If you're wondering why innocent Western women are seized in Iraq

[dr_mabeuse]

That's part of the squeeze I was talking about earlier doc. Sombody has to see them buring roadside IEDs. But what does that person do? If you go to the authorities, the insurgents are likely to tkae reprisal on you or your family. If you don't and some marines get killed, they are likely to put pressure on you because the know you probably saw something.

The "neutral" population gets squeezed between the two op fors.

Yeah. That's the problem. After a while there is no such thing as a "neutral". Everyone gets sucked into it.

I like the other option. Someone said that with all the money we've spent on Iraq, we could have given every Iraqi man, woman, and child something like $1600 US. Give them the money and let them start businesses.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Yeah. That's the problem. After a while there is no such thing as a "neutral". Everyone gets sucked into it.

why does this remind me eerily of Nazi Germany?

 

[Pure]

in particular, the nazi occupation of holland or poland. --or better, the Ukraine, where initially the Germans might have been welcome to free the Ukrainians from oppression, but then...

one has here a case when an alien power can only win through 'total control', and in the past that includes resettlement etc. in Vietnam, 'free fire' zones, a common anti insurgency technique. Everyone is supposed to concentrated in areas A,B, C, and if you're not there, you're the enemy, subject to being shot.

the reason there isn't much US 'intelligence', is that Abdul does not want to inform vs. his neighbor Ali, and if anything will give Ali a lift to the location he wishes to operate in. the fact that Abdul's bro was imprisoned by Saddam does not seem to contribute to his long term 'friendliness' to the alien army. (esp. if the Americans have 'swept up' Abdul's sister and she's not been seen for a few days.--- which brings us back to the thread topic.)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Yeah. That's the problem. After a while there is no such thing as a "neutral". Everyone gets sucked into it.

I like the other option. Someone said that with all the money we've spent on Iraq, we could have given every Iraqi man, woman, and child something like $1600 US. Give them the money and let them start businesses.

I prefer option C, exit, stage right.

Rearm the Iraqi army, place them under the newly elected civil government, and start pulling out. You're going to end up with an anti-west muslim theocracy, but that's what you get when you act precipitously. Fort up enough troops in the Kurdish sector to enforce their autonomous region. that gives you the bases you wanted in the region.

Won't happen, too many people have too much at stake.

 

[Pure]

there's the pakistani solution; constitute and arm the army, and put them in charge; screw the alleged 'civilian leaders.' the army is in charge in Algeria, also.

 

[Purple Sage]

there's the pakistani solution; constitute and arm the army, and put them in charge; screw the alleged 'civilian leaders.' the army is in charge in Algeria, also.

Ummm... but we're there to promote democracy, remember?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

there's the pakistani solution; constitute and arm the army, and put them in charge; screw the alleged 'civilian leaders.' the army is in charge in Algeria, also.

Frankly, I'm not all that concerned with who is left holding the bag. Army, Civilians, or Mullahs, as soon as they don't have amreicans providing targets for them, they'll start killing each other. Best case is the civil authority wins out. Next best is the army wins and creates a secular military dictaotrship. Worst case is another Iran. But another fairly impotent iran clone is, in my opinion, a lot better than an Iraq where american soldiers play clay pidegon on the shooting range.

 

[R. Richard]

Well, you have the insurgents blowing up their fellow Iraqis in an attempt to destabilize the new government, and then you have the insurgents fighting to get the US out of their country altogether. I imagine that sometimes the two groups are the same, but quite often they're different. I'm sure the average Iraqi citizen hates the first type with a passion, but I'm not sure how he feels about the second.

I keep thinking of a recent poll I saw where some large majority of Iraqis (70-80% as I recall) felt that violence against American troops was "justified" in order to get them out of their country. That's a frightening statistic.

You were there and would know better than I, but I don't understand how insurgents can go out at night and plant roadside bombs and not be seen by a whole bunch of people, none of whom seems willing to come forward and turn them in. Colly's right that insurgents hide among the people, but they do so with the people's complicity.

On thing that might be considered. IIRC the percentage of Arab Sunni Muslims in Iraq is about 20% [Kurds are also Sunnis, but not Arabs]. The Baathist Party, Saddam's party, was Arab Sunni. The Sunni's badly mistreated the Shia Muslims who are IIRC some 65% of the population.

If the Shia's gain control, they may decide to revenge themselves upon the Arab Sunnis. The Kurds probably don't give a damn. The Kurds want Kurdistan and whatever that takes, they will do. Thus, the Arab Sunnis have a vested interest in seeing that things remain unsettled in Iraq for as long as practical. Failing to report guerilla activity by their neighbors would SEEM to serve the Sunnis well.

From news reports much of the guerilla attacks have been Sunnis against Shias. However, the Shia's have done their own actions against the Sunnis.

It may be that the silence as to the guerilla attacks is seen as serving the interest of each side.

By the way, the Saudis are Sunnis. The Saudis regard the Shias as almost unbelievers. Many Saudis are supposedly active in Iraq. A Saudi defense guy was quoted as saying "no more than 2,500 or so." Even 2,500 is a lot of guerilla fighters.

Comment?

 

[Pure]

I think those are excellent points, RR.

Looking at in a slightly different way--that did not occur to the neocons--the sunnis of Iraq are going to lose power, wealth, and influence. Any kind of democracy--even an 'ironfisted' or 'guided' one--is going to give the Shia majority the predominant power.

So what kind of a scheme would work? Maybe none. In Canada, Quebec separatism does not die, and the province has all kinds of autonomy, and no one is shooting anyone or arresting them. Federalism wins so far by maybe 55%. They have justices on the Supreme Court.

But this is a mature system; why, lives haven't been lost for ...30 years when a Brit diplomat was kidnapped and killed.

How exactly are the Iraqis supposed to pull off such a 'tolerance' of its minority? If there is an Iraqi Supreme Ct., would sunni's take 3 of nine positions and be happy? Would the Sunnis and Kurd allow them 4 or 5 of 9. I don't think so. So where's the prize for Sunnis?

RR, you're probably right that the sunni's have endless funding from the Saudis. That was a previous source of al qaeda funding, too, I believe.

Partition might seem the answer, BUT, FIRST PROBLEM--from the US side, that creates a large Shia state next to Iran. A kind of little-brother Shia theocracy, INCREASING Iran's dominance in the area.

SECOND PROBLEM: You speak of the Kurdish area as becoming/remaining 'autonomous.' Remember that the US does not want it TOO autonomous, and certainly NOT a nation, since that would destabilize Turkey, an ally.

AS I write this, I think of Yugoslavia. Once their strong leader Tito disappeared, the whole thing came apart.

Oddly enough, we come full circle, to the conclusion of US thinkers in the 80s. Iraq's best, from a US-interest standpoint, ruled by Saddam, provided they'll sell the US oil and remain hostile to Iran. If this had been remembered, then the US could have worked on softening his rule, and stopping his eliminating enemies. (Let his enemies get professorships at US universities.) A bit like the process with Franco in Spain.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

On thing that might be considered. IIRC the percentage of Arab Sunni Muslims in Iraq is about 20% [Kurds are also Sunnis, but not Arabs]. The Baathist Party, Saddam's party, was Arab Sunni. The Sunni's badly mistreated the Shia Muslims who are IIRC some 65% of the population.

If the Shia's gain control, they may decide to revenge themselves upon the Arab Sunnis. The Kurds probably don't give a damn. The Kurds want Kurdistan and whatever that takes, they will do. Thus, the Arab Sunnis have a vested interest in seeing that things remain unsettled in Iraq for as long as practical. Failing to report guerilla activity by their neighbors would SEEM to serve the Sunnis well.

From news reports much of the guerilla attacks have been Sunnis against Shias. However, the Shia's have done their own actions against the Sunnis.

It may be that the silence as to the guerilla attacks is seen as serving the interest of each side.

By the way, the Saudis are Sunnis. The Saudis regard the Shias as almost unbelievers. Many Saudis are supposedly active in Iraq. A Saudi defense guy was quoted as saying "no more than 2,500 or so." Even 2,500 is a lot of guerilla fighters.

Comment?

Anyone not named epimetheus, would have realized a promise to bring democracy to Iraq was a promise to put the shia muslims in power there. They are the majority religion in Iraq. Have been for a long while.

Shia muslim, by and large, are not pro-west.

Dubya and his handlers, in basic then, went into Iraq with the express purpose of createing an anti american regional power. In the process, they have shit all over our closest ally in the region, the Turks. Basically, an autonomous Kurdish region in Iraq has destabilized turkey's borders, and is inciting her Kurdish minority to want to break away, link up with the Iraqui kurds and establish an independant kurdistan. It's basically a two for one.

In the first part, you destabilize and alienate your only strong ally in the region. In part two, you create another anti-us regional power. Not to mention aggravateing every other ally you have on the planet.

Much like Haamas winning control in the PAL elctions, there is a simple formula. This administration works from a flawed set of expectations. Somewhere, along the way, they have picked up the notion that any people, given the choice, would want to be just like us. Democracy, is an instition that does not guarentee an ideological shift.

What's really sad, is that they are genuinely perplexed at the predictable outcome. So our servicemen are now forced into a role they are unsited to, ocupation troops, while the politicos try to figure out what went wrong and how to correct it.

 

[R. Richard]

I think those are excellent points, RR.

Looking at in a slightly different way--that did not occur to the neocons--the sunnis of Iraq are going to lose power, wealth, and influence. Any kind of democracy--even an 'ironfisted' or 'guided' one--is going to give the Shia majority the predominant power.

Of course!

So what kind of a scheme would work? Maybe none. In Canada, Quebec separatism does not die, and the province has all kinds of autonomy, and no one is shooting anyone or arresting them. Federalism wins so far by maybe 55%. They have justices on the Supreme Court.

But this is a mature system; why, lives haven't been lost for ...30 years when a Brit diplomat was kidnapped and killed.

How exactly are the Iraqis supposed to pull off such a 'tolerance' of its minority? If there is an Iraqi Supreme Ct., would sunni's take 3 of nine positions and be happy? Would the Sunnis and Kurd allow them 4 or 5 of 9. I don't think so. So where's the prize for Sunnis?

Separatism is not an option here. The Iraqi election is the key. The Sunnis will never have the power they once had in Iraq. However, it is necessary to fudge things so that the Sunnis will have some power. By the way, the Kurds are also Sunni, but not Arab Sunnis.

RR, you're probably right that the sunni's have endless funding from the Saudis. That was a previous source of al qaeda funding, too, I believe.

Right now the Suadis have a lot of money, because of the high price of petroleum. However, they have an exanding population and a rapidly growing need for money to tun their own country. In addition, the Saudis will now need to begin to support the Paelstinians. Another problen for the Saudis is that the Saudis who return from Iraq will be well trained revolutionaries.

Partition might seem the answer, BUT, FIRST PROBLEM--from the US side, that creates a large Shia state next to Iran. A kind of little-brother Shia theocracy, INCREASING Iran's dominance in the area.

SECOND PROBLEM: You speak of the Kurdish area as becoming/remaining 'autonomous.' Remember that the US does not want it TOO autonomous, and certainly NOT a nation, since that would destabilize Turkey, an ally.

The Kurds are well armed and well organized. They, more than anything, want Kurdistan. The Truks hate the Kurds. [I have dealt with Turks and I still have no idea why.] The Kurds will have their own, semi-autonomous region in North Iraq, they are too strong not to. However, Kurdistan will have to wait because opf the Turkish problem.

AS I write this, I think of Yugoslavia. Once their strong leader Tito disappeared, the whole thing came apart.

Josip Broz was far more important than anyone realized.

Oddly enough, we come full circle, to the conclusion of US thinkers in the 80s. Iraq's best, from a US-interest standpoint, ruled by Saddam, provided they'll sell the US oil and remain hostile to Iran. If this had been remembered, then the US could have worked on softening his rule, and stopping his eliminating enemies. (Let his enemies get professorships at US universities.) A bit like the process with Franco in Spain.

I must politely disagree here. The Iraqi oil fields under Saddam were grossly mismanaged. maintenance was not done and equipment was not upgraded. If we had left Saddam in power, it was [per US oil company guys] just a matter of time until the Iraq oil field were in very bad trouble.

IMNTHO the cure here is to put captured insurgents in school. Let them learn the processes involved in running oil fields. Make damn sure they do their homework, night by night. Oh yes, you do not have to feed students. The feeding of the students is the responsibility of their parents and/or al Qaeda.

 

[Pure]

I'm sure Saddam, or a replacement dictator of the same ilk, will not object to being helped with experts in the oil fields. Increasing output would increase his and the nations revenue.

RRThe Turks hate the Kurds. [I have dealt with Turks and I still have no idea why.]

Many Kurds are non muslim.{{Correction: Most Kurds are sunni muslim as RR said; smaller numbers are shia, and some are Yazidi} Futher they are a different ethnic group {{Added: with links, in terms of language, with Iran}}. Isn't that a good reason to hate? BUT further, if the Kurds in Turkey gained more power in their area, *they would break off a piece of Turkey.* No nation, Canada (quebec), Spain (basque area), Indonesia (e. timor), wants a piece broken off.

 

[zeb1094]

Hasn't this horse been beaten to death yet?
Poor thing must be a puddle on the stable floor by now!

 

[Pure]

Colly?--- zeb

Colly//Dubya and his handlers, in basic then, went into Iraq with the express purpose of createing an anti american regional power. //

I didn't see that, where was it expressed?

If you meant,
"Dubya and his handlers put into effect, for Iraq, a course of action, whose result--obvious to many people--would be the strengthening of Iranian (and hence antiAmerican) influence," I would have agreed.
---

Zeb, I love it when people so altruistically give of their time to post a message to a thread --that the others posting messages there are wasting their time. Or when they decide to leave, they say, "This thread has gone as far as it can and no longer serves any useful purpose."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly//Dubya and his handlers, in basic then, went into Iraq with the express purpose of createing an anti american regional power. //

I didn't see that, where was it expressed?

If you meant,
"Dubya and his handlers put into effect, for Iraq, a course of action, whose result--obvious to many people--would be the strengthening of Iranian (and hence antiAmerican) influence," I would have agreed.
---

Zeb, I love it when people so altruistically give of their time to post a message to a thread --that the others posting messages there are wasting their time. Or when they decide to leave, they say, "This thread has gone as far as it can and no longer serves any useful purpose."

I meant their expressed purpose, bringing democracy to Iraq, would neccssisarily mean bringing an anti-western government into being.

To begin with, in the first gulf war, we incited the Shia to rise up, then left them to Saddams tender mercies, breaking a string of promises. We have followed that with crippling sanctions and occasional bombing raids to enforce the no fly zones. They are the majority and we have consistantly left them in the lurch.

On the other side of the coin, we have overtuned the sunni's applecart with this invasion, so they have plenty of reason to dislike us.

If you are going to eport democracy, to a nation where at least 80% of the people have good reason to dislike you, whatever methodology you use, the government will dislike you. Unless you plan to rig elections to put in people who do like you, in which case, you aren't bringing democracy, just a sham of it for legiotimacy.

 

[Pure]

Here a short piece I found of interest: Comments?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18150

Iraq: Bush's Islamic Republic

By Peter W. Galbraith
{New York Review of Books, August 11, 2005}

On June 4 {2005}, Jalal Talabani, president of Iraq, attended the inauguration of the Kurdistan National Assembly in Erbil, northern Iraq. Talabani, a Kurd, is not only the first-ever democratically elected head of state in Iraq, but in a country that traces its history back to the Garden of Eden, he is, as one friend observed, "the first freely chosen leader of this land since Adam was here alone." While Kurds are enormously proud of his accomplishment, the flag of Iraq—the country Talabani heads—was noticeably absent from the inauguration ceremony, nor can it be found anyplace in Erbil, a city of one million that is the capital of Iraq's Kurdistan Region.

Ann Bodine, the head of the American embassy office in Kirkuk, spoke at the ceremony, congratulating the newly minted parliamentarians, and affirming the US commitment to an Iraq that is, she said, "democratic, federal, pluralistic, and united." The phrase evidently did not apply in Erbil. In their oath, the parliamentarians were asked to swear loyalty to the unity of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Many pointedly dropped the "of Iraq."

The shortest speech was given by the head of the Iranian intelligence service in Erbil, a man known to the Kurds as Agha Panayi. Staring directly at Ms. Bodine, he said simply, "This is a great day. Throughout Iraq, the people we supported are in power." He did not add "Thank you, George Bush." The unstated was understood.

1.
When President Bush spoke to the nation on June 28, he did not mention Iran's rising influence with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. He did not point out that the two leading parties in the Shiite coalition are pursuing an Islamic state in which the rights of women and religious minorities will be sharply curtailed, and that this kind of regime is already being put into place in parts of Iraq controlled by these parties. Nor did he say anything about the almost unanimous desire of Kurdistan's people for their own independent state.

Instead, President Bush depicted the struggle in Iraq as a battle between the freedom-loving Iraqi people and terrorists. Without the sacrifices of the American servicemen and -women, and the largesse of the US taxpayer, the terrorists could win. As Bush put it, "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11—if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi."

Bush's effort to revive the link between Iraq and September 11 produced a flood of criticism, leading some of his critics to dismiss him as a habitual liar on Iraq matters. Alas, the comment may be more indicative of how disconnected administration strategy is from the realities of Iraq. Unfortunately, many of the administration's sharpest critics seem to share its assumption that there is a people sharing a common Iraqi identity, an inaccurate assumption that provides fodder for misleading Vietnam analogies.

There is, in fact, no Iraqi insurgency. There is a Sunni Arab insurgency. And it cannot win. Neither the al-Qaeda terrorists nor the former Baathists can win. Even if the US withdrew tomorrow, neither insurgents nor terrorists would be knocking down the gates to Iraq's Presidential Palace in Baghdad.

Basically, the military equation in Iraq comes down to demographics. Sunni Arabs are no more than 20 percent of Iraq's population. Even in Baghdad—once the seat of Sunni Arab power—Sunni Arabs are a minority. To succeed, the insurgency would have to win support from Iraq's other major communities—the Kurds at 20 percent and the Shiites at between 55 and 60 percent. This cannot happen.

While the Kurds are mostly Sunni Muslims, they have a history of repression at the hands of Sunni Arabs. A few dozen Kurds have been involved in terrorist acts, but al-Qaeda and its allies have no support in the Kurdistan population, which is one reason Kurdistan has largely been spared the violence that has wracked Arab Iraq.

The Shiites are completely immune to any appeal by insurgents. Sunni fundamentalists consider Shiites as apostates, and possibly a more dangerous enemy than even the Americans. (The Americans, they know, will leave. The apostates want to rule.) For the last two years, Sunni Arab insurgents have targeted Shiite mosques, clerics, religious celebrations, and pilgrims—with a toll in the thousands. The insurgent goal is to provoke sectarian war, and they seem to be succeeding. In spite of calls for restraint by Shiite leaders, there are growing numbers of retaliatory killings of Sunni Arabs by Shiites.

But while the insurgents cannot win, neither can they be defeated.

For most of his thirty-five-year rule Saddam Hussein faced guerrilla warfare from Kurds or Shiites—and sometimes both. Even the most brutal of tactics could not pacify communities that did not accept Sunni Arab rule. Today Sunni Arabs reject rule by Iraq's Shiite majority. It is unrealistic to think the American military—operating with a fraction of the intelligence of the Saddam Hussein regime and with much less brutality (Abu Ghraib notwithstanding)—can quell a Sunni Arab resistance that is no longer solely anti-American but also anti-Shiite.

[end excerpt]

 

[Sex and Death]

Scipionyx ...thank you for taking the time to reply and clarify.

Mine was US Navy at age 17 and then US AIr Force for the last 4 and I guess I didn't have to 'eat dirt' as you did, just played with electronics and encryption devices.

But I don't dispute the horror of war as you describe it.

Nor do I dispute the very difficult circumstances you found in Bosnia or Iraq.

Most rational people, not even up close and dirty, don't want anything to do with the actual boots on the ground aspect of war.

Since you sound a little disillusioned and perhaps even bitter, I might ramble a little and see if I can't say something that might raise you above your feelings.

I think part of the reason the United States did not continue on to Baghdad in the first Gulf war was for the reasons you stated. We wanted no part of the Jihad and the terror that Israel has been through for nearly half a century.

And I think we would not be there now if it were not for 9/11.

We, as Americans, are not suited for occupation or nation building. By nature, we are not cruel enough to eliminate the root of the opposition.

Stopping the inhumane aspects of Islam would mean the destruction of all the Mosques and schools run by religious zealots. It would mean destroying most of the culture of Iraq and rebuilding anew.

That could be done in Germany and Japan becaue most of those countries were destroyed and starving and ready for peace and change of any kind.

It most likely cannot be done in Iraq unless Iran or Syria initiates a nuclear attack that solidifies world opinion.

I ache in pain when I see and read about the thousands of devastating wounds our young men and women are coming home with, it is a terrible sacrifice.

However, that being said, I think there was little choice about pre empting any further attacks on American soil. I think it had to be done.

It could have been done differently, certainly, in a dozen different ways. Better ways? I don't know.

It is sometimes difficult to see the larger picture when you are following orders and 'eating dirt'. I personally accept that the policies of the United States are the product of the best we had to offer.

amicus...

Amicus,

This is beautiful.

I want to thank and honor you, Scipionyx, and anyone else who serves or has served in our military.

Doing the most noble work always requires getting your hands dirty.

S&D

 

[zeb1094]

Zeb, I love it when people so altruistically give of their time to post a message to a thread --that the others posting messages there are wasting their time. Or when they decide to leave, they say, "This thread has gone as far as it can and no longer serves any useful purpose."

Well, it's your time. Go ahead, do whatever you want.

 

[Pure]

Referring to the Iraq war (I think):

ami I think there was little choice about pre empting any further attacks on American soil. I think it had to be done.

Sorry I miss this point--weren't the 9-11 folks Saudis and Yemenis, mostly, and funded by Saudis? At the time of 9-11 was al qaeda based in Iraq?

Were any of the major terrorist efforts, like the 1993 WTC, directed or funded by Iraq?

It boggles my mind how Americans think the 'soil' is any safer 'cuz the troops took down Saddam and are fighting in Iraq. ??

Please explain this, oh wise one!

 

[amicus]

Well, Pure, I should not reply to you for your snide little sarcasm at the end, but I guess you use the only tools you have.

When anyone is at the top of their field and does anything at all, there are always critics.

Even when a person simply makes an assertive statement about anything, there is always someone who will criticize.

Having the courage to take a position is not an instant proclamation to wisdom.

But the liberal left has made an art form of criticizing everything and taking no position on anything and claiming wisdom for that lack of certainty on anything. It is really quite amusing.

I understand pacifists who are against all war for any reason.

I understand America haters, who hate everything we stand for.

I understand those who hate capitalism and the free market place.

I even understand the psuedo intellectuals who quote and post and paste and seldom if ever take a stand.

"...It boggles my mind how Americans think the 'soil' is any safer 'cuz the troops took down Saddam and are fighting in Iraq. ??..."

I think your mind must be easily boggled if you do not understand the world wide coalition taking on terrorism in all corners of the globe. Iraq is just one.

It is too wide a subject and a simplification to note that had the world come to aid the Israeli's in 1948 and the ensuing Arab attacks in the following decades, that the world may have been able to stifle the growth of Islamic terrorist groups.

Maybe, maybe not. But had someone, somewhere, other than the Israeli's engaged in pre emption of Islamic expansion at any time since the Shah of Iran was deposed, the world might be a better place.

And if decisions had been made by previous administrations to seek out and destroy terrorist groups and those nations supporting, harboring and funding them, the world also might have been a different place.

There are no guarantees in life, Pure, had we known about Asbestos, or DDT, or Black Lung disease before we found out the hard way, the world might have been a different place.

US reaction to 9/11 was a logical response to a terrorist act. Most of the civilized world agreed and agrees with that.

Only the left and those who wish bad things for America, pretend not to understand.

If that is wisdom, feel free to use it.

Although I know you will not.


amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well, Pure, I should not reply to you for your snide little sarcasm at the end, but I guess you use the only tools you have.

When anyone is at the top of their field and does anything at all, there are always critics.

Even when a person simply makes an assertive statement about anything, there is always someone who will criticize.

Having the courage to take a position is not an instant proclamation to wisdom.

But the liberal left has made an art form of criticizing everything and taking no position on anything and claiming wisdom for that lack of certainty on anything. It is really quite amusing.

I understand pacifists who are against all war for any reason.

I understand America haters, who hate everything we stand for.

I understand those who hate capitalism and the free market place.

I even understand the psuedo intellectuals who quote and post and paste and seldom if ever take a stand.

"...It boggles my mind how Americans think the 'soil' is any safer 'cuz the troops took down Saddam and are fighting in Iraq. ??..."

I think your mind must be easily boggled if you do not understand the world wide coalition taking on terrorism in all corners of the globe. Iraq is just one.

It is too wide a subject and a simplification to note that had the world come to aid the Israeli's in 1948 and the ensuing Arab attacks in the following decades, that the world may have been able to stifle the growth of Islamic terrorist groups.

Maybe, maybe not. But had someone, somewhere, other than the Israeli's engaged in pre emption of Islamic expansion at any time since the Shah of Iran was deposed, the world might be a better place.

And if decisions had been made by previous administrations to seek out and destroy terrorist groups and those nations supporting, harboring and funding them, the world also might have been a different place.

There are no guarantees in life, Pure, had we known about Asbestos, or DDT, or Black Lung disease before we found out the hard way, the world might have been a different place.

US reaction to 9/11 was a logical response to a terrorist act. Most of the civilized world agreed and agrees with that.

Only the left and those who wish bad things for America, pretend not to understand.

If that is wisdom, feel free to use it.

Although I know you will not.


amicus...

Hey amicus,

I wondered if you are aware the US, mainly through the CIA, funded and encouraged islamacist movements up until the fall of the USSR? Radical Islam was seen as a foil to leftist and communist movements in several states, including some in the middle east.

Take for example, the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. th cia funded them, Spec. Forces trained them, and the Pakistani's brokered arms deals for them to keep our hands clean. We funded them to fight communism.

I won't say it was a bad tactic, as obviously communism has proven itself to be an abject failurethe world over. But we, as much as anyone, are responsible for letting the lslamacist genie out of the bottle.

 

[amicus]

I couldn't agree with you more, Colleen, and like you I will not call it a good or a bad thing, it must have seemed the thing to do at the time.

On an earlier post, not sure which thread, you spoke with a knowledge of military hardware that impressed me greatly.

I too try to keep up to date on such things and also tactics, trends and directions of military thinking.

The entire argument the left has been making about too few boots on the ground in Iraq for sufficient occupation forces is tempered by the fact that the face of the US Military has been changing for several years.

More and more assets are 'smart weapons' remotely operated weapons, and even intelligent machine weapons and surveillance equipment. The entire direction of the growth of the military, heavily influenced by Rumfeld and others is to completely modernize the military into a 21st century, almost 'Star Wars' type of battle force.

I have seen several such programs on various channels and some of the high tech gear in the pipeline is fantastically so sci fi like it amazes me.

One of the not mentioned benefits of the war in Iraq is that it is a testing ground for modern warfare. Urban warfare has been studied for many years and some of the techniques being used (but not talked about) are almost beyond comprehension outside the world of science fiction.

And although you disagree about what I see as contingency plans for Iran, I do not see the necessity of boots on the ground there as the only option. Nor do I foresee the use of tactical nuclear weapons except as a means of destroyed underground nuclear facilities.

If it does come to military action, I see an incremental increase of the use of high tech weapons to basically neutralize Iranian military assets until they can no longer move about the country freely and the basic economic infrastructure is destroyed.

As you well know, the new versions of the unmanned aircraft are armed and can be programmed to destroy any moving object at any time of day in any weather.

Why they have not done this on the borders of countries adjacent to Iraq at this point, I really do not understand. With advanced warning, those drones could eliminate the threat of any foreign insurgents crossing any borders.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

round and round he rants

US reaction to 9/11 was a logical response to a terrorist act. Most of the civilized world agreed and agrees with that.

Only the left and those who wish bad things for America, pretend not to understand.

Again, since you include Iraq, please answer:
Were any 9-11 folks from Iraq? funded by Iraq?
Was al queads in Iraq at the time of 9-11?
Have any terrorist acts (outside Iraq) of the last ten years emanated from Iraq?

Most of the civilized world knows the answers, and disagreed with Bush. Hence the lack of non Americans in the coalition. And Bush's Iraq plan pre-dates 9-11, as is pretty widely acknowledged

I notice too, you have really nothing to back up your claim that the Iraq adventure is making US soil safer.

As to its general benefits to the US military. Well, any war has benefits.

you say that one of the not mentioned benefits of the war in Iraq is that it is a testing ground for modern warfare, and are esp happy about unarmed drones. You don't seem to realize that warfare has changed. As that last silly attack in Pakistan (alleged to kill zarqawi, recently back on tv), drone planes are pretty useless lacking ground intelligence.

I believe the 9-11 action was carried out for a few hundreds of thousands of dollars and succeeded. The Iraq action is costing 10s of billions (5 bill/mo, iirc) and is very shakey, and all the fancy laser bombs, etc, are not really 'winning.' The dream of Rummy and you, to wage urban guerilla warfare with 'few boots' as you put it, is a joke.

---
Your dreams about Iran are cause for great unease, since they no doubt emanate from the Pentagon and the right:

If it does come to military action, I see an incremental increase of the use of high tech weapons to basically neutralize Iranian military assets until they can no longer move about the country freely and the basic economic infrastructure is destroyed.

This was, essentially tried in Iraq. It causes a tightening of dictatorship, and massive civilian deaths. It galvanizes the Arab world, and would unite sunnis and shias.

You do not seem to realize US is not fighting "States". The destruction of a state, far from being a benefit, may produce a training area for terrorists -- as has now happened in Iraq. Indeed Ami argument about experience cuts the othe way. "Terrorists" get a chance to try and refine weaponry and tactics in Iraq, and simple 200 dollar devices, IEDs at the roadside, have created havoc with unarmored vehicles and non-body-armoured soldiers.

 

[amicus]

Well, Pure...a goodly number on the forum have me on ignore and apparently they don't read or comment on you, so this has devolved into she said, he said.

You are always highly critical of anything the US does and your fundamentals are clear to most everyone.

And since you ignore history and rewrite it to satisfy your agenda, we find little agreement of the causes of this war or any other in the past century.

Since neither of us play an important part in a larger scale and this little porn site goes absolutely nowhere, not like a weblog that might draw comments and expand, then, this becomes rather futile.

No one can predict the future, although many of my predictions over the years come closer and closer.

I sense that your overwhelming hatred of anything American, overshadows your ability to see the world as it is and view it through unbiased eyes.

The United States has 860 military bases in 'foreign countries', stationed all over the world. Quite larger, I would surmise that even the great British Empire, upon which the sun never set.

I thought to ask you to imagine the world with an isolationist America, drawn back within our borders and ignoring the world at large. Because of the global economy, that, is, of course, impossible.

But I won't ask, because you wouldn't even understand the question of a world without american influence as it now exists.


amicus...

 

[Pure]

Stay on task, ami, wait for a pulpit for the sermon.

Again, since you include Iraq [in the US 9-11 response], please answer:

Were any 9-11 folks from Iraq? funded by Iraq?

Was al qaida in Iraq at the time of 9-11?

Have any major terrorist acts (outside Iraq)--e.g. WTC, 1993-- of the last ten years emanated from Iraq?

Is the Iraq adventure making US soil safer?