[Lerkfish]

This new york times story requires registration, so here it is in its entirety. I have highlighted (bolded) sections I find interesting.

Tough New Tactics by U.S. Tighten Grip on Iraq Towns
By DEXTER FILKINS

BU HISHMA, Iraq, Dec. 6 — As the guerrilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire.

In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in.

The Americans embarked on their get-tough strategy in early November, goaded by what proved to be the deadliest month yet for American forces in Iraq, with 81 soldiers killed by hostile fire. The response they chose is beginning to echo the Israeli counterinsurgency campaign in the occupied territories.

So far, the new approach appears to be succeeding in diminishing the threat to American soldiers. But it appears to be coming at the cost of alienating many of the people the Americans are trying to win over. Abu Hishma is quiet now, but it is angry, too.

In Abu Hishma, encased in a razor-wire fence after repeated attacks on American troops, Iraqi civilians line up to go in and out, filing through an American-guarded checkpoint, each carrying an identification card printed in English only.

"If you have one of these cards, you can come and go," coaxed Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander whose men oversee the village, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. "If you don't have one of these cards, you can't."

The Iraqis nodded and edged their cars through the line. Over to one side, an Iraqi man named Tariq muttered in anger.

"I see no difference between us and the Palestinians," he said. "We didn't expect anything like this after Saddam fell."

The practice of destroying buildings where Iraqi insurgents are suspected of planning or mounting attacks has been used for decades by Israeli soldiers in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israeli Army has also imprisoned the relatives of suspected terrorists, in the hopes of pressing the suspects to surrender.

The Israeli military has also cordoned off villages and towns thought to be hotbeds of guerrilla activity, in an effort to control the flow of people moving in and out.

American officials say they are not purposefully mimicking Israeli tactics, but they acknowledge that they have studied closely the Israeli experience in urban fighting. Ahead of the war, Israeli defense experts briefed American commanders on their experience in guerrilla and urban warfare. The Americans say there are no Israeli military advisers helping the Americans in Iraq.

Writing in the July issue of Army magazine, an American brigadier general said American officers had recently traveled to Israel to hear about lessons learned from recent fighting there.

"Experience continues to teach us many lessons, and we continue to evaluate and address those lessons, embedding and incorporating them appropriately into our concepts, doctrine and training," Brig. Gen. Michael A. Vane wrote. "For example, we recently traveled to Israel to glean lessons learned from their counterterrorist operations in urban areas." General Vane is deputy chief of staff for doctrine concepts and strategy, at the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command.

American officers here say their new hard-nosed approach reflects a more realistic appreciation of the military and political realities faced by soldiers in the so-called Sunni triangle, the area north and west of Baghdad that is generating the most violence against the Americans.

Underlying the new strategy, the Americans say, is the conviction that only a tougher approach will quell the insurgency and that the new strategy must punish not only the guerrillas but also make clear to ordinary Iraqis the cost of not cooperating.

"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face."

[eklipse]

Heh.

Well at least we can discuss America/Israel and the Iraqis/Palestinians in the same thread now.

[The Ayatollah]

certain areas are in chaos and many in the sunni communities support the terrorists or insurgents. And these extremists are slaughtering Iraqis, too.

I have no problem with US forces getting tough with the populations. Quarantine those animals from the rest of the better-behaved Iraqis so the tens of millions of free Iraqis can have a chance at a life free from the militancy and extremism of their obsolete and doomed counterparts.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Heh.

Well at least we can discuss America/Israel and the Iraqis/Palestinians in the same thread now.

We can double our effectiveness!

[Spliffdaddy]

"You have to understand the Arab mind," Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. "The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face."

That's all anybody understands.

[christ]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face."

Our three main weapons are...

[voodoo]

Originally posted by christ:
Our three main weapons are...

[The Ayatollah]

christ, your sig is too long. It occupies 4 lines of text, one line break, and 'Chris T' on the first line. A total of 6 lines. I comply with the rules, and so must you.

[swrate]

Originally posted by voodoo:

"you have to understand the Arab mind...."
Israël advising the Bush administration.
I am surprised they didnt say: you have to control the Arab mind" (and $$$)
Is Israel/Palestine a success or a failure?

That wire story ...pictures
The beginning of "concentration camps":
make people dependant and control them.

The problem is:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...raq_qaeda_dc_1

Al quaida is now getting involved.?
Until now the retaliators were mostly University students.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
...I comply with the rules..

HA!

[eklipse]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
I have no problem with US forces getting tough with the populations. Quarantine those animals from the rest of the better-behaved Iraqis so the tens of millions of free Iraqis can have a chance at a life free from the militancy and extremism of their obsolete and doomed counterparts.

"Better behaved Iraqis"?

I guess that means: 'those who don't object to their country's occupation', huh?

You make it sound as if the Iraqis are America's pet dogs - they either heel to their master or get put in a cage.

It's interesting that the US's definition of 'freedom' now includes 'living inside a barbed wire fence' - but, fear not, they are now taking advice from Israel......and look what an outstanding record of peace, humanitarianism and success in undermining militancy they have.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by eklipse:
"Better behaved Iraqis"?

I guess that means: 'those who don't object to their country's occupation', huh?

hardly. The 'better-behaved' Iraqis are those that realise that terrorism and militancy only murders fellow Iraqis and seeks to return to power a regime of totalitarianism, apostasy, murder, rape, and torture. The Iraqis that reject that future and work with the US forces to crush extremism and terrorists and build an Iraq worth living in are wise indeed.

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
certain areas are in chaos and many in the sunni communities support the terrorists or insurgents. And these extremists are slaughtering Iraqis, too...

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...732074009.html

The losing battle for Iraqi hearts and minds
December 8, 2003

"Our troubles are great and our hearts are broken" . . . Said Qasim in Al Shualla, a Shiite town that was expected to welcome the Americans.

Life is better now that Saddam has gone, but it can't improve until the Americans leave, Paul McGeough writes in the first of a series of reports on Iraq.

Al Shualla should be one of George Bush's good news stories. But the renovation of the local hospital and four schools seems like cold comfort for the people of this impoverished Shiite enclave on Baghdad's north-west fringes.

That the work has even been done must be prised out of them. Standing in a threadbare mosque, the stubble-faced Said Abdul Rashul Jabar apologises because the community cannot afford the richly coloured carpets that ordinarily adorn places of worship in Iraq. Then he sets out the change in their lives in eight months of US occupation.

"Life is the same as before," he says. But then he suggests it's worse: "We still don't have security we used to have - we have to lock ourselves in our homes at night. We have no jobs and there is no petrol. We can't get cooking gas.

"We have a small generator that might supply 50 homes, but we can't get diesel for it. We have a big generator that Saddam gave to us three months before the war, but we don't have an engineer to make it work. People are angry, very angry."

He rummages around for a good word to say. It takes a while: "It is good that we don't have the police and the mukhabarat [Saddam Hussein's intelligence service] in the mosque any more." And nodding his head to a trio of revered Shiite faces hanging on a raw cement wall, he adds: "And we couldn't have them up there under Saddam."

He reaches a conclusion: "The only good thing is that we don't have Saddam any more. Everything else is bad."

Al Shualla is a grindingly poor neighbourhood of about 4000 homes. Extended families of 30, but sometimes of up to 90 people, live on top of each other in cramped houses that might fall down if they weren't piled one against the other.

Today it is a quagmire - the narrow streets are flooded and smelly because the drains can't cope with yesterday's torrential rain. Black-clad women tip-toe around great puddles, trying to keep the mud off their trailing abayas; rusty-brown, fat-tailed sheep scavenge on the rubbish that is piled high in the alleyways.

There is a hum in the marketplace where brightly coloured fabrics flap in a breeze that doesn't have the strength to stir the thousands of pairs of plastic shoes and sandals that dangle on strings. But shopkeepers and stall-holders claim business is no better than before the war. "Still just enough for my family to live on," one says.

Jabar is the custodian of the mosque and on the local council. It's telling that he and the chorus in a small crowd that gathers as we talk have to be pressed on the renovation of the hospital and the schools.

And after listing the work done - doors and windows fitted, a lick of paint and new desks and books at the school; general repairs, an improved water supply and plumbing and free treatment for children at the hospital - he concedes that life might be betterfor the children of Al Shualla. But there is something else that he has to be pressed on. On the evening of March 28 what was widely believed to be an errant US missile slammed into the local market place, killing 55 and injuring scores of people.

Jabar points to the room where the bodies of the dead are traditionally washed and bound in white cloth before burial: "We had to wash the body of one of our teachers who was decapitated in the blast but of course, you were here that night. You saw it."

He is upset. His folded arms grip his chest tighter: "The pain of that night is still great. The Americans have paid no compensation to the families of the dead and we have heard nothing back from them on our petitions."

In Iraq's unceasing comparisons of life before and after the war, he has in his head an appalling tit-for-tat charge sheet against Bush and Saddam.

Running his mind's eye down the street that passes the marketplace, he numbers the dead, house by house. Then he points at people in the crowd: "That man lost three brothers in Saddam's war against Iran, two brothers of the man next to him died in the same war and three of my brothers died."

At his family's tailor shop opposite the marketplace, 34-year-old Said Adel Abed Qasim gives thanks that his sister-in-law was able to shield her four-month-old daughter from injury, even as she died in the blast.

"My mother died," he says, pain etched on his gaunt face. "And my nine-year-old sister died along with my brother's wife. Our troubles are great and our hearts are broken - this house, this whole family lost its mother."

But there is little room for sentiment when I ask how difficult it is to continue living and working on this street of sorrow. "This is where we live," he says with finality. "We have heard nothing about the deaths from the US military or the American civilian authorities - there can be no relationship between us."

This seems to be a bottom line in Al Shualla, a previously oppressed Shiite community that the US fully expected to welcome its invasion with open arms. Life is better because Saddam has gone, but it can't improve until the Americans are gone too.

Back at the mosque, Jabar, the 52-year-old custodian, speaks with the confidence that underpins the growing political clout of the Shiite majority as it emerged from relative silence in the last eight months, pushing and shoving to become perhaps the most powerful force in shaping the new Iraq.

"Our hopes for liberation were so big, but the US is not meeting its promises. We will not join the armed resistance. We are waiting for our leader, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, to tell us when and how to resist the US - then we will do it. We await Sistani's orders. Any Iraqi regime would be better than any foreign administration. We refuse to be occupied."

Sadly, these people are trapped in a void - relieved that Saddam is gone but now wishing that the US-led occupation forces would go, too, and happier to trust in their god than in George Bush to guide their uncertain fate.

As the families took their dead home from the mosque on that terrible night in March, I noted the words of a Shiite cleric who tried to comfort them: "We pray to Muhammad and to his descendants, and to the Prophet Abraham, revered by all Muslims, Christians and Jews. We pray for the Muslims who have died, and for those who still cling to life.

"We say that we depend on god, and only god, to save us. And we pray that he will lead the Americans and the British to go away, and leave us in our land of Iraq. Lastly, we pray for the spirits of the departed to go to Paradise."

In Al Shualla, they are still praying.

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
... I have no problem with US forces getting tough with the populations. Quarantine those animals from the rest of the better-behaved Iraqis so the tens of millions of free Iraqis can have a chance at a life free from the militancy and extremism of their obsolete and doomed counterparts.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...732074009.html

and your point, succinctly put, is what exactly?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
and your point, succinctly put, is what exactly?

I saw it as suggesting that you have NO BLOODY IDEA of what this statement of yours meant:

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
Tens of millions of free Iraqis can have a chance at a life free from the militancy and extremism of their obsolete and doomed counterparts.

Even if that's not the point Face Ache was trying to make, it is painfully obvious that your idea of life for the "free Iraqi" is some Bush-induced illusion that has no - absolutely none - basis in the reality of anyone but those Iraqis rich and lucky enough to have gone into exile long ago.

And they're not "liberated"; they invaded along with the US and UK and are now in power!

-s*

[Troll]

So, now we can add the unjustly punishing the civilian population to torturing people to death in Afghanistan and the various alleged war crimes committed in Guantanamo. I can't think of any Army that has been accused of committing more war crimes in 2003 than the US Army. Which makes it International War Crimes World Champion elect of 2003, no?

And the rest of the world is still puzzled as to why they don't want to sign the Treaty of Rome.

[theolein]

I read the article about surrounding suspect villages with barbed wire and demolishing insurgents relatives houses on the NYTimes this morning, and I was a bit shocked.
I can understand the Americans retaliating more harshly in the face of mounting losses but this can't be anyone's idea of how to win a guerilla war! The Israelis, from whom apparently the Americans have this idea, have been fighting their guerilla war for years with no sign of it ending, and this idea was also tried in Vietnam IIRC with the so called protected villages, which was a catastrophic failure. If the Americans were hoping to win the hearts and minds campaign, this can't be the way to do it.

The terminology such of those officers used was appalling. Claiming that the only things that Arabs understand is force, pride and saving face is tantamount to admitting that Saddam's regime was correct in its approach to its people.

I really don't have a good feeling about this. Repression has historically only strengthened resistance movements' support amongst the local population.

That said, I wouldn't know what to do either about the mounting attacks. The only thing I could think of would be to hand over the reigns to the locals, which is what the Americans apparently want to do.

[moki]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
This new york times story requires registration, so here it is in its entirety. I have highlighted (bolded) sections I find interesting.

These tactics are exactly what the British used successfully in Malaysia back in the 1950's, for what it's worth.

Actually, they took it a step or two further, and took every man of a particular age group, and put them in concentration camps in order to work out who was who, and their intentions. Harsh, but it worked.

Hopefully we won't have to resort to such tactics in Iraq. Great progress is being made, despite the media focusing on the plane that crashes (when a plane lands successfully, it isn't news after all).

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
These tactics are exactly what the British used successfully in Malaysia back in the 1950's, for what it's worth.

Actually, they took it a step or two further, and took every man of a particular age group, and put them in concentration camps in order to work out who was who, and their intentions. Harsh, but it worked.

I'm not firm in the history of Malaysia, but I suspect actually giving Malayans their independence had much to do with it.

-s*

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I'm not firm in the history of Malaysia, but I suspect actually giving Malayans their independence had much to do with it.

Nope. That came years later...

In any event, that's exactly what the US plans to do with Iraq. However it would be ridiculously stupid to have come this far only to abandoned the country when there are still dangerous elements that would topple the government and result in something as bad or worse than under Saddam, no?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by moki:
Nope. That came years later...

In any event, that's exactly what the US plans to do with Iraq. However it would be ridiculously stupid to have come this far only to abandoned the country when there are still dangerous elements that would topple the government and result in something as bad or worse than under Saddam, no?

On that, I agree with you, except that I suspect that the US has different ideas of what is "better or worse than under Saddam" than the Iraqis do.

-s*

[Ω]

Originally posted by moki:
Great progress is being made, despite the media focusing on the plane that crashes (when a plane lands successfully, it isn't news after all).

A plane landed successfully in NY today.

Media tend to focus on the abnormal, as this is "news".

[theolein]

Originally posted by moki:
These tactics are exactly what the British used successfully in Malaysia back in the 1950's, for what it's worth.

Actually, they took it a step or two further, and took every man of a particular age group, and put them in concentration camps in order to work out who was who, and their intentions. Harsh, but it worked.

Hopefully we won't have to resort to such tactics in Iraq. Great progress is being made, despite the media focusing on the plane that crashes (when a plane lands successfully, it isn't news after all).

Moki, the high school I went to in South Africa was built upon the grounds of an old British concentration camp* from the Anglo-Boer war. And you know what happened to South Africa after that... The Racist Nationalist Apartheid government was voted into power largely because of the suffering the Afrikaaners had received at the hands of the British.



*Being the ones that started the whole idea of concentration camps, why don't the British get the same treatment as the Germans do in history?

[gadster]

Originally posted by theolein:
<snip> The Israelis, from whom apparently the Americans have this idea, have been fighting their guerilla war for years with no sign of it ending<snip>

That's exactly how the arms manufacturers like it.

[ebuddy]

Where are we learning how the Iraqis feel about the US, The NY Times? Anyone here know an Iraqi and how they feel? Remember what happened when Bush Sr. did not maintain US presence in Iraq? Remember how much critisicm we endured for having "left 'em hanging"?

If most of the world is opposed to our work in Iraq, why did they overwhelmingly support, draft and sign the 14 resolutions against Iraq? Or are they more simply opposed to giving of themselves to enforce the policy they drafted? Over a span of 12 years and no compliance what is left to do? More resolutions? Don't we still have work to do there? I mean it's really nice that you believe the Iraqi's would say; "Thanks for taking care of Saddam OK we'll take it from here, now get out". It doesn't quite work that way. Especially considering the masses of people there insufficiently prepared to deal with terrorism. If they couldn't protect themselves against takeover then, what makes you believe they can now? Just because Saddam is gone? Although I think the focus should be directed towards creating a strong police force and not military (just yet) I believe we've done great things there.

There were many reasons to do what we're doing in Iraq and the primary objective was to change the face of the Middle East. Not to coerce our form of government upon others mind you, Israel's democracy and Turkey's democracy are very different than ours yet much more effective than before. If you are fundamentally opposed to Democracy, then I can understand your concern. Please remember the reason why America is under such great scrutiny. We've placed ourselves there to enforce international policy others would not. Many of the reasons others would not is because they had their hand in Saddam's pocket, others are opposed to America in general (sorry, can't do anything about that), and fear the BIG US is coming to get them. others are opposed to our form of government. IMHO, none of these are valid reasons to not uphold international policy. There's a reason the International Community was concerned about Iraq, now they need not be.

Now's your chance to run Global affairs. How would you have dealt with Iraq, the funding of terrorism that manifest in over 2000 dead in your most influential city and many attrocities abroad, 14 resolutions ignored over 12 years, and mounting tension in the Middle East?

I also have yet to see an honest answer to my question; "were you this critical of Clinton during the Yugoslav invasion?" He did not seek council from the UN for that action. Much of why we're seen as bullies within the International Community is because of our prior administrations' actions, but I saw no such banter at that time. At least not from the so-called Peace monguers of the time. I could be wrong, but it seems to me the justification for war seems to hinge entirely upon whether or not a Democrat is initiating it.

[theolein]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
..........

Why did you just post that? The topic isn't really about the war itself, is it, but about the the tactic of surrounding villages and towns with barbed wire etc. I simply don't think it's a good idea as I think it will probably only make the Iraqis more alienated.

In any case we'll see in a while if it actually makes any change for the better. I don't think it will, somehow.

[Troll]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
How would you have dealt with Iraq, the funding of terrorism that manifest in over 2000 dead in your most influential city

"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11 attacks" G.W. Bush, Sept 17, 2003

[gadster]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
<snip>resolutions ignored over 12 years, and mounting tension in the Middle East<snip>

So when are you going to take out Israel?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by theolein:
The terminology such of those officers used was appalling. Claiming that the only things that Arabs understand is force, pride and saving face is tantamount to admitting that Saddam's regime was correct in its approach to its people.

this bears highlighting. well said.

I've pointed out before the fallacy of saying its ok to mistreat Iraqis as long as they are not mistreated as badly as they were mistreated under Saddam.

sad. just sad.

[ebuddy]

So when are you going to take out Israel?

For what reason? Hating Israel? I don't hate Israel though many do and would like to "take them out." You'll notice terrorism seems to escalate in that area when peace talks begin. I don't recall Israel having a meeting of minds for peace and initiating military action at the same time though I could be wrong.

Someone had asked what my intentions were in posting my statement. My overall concern is that we are critical about every single step made by US force in Iraq w/o any other solutions to the problems. How can you effectively hinder opposing forces from flanking you and hindering the work you are trying to accomplish in a given position? They are creating a buffer w/ this barbed wire. It's not a wall, it's a fence and I'm sure it will not stay there. I get the impression there are some alarmists who are trying to claim these are "camps" of some sort. To summarise my point, I don't necessarily stay on topic so much as banter points made by others. There is a foundation of distaste for our actions overseas and it generally facilitates topics like those we're discussing here. Evidenced also by others' lack of staying on topic.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
So when are you going to take out Israel?They are creating a buffer w/ this barbed wire. It's not a wall, it's a fence and I'm sure it will not stay there. I get the impression there are some alarmists who are trying to claim these are "camps" of some sort.

FWIW, I doubt the Iraqis view it as simply a fence. Try to put yourself in their shoes. Imagine if your town were surrounded by razorwire and you had to pass through an armed checkpoint to enter and leave. Would this win your "heart and mind"? That is the point of the thread.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
[B]To summarise my point, I don't necessarily stay on topic so much as banter points made by others. There is a foundation of distaste for our actions overseas and it generally facilitates topics like those we're discussing here. Evidenced also by others' lack of staying on topic.

I think the point of the thread is what is causing the distaste for our actions? If the actions are utilizing Israeli models, then it begs the question how effective that will be, since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no closer to a resolution then it has ever been for decades. So, obviously, we are adopting a model that does not address a problem but simply perpetuates it with no end in sight.
If, as bush wants, we hand over Iraq by election time so he can get re-elected, why adopt strategies that prolong conflicts for decades?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
So when are you going to take out Israel?

For what reason? Hating Israel? I don't hate Israel though many do and would like to "take them out."

ahem:

"resolutions ignored over 12 years, and mounting tension in the Middle East" was given by you as a reason for invading Iraq.

By the same count: When are you going to take out Israel?

-s*

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by moki:
These tactics are exactly what the British used successfully in Malaysia back in the 1950's, for what it's worth.

Actually, they took it a step or two further, and took every man of a particular age group, and put them in concentration camps in order to work out who was who, and their intentions. Harsh, but it worked.

Hopefully we won't have to resort to such tactics in Iraq. Great progress is being made, despite the media focusing on the plane that crashes (when a plane lands successfully, it isn't news after all).

Re-education camps worked wonders in Cambodia as well. And we musn't forget how essential the Gulag was to the success of Stalinist Russia.

Un-****ing-believable.

Collective punishment is expressly outlawed by the Geneva Convention. And even if it wasn't, the logic of such tactics are utterly indefensible in light of the US's stated objectives in Iraq.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
So when are you going to take out Israel?

For what reason?...

Weapons of Mass Destruction?

[Lerkfish]

I guess what I don't get is how much of a reflex it is to defend the administration, no matter what.

How can anyone defend this strategy?

1. Do they think razorwire around a village will end the insurgency? In what way? they appear to be everywhere, and I doubt they are stationing their people in village, patiently waiting around as the razor is being constructed?

2. How will this possibly convince normal citizens who actually know something to come forward?
In what way would it be to their advantage to do so?

3. How will this sit with normal citizens who DON"T know anything, but have to suffer through this kind of treatment?

Can someone who agrees with this strategy please address these questions?

[saab95]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
This new york times story requires registration, so here it is in its entirety. I have highlighted (bolded) sections I find interesting.

They have to do all this crap because they didn't fight the war to win in the first place.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by saab95:
They have to do all this crap because they didn't fight the war to win in the first place.

Not really sure you're communicating that thought clearly:
do you mean:

A: The Bush administration has to do all this crap because they didn't fight the war to win in the first place.

B: The Iraqi insurgents have to do all this crap because they didn't fight the war to win in the first place.

C: The coalition troops have to do all this crap because they didn't fight the war to win in the first place.

D: Bush Jr.'s administration has to do all this crap because Bush Sr. didn't fight the war to win in the first place.

[ebuddy]

How many other nations with alleged nukes have we attacked? How many other nations with alleged WMD have we attacked? We do not go about attacking nations by virtue of what they have. We attack by virtue of what they have done with them. We attack by virtue of what they promise to do with them. We attack out of distaste for how they use these same tactics to govern locally.

Historically, oppression leads to aggression. It's a human condition that hinders Utopian possibilities. A salesman creates a need. The media creates a need. A politician creates a need. These are all sold emotionally and easily to those in need. Non-conformity of the masses can be suppressed only one of two ways; Force or feelings. Force creates oppression by fear and when left unattended will spread regardless of whether or not the layperson wants it. Feelings discusses the issues of all involved and arrives at a compromise. Compromise is not in the Oppressor's vocabulary. Oppression by fear has been spreading for some time now and beginning to wage a credible threat. When to act? Who is the squeeky wheel? These are debateable. Nations like ours tend to stand in a defensive posture, but generally in defense of someone else in need.

A free society affords better opportunity for all. In most cases, you get out what you put in. A free society chooses who they want to be represented by in law-making. Oppression is a condition that will not prevail in a free society. Condition shapes culture. Now we are far from Utopia here in the U.S., but we are certainly not needy by International standards and oppression is not the prevailing condition in America. In fact, many suggest we are too comfortable and too complacent as a result. Our freedom is evident in just about every hot topic facing our leadership today and the debates that result. Our culture while wrought with greed at some points in it's inception and throughout it's history has always strived for more freedom, more prosperity and more compassion. We give more than anyone else physically and financially, Intra and Internationally. Our poorest are among the wealthiest people in the world. We are the only ones with our level of clout, willing to stand against oppression through fear. If American military advisors thought it best we should barb a village to facilitate a safe and successful campaign to provide aide to a Nation in need, do it. We've lost most of our soldiers specifically because of compassion. Several trying to help supposed defectors. Sectioning off towns is not something our military likes doing. They know what it looks like to the International Community, but they have to perform the cumbersome task of safely separating henchmen from humans. How else do you suppose they organize and protect their efforts? I know that's offensive to some and I don't want to appear hostile, but I'm confident in our intentions there and they don't involve owning Iraq or it's people. Change on a National level is painful. It's something I believe most of them wanted. Usually, the more educated one becomes, the more they long for freedom.

Israel is and probably always will be in a defensive posture IMO. The others of which we speak are generally in an offensive posture. Who's to say I'm not wrong? I don't believe I am and those that differ don't believe they are. There's a difference IMHO. I won't go into details regarding how just about every single solitary bully even remotely close to them geographically has wanted them eliminated. Not suppressed, eliminated. The Middle East is naturally no exception to the above. I've debated this elsewhere and emotions are too heavy to engage healthy debate. The speeches I've heard, the articles I've read, and the people I've spoken to only serve to reinforce my opinion whether they espouse views in which I agree or disagree. I believe there's a purpose to this story and topic and I believe it's to demonstrate that America is the bully. Eventually, this will be a prevailing view globally if unchecked. Naturally, I'd like to argue that.

That doesn't make me a Global expert. It makes me a Global observer. I believe a woman has been hit and I must do something about it. I'm glad I live in a nation that primarily agrees.

[theolein]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
How many other nations with alleged nukes have we attacked? How many other nations with alleged WMD have we attacked? We do not go about attacking nations by virtue of what they have. We attack by virtue of what they have done with them. We attack by virtue of what they promise to do with them. We attack out of distaste for how they use these same tactics to govern locally.



Historically, oppression leads to aggression. It's a human condition that hinders Utopian possibilities. A salesman creates a need. The media creates a need. A politician creates a need. These are all sold emotionally and easily to those in need. Non-conformity of the masses can be suppressed only one of two ways; Force or feelings. Force creates oppression by fear and when left unattended will spread regardless of whether or not the layperson wants it. Feelings discusses the issues of all involved and arrives at a compromise. Compromise is not in the Oppressor's vocabulary. Oppression by fear has been spreading for some time now and beginning to wage a credible threat. When to act? Who is the squeeky wheel? These are debateable. Nations like ours tend to stand in a defensive posture, but generally in defense of someone else in need.

A free society affords better opportunity for all. In most cases, you get out what you put in. A free society chooses who they want to be represented by in law-making. Oppression is a condition that will not prevail in a free society. Condition shapes culture. Now we are far from Utopia here in the U.S., but we are certainly not needy by International standards and oppression is not the prevailing condition in America. In fact, many suggest we are too comfortable and too complacent as a result. Our freedom is evident in just about every hot topic facing our leadership today and the debates that result. Our culture while wrought with greed at some points in it's inception and throughout it's history has always strived for more freedom, more prosperity and more compassion. We give more than anyone else physically and financially, Intra and Internationally. Our poorest are among the wealthiest people in the world. We are the only ones with our level of clout, willing to stand against oppression through fear. If American military advisors thought it best we should barb a village to facilitate a safe and successful campaign to provide aide to a Nation in need, do it. We've lost most of our soldiers specifically because of compassion. Several trying to help supposed defectors. Sectioning off towns is not something our military likes doing. They know what it looks like to the International Community, but they have to perform the cumbersome task of safely separating henchmen from humans. How else do you suppose they organize and protect their efforts? I know that's offensive to some and I don't want to appear hostile, but I'm confident in our intentions there and they don't involve owning Iraq or it's people. Change on a National level is painful. It's something I believe most of them wanted. Usually, the more educated one becomes, the more they long for freedom.

Israel is and probably always will be in a defensive posture IMO. The others of which we speak are generally in an offensive posture. Who's to say I'm not wrong? I don't believe I am and those that differ don't believe they are. There's a difference IMHO. I won't go into details regarding how just about every single solitary bully even remotely close to them geographically has wanted them eliminated. Not suppressed, eliminated. The Middle East is naturally no exception to the above. I've debated this elsewhere and emotions are too heavy to engage healthy debate. The speeches I've heard, the articles I've read, and the people I've spoken to only serve to reinforce my opinion whether they espouse views in which I agree or disagree. I believe there's a purpose to this story and topic and I believe it's to demonstrate that America is the bully. Eventually, this will be a prevailing view globally if unchecked. Naturally, I'd like to argue that.

That doesn't make me a Global expert. It makes me a Global observer. I believe a woman has been hit and I must do something about it. I'm glad I live in a nation that primarily agrees.

Mmmm, I'm still waiting for that first strike on North Korea, which has openly stated the intent to use nuclear weapons.

My first paragraph was a parody, I must admit, on your first paragraph, and shouldn't be taken all that seriously, but it does demonstrate a contradiction in policy towards countries with alleged nuclear weapons and countries with known nuclear weapons.

As for the topic of the thread, I am not against the invasion of Iraq or the toppling of Saddam's government, nor do I think that the US Army likes confining poulations in villages but I seriously doubt the effectiveness of encircling populations in barbed wire with signs stateing that those who approach the wire will be shot. I just see it as only making more enemies. Thats's all really.

[ebuddy]

No "bang for buck" by attacking N. Korea. The potential loss to gain ratio is simply too high. No doubt N. Korea will be dealt with, but not all dealings involve war.

I saw interviews and read accounts from some of those within the barbed wires. Never before have they felt more free and secure. While some disagree, the majority support our action and presence there.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
not all dealings involve war.

Quite the realization for a non-pinko American in these times, I must say.

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I saw interviews and read accounts from some of those within the barbed wires. Never before have they felt more free and secure.

Please don't take this personally, but the very first thought I had when I read the above was this:


"Never have they felt more free than behind barbed wires they cannot approach without getting shot at" really, REALLY, doesn't work in my brain.

-s*

[eklipse]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
No "bang for buck" by attacking N. Korea. The potential loss to gain ratio is simply too high.

What did America 'gain' from invading Iraq?

It spent millions of 'bucks' looking (allegedly) for weapons of mass 'bang' - and, thus far, has come up disappointingly short.

[christ]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
christ, your sig is too long. It occupies 4 lines of text, one line break, and 'Chris T' on the first line. A total of 6 lines. I comply with the rules, and so must you.

Thank you for pointing out my transgression, and I am eternally indebted to you for your vigilance.

May I use this forum to apologise to you, and all those that were, like you, offended by my misdemeanour, and note that I have repaired the sig to fit within the guidelines.

Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

I'm sorry.

I'm so f***ing sorry.

[christ]

Originally posted by theolein:
Being the ones that started the whole idea of concentration camps, why don't the British get the same treatment as the Germans do in history?

Winners write the history books.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I saw interviews and read accounts from some of those within the barbed wires. Never before have they felt more free and secure. While some disagree, the majority support our action and presence there.

hm. I've only read the opposite. Do you have links? I'd be interested in checking that out.

[ebuddy]

hm. I've only read the opposite. Do you have links? I'd be interested in checking that out.

Feature story on Fox News last night and they interviewed a villager.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Feature story on Fox News last night.....

Well, I'll be.....

[ebuddy]

What did America 'gain' from invading Iraq?

It spent millions of 'bucks' looking (allegedly) for weapons of mass 'bang' - and, thus far, has come up disappointingly short.

I'm assuming you want a positive outcome for Iraq Eklipse. Are we changing the face of the Middle East? Yes. It's a tough campaign though and nothing happens quickly. Again, don't put all of your eggs in the WMD basket. The International Community agreed that he had WMD, he threatened the use of WMD. More information is coming out daily that not only supports Iraq's possession of WMD, but the ability to deploy it within 48hours. I give you this as friendly advice. When WMD (the smoking gun) magically appears mere months before next year's election, you and most others on the far left will be holding that basket foolishly with no one to represent you in government. Don't come crying to me when you find yourself inept at refuting sources of proof while you lose ground on your ideals. You will lose total credibility. It'd be better for you to stick to other views of opposition. The WMD argument is fading and only makes those using it appear desperate.Did you voice your views on Clinton invading Yugoslavia? What good has come from that? We used WMD to sell this campaign to the UN. Clinton didn't have to sell anything to the UN because he didn't even try. Where were you? I suppose you believe the bombing of the Chinese embassy was also an accident. Hmmm. I do smell hypocracy.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Feature story on Fox News last night and they interviewed a villager.

Running over a bridge, perhaps? With a bag of chips^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H cat in her arm? Burning buildings in the background?

If the details are off - don't worry.

He'll think of something:



-s*

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
hm. I've only read the opposite. Do you have links? I'd be interested in checking that out.

Feature story on Fox News last night and they interviewed a villager.

I missed that broadcast and their website does not appear to have it as a main story.
do you have any links?