you go into the Army, even if you work at a desk job, you are sustaining an organization which has visited much suffering on a great many innocent people. Face facts, the US Army is not a defensive organization. If you join, you are helping to perpetuate US dominance. And this dominance always comes at a cost to some poor schmuck in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever.

[Grey Wolf]

Reaction to this news: ****.

Reaction to this quote:

Originally posted by Flipside
< sigh > Where's Asterix and Obelix when you need them?

Someone actually mentioned Asterix!

[aldo_14]

Hoboy - here we go

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2236439005&category=588



Oh yes, and Asterix kicks arse.

Er, after he's taken Getafix's potion, of course.

[Grey Wolf]

That's what this board needs. More Asterix, less politics

[Liberator]

These are not "Holy Men", these are thugs with personal armies who want to carve Iraq up into there own personal feifdoms and rule the populace with an iron hand, killing all who oppose their murderous ways.  Their armies are made up evil men who's purpose and desire is to kill Americans, any Americans.  

They don't care what your politics are, or how you feel about them or their ideas.  The fact that you are American is enough to get you killed.  Their only desire is the acquisition of personal power.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
That's what this board needs. More Asterix, less politics

ZIGACKLY!  *hic*