How long do you think the USA will be bogged down in the "War on Terror"?

[Navaros]

Presuming the "War on Terror" can be won by the USA:

How long to do you think the USA will be bogged down in the "War on Terror"?

If you think it cannot be won by the USA then vote for the "Forever" option.

[Brenus]

If US troops are withdrawn, around 8-10 years (based on the Algerian Islamic-War experience in the 90s), the time to people to be fed-up with the blood shed and to find their own solutions: new Taliban (at least they brought peace and stability with their tyranny) or a new Saddam… If US troops stay, just add the time they stay…

[CountArach]

10 more years to neutralise the Taliban and various other terrorist organisations, however this won't stop them popping up. As soon as the USA pulls out of anywhere, it will just devolve into more terrorist cells springing up in civil war.

[Fisherking]

Well the first problem is that it just is not a war the US can win alone. It is not the US vs. Terror and if it is fought that way then the US will no doubt go down in flames. But it will be a matter of everyone going down, one nation at a time.

It is not a war on Islam either and if it is approached that way soon it will be.
The nations of the world had better come to grips with this or it is going to get a lot worse.

If there is not a concerted effort within Islam to rid its self of radical terror elements then soon it will be a war on them.

It is going to take a lot more than a Government just paying lip service to help. The Saudi's will have to do something to bring Wahhabisam back from the brink or cut its money off or it will bring them down one way or another.

It is not going to be a one country at a time victory the way the US approached it either…as is evident in Iraq.

The tin hats in Islam will just play up the already paranoid feelings present world wide to radicalise more and more of the Muslims.

The idiots who see it as a US war are going to bring the roof down on themselves as well. What happened in Spain, and was tried in Briton…, to some good effect I might add, is only and encouragement to the terrorists. It is obvious that it is a case of stand together or hang separately and one in which the Islamic Communities of all nations are going to have to play a positive role or suffer for their own short sightedness.

[doc_bean]

There will always be terrorists; Islamo-fascists, Christian fundamentalists, Maoists, Anarchists,...

Even *if* you'd be able to neutralize one group another will probably rise up, terrorism might sound like a new thing, but secret societies trying to disrupt society for their own sake have been as old as civilization itself.

You'll probably get tired after a few years of chasing windmills though, like the war on drugs has lost most of its momentum, so will the war on terror eventually.

[Fisherking]

There will always be terrorists; Islamo-fascists, Christian fundamentalists, Maoists, Anarchists,...

Even *if* you'd be able to neutralize one group another will probably rise up, terrorism might sound like a new thing, but secret societies trying to disrupt society for their own sake have been as old as civilization itself.

You'll probably get tired after a few years of chasing windmills though, like the war on drugs has lost most of its momentum, so will the war on terror eventually.

The have been and always will be rebel groups who would like to topple one government or another but there is a fundamental difference in this one. It is not aimed at one government but at all non-sharia governments. Anyone placing a value on free thought and individual liberties should be concerned.

[doc_bean]

The have been and always will be rebel groups who would like to topple one government or another but there is a fundamental difference in this one. It is not aimed at one government but at all non-sharia governments. Anyone placing a value on free thought and individual liberties should be concerned.

The Anarchism movement in the early 20th century (or was it late 18th) was global too. The main difference between these new terrorists and the traditional ones is that these tend to target foreign countries and not their own. Still, it's a natural evolution in this brave new globalised world.

[Tribesman]

What happened in Spain, and was tried in Briton…, to some good effect I might add, is only and encouragement to the terrorists.

Hold on there , what happened in Spain is that a government went against the wishes of most of the population by supporting some madcap scheme that was based on a pile of lies , then it went and lied again when it was attacked and its people were murdered .
The kicking out of that government is an encouraging sign for democracy and honesty, not an encouragement to terrorists .
What happened in Britain is similar in that the government went against the wishes of most of its people . But on its lies about the attacks on Britain , instead of blaming someone other than those who attacked it like the Spanish government did , they came in the form of "these attacks have nothing to do with our actions" .
The lies from the governments (clearly obvious lies) help the terrorists just as much as the terrorist actions themselves , possibly even more so since the terrorists don't have to put any effort or expence into it .


It is obvious that it is a case of stand together or hang separately and one in which the Islamic Communities of all nations are going to have to play a positive role or suffer for their own short sightedness.

It is obvious that people will not stand together behind a pile of bullexcrement , the nations are hanging themselves with their own short sightedness .

[nokhor]

a lot of countries with high islamic populations have been victims of terrorism too, including indonesia, malaysia, morocco, saudi arabia, turkey, algeria, iran, chechnya and of course iraq.

[Adrian II]

No future President will be able to claim that this war is 'won', simply because it can't be won - terrorism is one of the evils inherent in society, along with crime, greed and other derailed behavior. Then again, no future President will have the guts to officially end this war, which would be considered an admission of defeat.

I think it will slowly peter out and degrade into the same sort of expensive, oppressive and ultimately nonsensical 'low-intensity' campaign that is the 'war on drugs'.

[TevashSzat]

The US vs. Terrorism is like an elephant trying to squish a fly, the fly can't really significantly hurt the elephant, but is too nimble for the Elephant to kill off quickly. The thing is declaring war on terrorism, isn't like declaring war on a country where there is a centralized position which the whole state is focused around. Terrorism is spread all around the world and even if a major part of terrorism is taken out, more will eventually arise to take its place simply because everyone cannot be happy in our world.

[Sjakihata]

Voted 50 should have been forever since I do not believe that it can be won.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Presidents will continue to use terrorist accusations as an excuse to build out surveillance of the public and infringing legal security, democracy and rights of the individuals for many years to come. The Iraq war will probably end in retreat within 5 years, though. Since the current war on terrorism isn't really concerned with defending against terrorists it won't have any success. It will be improved defense at home and attempts at ideological campaigns against terrorism along with acting responsibly in foreign politics that has a chance of ending or significantly decreasing terrorism.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Everyone knows limited wars suck, and are never successful. You have to go all out.
What exactly do you mean by go all the way out? IMO things can be won with the current amount of investments of money or even a tenth of it if done right. It's not necessary to increase the effort, just direct it to something constructive.

And what's most hypocritical about this "war on terror" is when several European countries who have suffered no terrorism decides to terrorize their people by building out surveillance and infringing democratic rights as well...

[Caius]

I think USA must retreat in this war.Dont use a light, that becomes more darker, its a refrain we use when something doesnt need to be changed.

[Sjakihata]

everytime i open this thread I get a certificate notice from www.benning.army.mil what the damn is that? When I examine it, it says it is authorized by the US gov. do you get these notices as well?

[Dutch_guy]

everytime i open this thread I get a certificate notice from www.benning.army.mil what the damn is that? When I examine it, it says it is authorized by the US gov. do you get these notices as well?

Yes I do, quite weird.

:balloon2:

[AntiochusIII]

everytime i open this thread I get a certificate notice from www.benning.army.mil what the damn is that? When I examine it, it says it is authorized by the US gov. do you get these notices as well?Yes I do.

They're watching us! I say! We must move on with The Plan at once or the damn Americans will catch us!

(or more likely just a spyware)

[Rodion Romanovich]

I also got it. I think it's Gelatinous Cube's signature image (when I pressed accept, it displayed, when I pressed decline, it didn't display).

[Whacker]

Presidents will continue to use terrorist accusations as an excuse to build out surveillance of the public and infringing legal security, democracy and rights of the individuals for many years to come. The Iraq war will probably end in retreat within 5 years, though. Since the current war on terrorism isn't really concerned with defending against terrorists it won't have any success. It will be improved defense at home and attempts at ideological campaigns against terrorism along with acting responsibly in foreign politics that has a chance of ending or significantly decreasing terrorism.

Modded +5 Insightful/Truthful. Sums up my views nicely.

For the record, I think that the "War on Terrorism" is never going to truly end, but on the same token I think that much of what we call 'terrorism' would simply stop if we (the US and the UN) stopped mucking around on other soverign nation's affairs.

:balloon2:

[Tribesman]

The war on terror is what it is--at this moment in time it is our attempted pacification of the insurgent elements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Minus lip service, it is no more and no less than those two elements. Both can be won, and both are bogged down by political--not military--obstacles.

Absolute rubbish , neither can be won without sorting out the politics , besides which the main military obstacle is that you havn't got an army that is able to do the job .


There are a lot of examples in this thread of people using the "facts" gleaned from this "war on terror" to their own political needs, focussing on using it to make their point, instead of actually taking it for what it is--an occupation where we've decided to handicap our capabilities. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: hey Cube you want it to be an occupation go ahead , make it an occupation . It will make it even harder to get any results , and will cost you a hell of lot more money ....bring back the draft:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: An occupation brings with it lots more responsibilities and lots more rules to "handicap" you .

a bunch of hoo-hah
an accurate summation of your contribution:yes:
now I would say that your views are coloured from your indoctrination into military life , but since you wrote similar rubbish before you signed up that wouldn't be entirely correct would it .

Limited war. Everyone knows limited wars suck, and are never successful. You have to go all out.
Hmmmmmm...as I wrote about your views when you said you were enlisting , I expect your attitude to find you a nice headline in a courts martial case , when you deploy and decide to go "all out" .:thumbsdown:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Pay him no mind Cube, the gendarmes will be along by and by.

[Tribesman]

Pay him no mind Cube, the gendarmes will be along by and by.
Oh good , are they going to do something about the Benning popups that inhabit every thread GC has made a post in ?:whip:

[Grey_Fox]

Yeah, every time I open threads he's posted in Mozilla prompts me to check if it's certified or something. Rather irritating.

[KukriKhan]

Oh good , are they going to do something about the Benning popups that inhabit every thread GC has made a post in ?:whip:

Working on the popup/cookie problem (also experienced here).

War in Iraq will be 'over' before August '08 (when the official election season begins). In Afghanistan before November '08*. Remember, you read it here first! :)

*note that 'over' = end of major deployments of us troops, and level of presence = 1 Brigade or less in the respective countries. Those countries, of course, left dangling in the winds of local pressures - given hope by the implied promise of the return of us troops... which will never occur.

Breeding, of course, more hostility to the us and the west in general, = more terrorist attacks by kids who are now 13, radicalized by the seemingly indiscriminate bombings and killings of their neighbors/schoolchums by the guys currently patrolling their streets.

This is Saturday. Get the hell out by Wednesday. We could. Why not?

[/endrant]

[Pannonian]

Working on the popup/cookie problem (also experienced here).

Firefox users can set adblock on the relevant image and the problem won't appear again.

[Tuuvi]

The reason the US is bogged down in this war is a little thing called "Rules of Engagement". I watched a show about a battle in Iraq and the guy in charge of the operation almose crapped his pants because a stray bomb almost hit a mosque that the insurgents were in. Also there were several times where the soldiers were attacked but they could not attack back because the insurgents were in special zones, and the insurgents knew it. This war is being run like it is some sort of videogame or sport instead of a war. Also why is there no ban on firearms :dizzy2: ? It would make things alot easier. You let the people know that if they are caught walking around with guns they will be fired upon, then it will be easy to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

[PanzerJaeger]

The reason the US is bogged down in this war is a little thing called "Rules of Engagement". I watched a show about a battle in Iraq and the guy in charge of the operation almose crapped his pants because a stray bomb almost hit a mosque that the insurgents were in. Also there were several times where the soldiers were attacked but they could not attack back because the insurgents were in special zones, and the insurgents knew it. This war is being run like it is some sort of videogame or sport instead of a war. Also why is there no ban on firearms :dizzy2: ? It would make things alot easier. You let the people know that if they are caught walking around with guns they will be fired upon, then it will be easy to distinguish between civilians and combatants.


:2thumbsup:

[Csargo]

The reason the US is bogged down in this war is a little thing called "Rules of Engagement". I watched a show about a battle in Iraq and the guy in charge of the operation almose crapped his pants because a stray bomb almost hit a mosque that the insurgents were in. Also there were several times where the soldiers were attacked but they could not attack back because the insurgents were in special zones, and the insurgents knew it. This war is being run like it is some sort of videogame or sport instead of a war. Also why is there no ban on firearms :dizzy2: ? It would make things alot easier. You let the people know that if they are caught walking around with guns they will be fired upon, then it will be easy to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

Maybe if you think about that statement for a while you'll realize why he freaked out.

[Tribesman]

The reason the US is bogged down in this war is a little thing called "Rules of Engagement".
:thumbsdown: there are lots of reasons why the coilition is bogged down , and that certainly isn't a major one , in fact a change in the current rules would make things worse , which is a reason why the US is making an effort to jail or even kill the soldiers who break those rules .


You let the people know that if they are caught walking around with guns they will be fired upon, then it will be easy to distinguish between civilians and combatants.:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: so far detatched from reality it's unbelievable someone could write that .


So lignator , there is this bloke walking down the road , he has a gun , do you shoot ? remember its easy to distinguish if he is a civilian or an insurgent ...how exactly ?
When tight rules of engagement are folllowed screw ups still happen , like a bloke walking down the road with a piece of furniture that police thought was a gun , so they killed him:oops:
When rules of engagement are relaxed mistakes happen , like a bloke reading a newspaper who looked a bit like an arab , so they killed him:oops:

Though since the topic is more about Iraq and Afghanistan how about some nice examples from there , say perhaps a group of armed men in a "bunker"....shoot them :yes: nice and easy :oops: pity they were the security detatchment for a government party office . Four blokes with guns in a car ...shoot them:yes: nice and easy :oops: pity they were a government ministers escort .
But hey we could have a really good screw up from another deployment where the rules of engagement allow for attacking armed people ...big compound , lots of armed people , lots of 4x4s just like the nasty warlords militia use ...shoot them :yes: what could be easier to distinguish eh ?:yes: :yes: :yes: :hmg: :charge: :oops: pity it was the UN commisioners compound



This is Saturday. Get the hell out by Wednesday. We could. Why not?

Aw come on you know wednesday is out of the question .

[Banquo's Ghost]

In his own inimitable way, Tribesman illustrates the problems brought by changing the RoE to those that might be found in a full-fledged battlezone.

Oh, and be very sure that RoE operate in all combat situations - it constantly amazes me that there are some posters who actually believe the United States forces should act like bestial animals to protect themselves. Those soldiers are a fine group of people doing an impossible job - you want to drive them to mindless butchery as an official policy?

Many of these young men are coming back home traumatised already. The war is not being run as a video game, Lignator. The politicians may have thought it's that easy, but generals and soldiers alike recognise they are dealing with real, living people, who too often become real, dismembered dead people. If the politicians and gung-ho types sitting safely at home had to clear up the shattered bodies, comfort the broken children and suffer the unbridled hatred from the dispossessed, they might not make such pronouncements and invasions so easily.

Note as well that a great deal of the violence perpetrated in Iraq and Afghanistan is condoned or facilitated (and often committed) by the official police and armies of those countries. Are they to be disarmed too? How might such a move bring forward a withdrawal?

The modern parallel to the policy suggested by the "kill 'em all" brigade is Chechnya. The Russian army has done pretty much everything you want the US forces to do - and yes, pacified the country. Well, destroyed the whole thing, murdered hundreds of thousands and simply displaced the "terrorism" - but Grozny is being rebuilt.

But they have needed a dictatorship at home to do it, the constant intimidation and occasional assassination of the Fourth Estate, the effective dissolution of free speech on the matter, and inherited hundreds of thousands of mentally and physically damaged young men who sit at home with no medical support drinking themselves to death on poisoned vodka or turn to crime. Not to mention having to continue to occupy that poor country - though much of the continuing state terror work has been contracted out to a brutal crime-boss governor and his gangs of thugs.

A price you want to pay?

And if you think widespread repression and murder will halt the recruitment of terrorists in other parts of the world and thus "win" the WoT, you need the v2.0 patch for your video game. Be careful though, that's the one where the decent majority of the US citizenry quickly become discontent because they never signed on to be Nazis.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Oh good , are they going to do something about the Benning popups that inhabit every thread GC has made a post in ?:whip:

Actually, no, but that will be adressed as well. I believe you'll receive a pm about your posting behavior. I'm sure you're familiar with the routine by now, yes?

[Tribesman]

The modern parallel to the policy suggested by the "kill 'em all" brigade is Chechnya.
Or maybe Saddam against the Kurds and Shia .
You know the sort of actions they strung him up for .
You know the sort of actions where countries and people get so outraged that they fund the terrorists and help them set up their own little terrorist run state .

[Vidar]

I dont think it can be won by trying to Kill 'em all, Easy enough to kill people, but Ideas, no matter how cracked, are harder to kill.

[Scurvy]

The reason the US is bogged down in this war is a little thing called "Rules of Engagement"

a war without them would be many times worse...


You let the people know that if they are caught walking around with guns they will be fired upon, then it will be easy to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

you can carry guns around it parts of the US, shoot we shoot anyone carrying a gun there?

equally people in Iraq feel they need guns for self-defence, a ban won't make them change their minds, so if you shoot anyone with a gun (or anything vaguely gun shaped) on the premonition that they must be a terrorist you end up with millions of dead civilians...

this just about sums it up....


so far detatched from reality it's unbelievable someone could write that .



The modern parallel to the policy suggested by the "kill 'em all" brigade is Chechnya.


Chechnya is a fitting example... :yes:

:2thumbsup:

[ShadeHonestus]

If we don't feel like we can go to war and firebomb like at Dresden, then we shouldn't go to war, because all we will hear is the constant argument of the insignificant shadows and a bolstering of the opposition by everything that is not a reality. There isn't a problem with run away toilet rhetoric disguised as international politics (its always been there), other than the fact we are in increasing habit of caring what other people think...

[gaelic cowboy]

Anyone read the times supplement today with the Bin Laden piece very depressing article looking at this thread I am even more depressed.

[caravel]

equally people in Iraq feel they need guns for self-defence, a ban won't make them change their minds, so if you shoot anyone with a gun (or anything vaguely gun shaped) on the premonition that they must be a terrorist you end up with millions of dead civilians...
Giving even more power and more recruits to the militias...

This reminds me of a crappy radio phone in about Zimbabwe I heard at work on Friday. Some eejit was suggesting sending in the SAS to assassinate Robert Mugabe. A work colleague of mine also believed it was a good idea and that the regime would simply "fall apart" overnight with him dead. Where do these ridiculous ideas come from? I can only think they must arise from people absorbing the simplified politics of the tabloid rag.

There is no way that the war on terror, in Iraq especially, will be won as a result of stepping up military action, abandoning rules of engagement and going "all out". What is so ironic is that Iraq was not a war on terror in the first place. The invasion and occupation has simply invited, bred and nurtured terrorism in Iraq. It is precisely those type of brute force tactics that lay the seeds of terrorism in the first place. Also the coalition forces are avoiding destroying Mosques because they know that if they did not, they would have no support in Iraq, from any Iraqi's, whatsoever. It would be massively in the favour of the Militias and terrorists if the coalition were to hit a mosque, accidentally or otherwise.

:no:

[Whacker]

Giving even more power and more recruits to the militias...

This reminds me of a crappy radio phone in about Zimbabwe I heard at work on Friday. Some eejit was suggesting sending in the SAS to assassinate Robert Mugabe. A work colleague of mine also believed it was a good idea and that the regime would simply "fall apart" overnight with him dead. Where do these ridiculous ideas come from? I can only think they must arise from people absorbing the simplified politics of the tabloid rag.

There is no way that the war on terror, in Iraq especially, will be won as a result of stepping up military action, abandoning rules of engagement and going "all out". What is so ironic is that Iraq was not a war on terror in the first place. The invasion and occupation has simply invited, bred and nurtured terrorism in Iraq. It is precisely those type of brute force tactics that lay the seeds of terrorism in the first place. Also the coalition forces are avoiding destroying Mosques because they know that if they did not, they would have no support in Iraq, from any Iraqi's, whatsoever. It would be massively in the favour of the Militias and terrorists if the coalition were to hit a mosque, accidentally or otherwise.

:no:

Indeed, it's been suggested (which I completely believe) that Iraq has, if anything, drawn more terrorist types to the country on the premise that they get to "kill Americans".

Personally, I don't think that the Middle East is ever going to 'calm down'. Without getting into the religious arguments, I think it's simply an accepted, or at least established, cultural fixture that violence is a valid means for accomplishing one's goals, esp. with the self-perceived 'religious validation' that comes with it.

Simply put, the US government needs to put heavy emphasis on alternative energy source development so that we can distance ourselves from the need for fossil fuels. Less or no dependance on fossil fuels means that we could care less about what goes on the Middle East and would have no reason to be over there, because the bottom line is still oil.

[Mikeus Caesar]

At the rate they're going, forever and ever and ever and ever.

You can't kill an enemy you can't see with bombs and bullets. Even more so, you can't kill mindsets and ideologies with bombs and bullets either. The only way they can solve it all is through discussion.

Or alternatively using bigger bombs and bullets, such as the sort that will turn a city into a glass covered crater.

[Scurvy]

Or alternatively using bigger bombs and bullets, such as the sort that will turn a city into a glass covered crater.

better known as "Plan B" :laugh4:

[Tuuvi]

So lignator , there is this bloke walking down the road , he has a gun , do you shoot ? remember its easy to distinguish if he is a civilian or an insurgent ...how exactly ?
When tight rules of engagement are folllowed screw ups still happen , like a bloke walking down the road with a piece of furniture that police thought was a gun , so they killed him:oops:
When rules of engagement are relaxed mistakes happen , like a bloke reading a newspaper who looked a bit like an arab , so they killed him:oops:
Well, that's why you ban firearms, So you can tell between the insurgents and the civilians. I probably should have phrased what I said better, I didn't mean to say you just shoot anyone that looks like they have a gun, of course you see if they are in the police or not, give them a warning first, etc.

In his own inimitable way, Tribesman illustrates the problems brought by changing the RoE to those that might be found in a full-fledged battlezone.

Oh, and be very sure that RoE operate in all combat situations - it constantly amazes me that there are some posters who actually believe the United States forces should act like bestial animals to protect themselves. Those soldiers are a fine group of people doing an impossible job - you want to drive them to mindless butchery as an official policy?

Many of these young men are coming back home traumatised already. The war is not being run as a video game, Lignator. The politicians may have thought it's that easy, but generals and soldiers alike recognise they are dealing with real, living people, who too often become real, dismembered dead people. If the politicians and gung-ho types sitting safely at home had to clear up the shattered bodies, comfort the broken children and suffer the unbridled hatred from the dispossessed, they might not make such pronouncements and invasions so easily.

Note as well that a great deal of the violence perpetrated in Iraq and Afghanistan is condoned or facilitated (and often committed) by the official police and armies of those countries. Are they to be disarmed too? How might such a move bring forward a withdrawal?

And if you think widespread repression and murder will halt the recruitment of terrorists in other parts of the world and thus "win" the WoT, you need the v2.0 patch for your video game. Be careful though, that's the one where the decent majority of the US citizenry quickly become discontent because they never signed on to be Nazis.I didn't mean you get rid of all RoE, I was talking about situations where Insurgents can't be attacked because they are hiding in sacred areas. Inurgents know they won't be attacked when they are in such areas, so that's why they hide and attack from places like mosques and other religous sites. Of course those sites should be protected, but a human life is much more important than a golden dome. When I said the war is fought like a videogame I was referring to the politician's mindset, not the soldiers themselves. I know that they are doing a fine job, and that this war is unlike any war that has been fought before.


a war without them would be many times worse...

you can carry guns around it parts of the US, shoot we shoot anyone carrying a gun there?

equally people in Iraq feel they need guns for self-defence, a ban won't make them change their minds, so if you shoot anyone with a gun (or anything vaguely gun shaped) on the premonition that they must be a terrorist you end up with millions of dead civilians...
Well the difference between Iraq and the US is that Iraq is a war zone, the US is not. As soon as the occupation is over, the Iraqi government can allow any guns it wants. But until then, guns should be banned.

[caravel]

Simply put, the US government needs to put heavy emphasis on alternative energy source development so that we can distance ourselves from the need for fossil fuels. Less or no dependance on fossil fuels means that we could care less about what goes on the Middle East and would have no reason to be over there, because the bottom line is still oil.
I'm afraid that the world needs, and will always need oil, not just for power stations and road transport but for shipping, aviation, plastics/polymers, paints, adhesives, inks, dies, lubricants, solvents, consumer electronics, industrial chemicals, medicines, synthetic clothing and shoes, packaging products, cleaning products, cosmetics etc etc, the list is endless. We live in a society totally dependent on oil, without it everything grinds to a complete halt. This is why the Iraq war is occurring and this is why there is a pipeline going through Afghanistan, not "terror", not "freedom", not WMD, not liberation - oil.

[Navaros]

Right now on 60 Minutes they are showing USA marines who murdered over 20 unarmed Iraqi civilians (including women and children) at Haditha. So it seems banning guns in Iraq wouldn't stop the murders.

[Whacker]

I'm afraid that the world needs, and will always need oil, not just for power stations and road transport but for shipping, aviation, plastics/polymers, paints, adhesives, inks, dies, lubricants, solvents, consumer electronics, industrial chemicals, medicines, synthetic clothing and shoes, packaging products, cleaning products, cosmetics etc etc, the list is endless. We live in a society totally dependent on oil, without it everything grinds to a complete halt. This is why the Iraq war is occurring and this is why there is a pipeline going through Afghanistan, not "terror", not "freedom", not WMD, not liberation - oil.

Aaahhhhhh, good point, I had discounted that part entirely and looked at it only from a fuel usage perpsective. Still, I'd be curious to see some figures on how much oil goes to use directly as a form of fuel, vs "other" uses. If it's low enough, then our own production could theoretically more than make up for this. Anything that gets us out of the chaotic middle east's business and can give OPEC the finger is good in my book

[Tribesman]

Well, that's why you ban firearms, So you can tell between the insurgents and the civilians. I probably should have phrased what I said better, I didn't mean to say you just shoot anyone that looks like they have a gun, of course you see if they are in the police or not, give them a warning first, etc.

OK right lignator thats clearer , but a couple of slight problems there .
For starters since sometimes the terrorists are the police , othertimes they dress as the police or army , sometimes they set up "official" roadblocks checking for what they see as undesirables . How do you see if they are real or not ?
Its a tricky situation isn't it .
Which is why there are rules of engagement , that probably run along the lines of a clear and identified threat or a clear and identified shooter , without those you are just going to get the police , army , security guards and god knows who else just shooting at anything and everything , including each other , that happens anyway but not to the extent that it would without the regulations .
Now of course the terrorists are going to exploit these rules , but thats life .:shrug:
You have to put up with it because to do away with the rules would result in a disaster that would just breed more and more terrorists .

Anyhow as for banning firearms , how would that work ? There would need to be law and order on the streets to have any gun regulation enforced , in case you hadn't notice law and order are somewhat lacking in Iraq and Afghanistan due to them being really crazy mixed up war zones with inadequate police and military presence .

[Adrian II]

I'm afraid that the world needs, and will always need oil, not just for power stations and road transport but for shipping, aviation, plastics/polymers, paints, adhesives, inks, dies, lubricants, solvents, consumer electronics, industrial chemicals, medicines, synthetic clothing and shoes, packaging products, cleaning products, cosmetics etc etc, the list is endless. We live in a society totally dependent on oil, without it everything grinds to a complete halt. This is why the Iraq war is occurring and this is why there is a pipeline going through Afghanistan, not "terror", not "freedom", not WMD, not liberation - oil.Good thinking.

I don't agree that this war is about oil or revolves around oil. But I would like to see a breakdown of oil uses along your lines.

In all the calculations about how we can or should ween ourselves off oil, fuel is always considered to be the Achilles heel. I have never seen a serious breakdown of all the other uses we make of oil. Or the amounts required for those uses. Or the available alternatives for those uses.

[ShadeHonestus]

What is the current school of thought for oil longevity? I know they keep finding more sources or more ways to access like shale oil etc, but was wondering if things had changed drastically from the 75ish years I last heard? That is if current usage rate remains the same.

What is almost more interesting to me is the fallout of regions like the middle east, Saudi Arabia and Iran when either the world economy shifts away from oil or indeed the oil runs out.

Will those regimes closer to the Islamo fascism model get more desperate or will they die by a whimper in face of their power base being drained away?

How about those more moderate, will they make the rush toward a more diversified economy or lean to the more extreme?

How does this play with modern day Iran's desire to obtain nuclear power? If their aim is solely civilian use and seeing the need on the horizon, why not be open and honest with its development and invite foreign reactors and inspector teams, whatever it took to meet the domestic needs and goals.

[Don Corleone]

I've been spending a lot of time over the course of the past few weeks asking myself this very question. Sadly, all I can come back with is whenever the White House decides its had enough 'fun'.

Through it all, the US has blown every chance it ever had for ending it. If anything, we've fanned the flames of the insurgency and done all we could to see an outright civil war break out. I believe the general idea was to cause the situation to degenerate to such a point we could begin a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, each seeking to arm and support their own kind. Sadly (for the US troops the White House has been using as 'bait'), the Iranians and the Saudis haven't stepped up quickly enough.

This is my own theory. I have no basis for it and I've not discussed it with anyone prior to now. I'm just sitting here asking myself why the war in Iraq has continued for years when it should have and could have been over in weeks. At a certain point, gross incompetence and negligence only take you so far.

[Pannonian]

I've been spending a lot of time over the course of the past few weeks asking myself this very question. Sadly, all I can come back with is whenever the White House decides its had enough 'fun'.

Through it all, the US has blown every chance it ever had for ending it. If anything, we've fanned the flames of the insurgency and done all we could to see an outright civil war break out. I believe the general idea was to cause the situation to degenerate to such a point we could begin a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, each seeking to arm and support their own kind. Sadly (for the US troops the White House has been using as 'bait'), the Iranians and the Saudis haven't stepped up quickly enough.

This is my own theory. I have no basis for it and I've not discussed it with anyone prior to now. I'm just sitting here asking myself why the war in Iraq has continued for years when it should have and could have been over in weeks. At a certain point, gross incompetence and negligence only take you so far.
So would you say the neocons have been playing the Great Game, but their use of rhetoric to con the US populace into supporting their adventure has also left them with no alternative but to make their rhetoric work?

As I've said before, the British public wouldn't have any problems with a British government that went in and messed things up, then came back out when things got hot, claiming a victory that anyone with a brain cell could see wasn't. However, the American people somehow believe they are the embodiment of liberal ideals, and they believe in the myth of America Undefeated, and thus force the government into carrying through its promises (to the detriment of everyone involved).

[ShadeHonestus]

However, the American people somehow believe they are the embodiment of liberal ideals, and they believe in the myth of America Undefeated, and thus force the government into carrying through its promises (to the detriment of everyone involved).


Or could it be for the betterment in the light of my above post? *now breathe...long deep breath* I can picture you turning red wanting to personally murder the words I'm typing, but honestly consider it.

A country that could possibly function on its own as a democracy and embraces capitalism amidst the chaos to come. Is it worth the lives of our military spent so far. I would vote yes. If you can picture that a possibility, not knowing what may happen in 1-5, let alone 10 years, would you not also be in favor?

[edit]
If it fails, will we not have at least the knowledge of having tried in the face of what is to come to the region?

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

If we don't feel like we can go to war and firebomb like at Dresden, then we shouldn't go to war, because all we will hear is the constant argument of the insignificant shadows and a bolstering of the opposition by everything that is not a reality. There isn't a problem with run away toilet rhetoric disguised as international politics (its always been there), other than the fact we are in increasing habit of caring what other people think...

If they had of listened to others in the first place, the war in Iraq would not exist, Afghanistan would most likely be under control, and there would still be good will and trust in the US and its international policies....

The US army is not trained or experienced enough to handle what happens after the enemy army is defeated...

the way to beat terrorist is to take away their power base, that means taking away the reasons they have popular support. one of the reasons Hamas and hezbollah have so much support is that they fund schools, health clinics, pay wages to people and support the community, take away the need to the community to rely on them for such things and you take away their power base.

[Pannonian]

Or could it be for the betterment in the light of my above post? *now breathe...long deep breath* I can picture you turning red wanting to personally murder the words I'm typing, but honestly consider it.

A country that could possibly function on its own as a democracy and embraces capitalism amidst the chaos to come. Is it worth the lives of our military spent so far. I would vote yes. If you can picture that a possibility, not knowing what may happen in 1-5, let alone 10 years, would you not also be in favor?

[edit]
If it fails, will we not have at least the knowledge of having tried in the face of what is to come to the region?
I'm not all that bothered by what you've written, despite your fears. I simply see it as confirmation that we have different worldviews, and what you've written simply confirms my generalisation of the American worldview (which Seamus has agreed with previously).

You see progress as something to be strived towards, so that even if one fails, one can say - at least I tried. That's what I mean by Americans seeing themselves as the embodiment of liberal (Whig, even) ideals. I look at what I want to achieve, then I look at the cost. If I can't do what I want at a cost I can tolerate, I'd look for the best I can get at a price I can stomach.

Two completely different worldviews, neither able to agree with the other, but neither do I see any point in argument - we'd be arguing in completely different languages.

[ajaxfetish]

A country that could possibly function on its own as a democracy and embraces capitalism amidst the chaos to come. Is it worth the lives of our military spent so far. I would vote yes. If you can picture that a possibility, not knowing what may happen in 1-5, let alone 10 years, would you not also be in favor?

[edit]
If it fails, will we not have at least the knowledge of having tried in the face of what is to come to the region?
I have one serious problem with this line of reasoning. In my opinion, if a country is to become a functioning democracy and/or capitalist state, it must become so. We as outsiders cannot create one. The change has to come from within, or there will not be the willpower to sustain it.

AFAIC, the idea that we can intervene to create democratic states around the world is the number one problem with American foreign policy in recent decades.

Ajax

[Brenus]

“A country that could possibly function on its own as a democracy and embraces capitalism”. I would, like some others, emphasise this amalgam. Why are you mixing democracy and capitalism? For most of the poor population in the world, capitalism is the worst of the dictatorship. Famine, kids enchained in factories or mines (seen in Pakistan), youth selling their bodies to westerners, violence and invasion when they don’t vote like we want… The list of grief is endless. Not that communism was better, but at least equal in bringing sorrow on human lives… Don’t you understand that exactly why people are fighting? They don’t want a model; they don’t want to be imposed… OK, they will get worst, the theocratic state and capitalism, but no foreign troops on their soils, and they will provide willingly the demanded oil…
By the way, Iraq was more capitlist in its functionning than communist...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Terrorism will be a basic component of World Politics throughout the century -- or at least until Islam marginalizes its own radical fringe in the same extent that Christianity has marginalized its own. Please note, Christianity had a "head start" of several centuries of development as an organized religion and cannot claim to have marginalized its own fringe until very recently (at best 1648).

The next steps in the war on terror, from a U.S. perspective, will probably include a gradual withdrawal from Iraq over the next few years and a reversion to the "War on Terror as 'police' issue." This shift will be more gradual in the event of a Republican Presidential winner in 2008, and somewhat faster if a Dem is elected.

There is much to be said for fighting the war as a "police" effort (lower cost, fewer destabilized regimes) -- though it also has its limitations. Chief among these limitations -- at least to the hearts and minds of many in the USA -- is the implied admission that we cannot defeat terrorism and must simply endure the slaughter (albeit with some efforts to minimize same) until the terrorists themselves decide it's not accomplishing enough. "Do nothing" is rarely a psychologically comfortable strategy for us.

[Lemur]

I don't know about the GWOT, but today's a special day:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/war_in_iraq.jpg

[Blodrast]

Lemur: That's incredibly hilarious, and really, really sad at the same time.:shame:

[Tribesman]

Lemur I think this one is more appropriate for the 4 year iraq anniversary http://www.despair.com/stup24x30pri.html

[Papewaio]

I don't know about the GWOT, but today's a special day:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/war_in_iraq.jpg

So M*A*S*H like. When the going gets tough, the tough get a good sense of humor.

What is it about wars that bring out the funny ironic side in Americans?

[Pannonian]

I honestly can't claim to care too much about the motivations behind the war or the stupid little conspiracy theories people spout off about it. Even less about the moral high-ground and low ground that seems to rest on a geography shakier than a stripper's hind-quarters. I can tell you what I think about the prosecution of the war, though.

Specifically, the RoE. You say it wouldn't make a difference--that's bull. You can pull any number of facts from the air and claim it would or would not make a strategic difference, but I garuntee you it would make a tactical difference. And when you're winning at the tactical level, you're that much closer to victory at the strategic level. Who was it that said Tactical Engagements were what won wars, and that strategy was merely setting up a string of opportunities for the tactical forces to win? General Fred Franks, I think--that man knows his stuff.

American soldiers are screwed over there by the RoE. Like has been noted already, there are situations where you're being fired at, and you literally have to sit there and take it. It hits us tankers especially hard, according to my NCOs. We now spend more time clearing houses and patrolling in humvees than using our tanks--because tanks are vehicles of war, and nothing less. They don't half-ass.

Last, but not least, I can't stand the "What about the poor soldiers?" arguments. I know Banquo probably wasn't trying to be patronizing, but it comes off that way. Most soldiers i've met who've just come back from Iraq say it sucks. Duh. They wouldn't do it again given a choice. No-Brainer. But none of them are of the opinion that we should do anything other than try to win the freakin' war. You don't just up and quit. And you don't just stand there looking stupid either. You do what you have to do to win.

:hmg:


Oh, and sorry about that sig. I didn't know it was gonna do that.
So presumably you don't think much about the effectiveness of political decisions to affect the viability of tactical plans? Clausewitz, who has been excoriated by Keegan among others for emphasising the primacy of massive force delivered with little restraint, repeatedly illustrates how tactics are dependent on the political situation.

Eg. How does one approach the problem of crossing a river? Does one use existing bridges, does one build a bridge, does one use boats, or something else? Would it be more profitable to spend all one's time figuring a way of crossing the river, or should one think about why one is crossing the river in the first place?

Crossing a river is only necessary if you want to get to the other side, and you only want to get to the other side because you are disputing ground which is on the other side of the river. OTOH, if both sides agree to keep the ground on the other side of the river demilitarised, there is no need to cross that river, and the need for a tactical plan disappears. Then again, if you ground you are disputing is beyond the river, but you first have to cross land that is neutral and belonging to a third party, it may not be desirable to stir up said third party and drive him to your enemy's side.

This last scenario is probably closest to that faced in Iraq - if you dispense with all RoE, the harm it does to your mission may far outweigh the gains. In that case you'll have to think up something else, or concede that crossing the river would not be a good idea, and it would be more useful to try something else. Or you might go ahead and do it anyway, then have to face up to your mistake some time later and try to save whatever you can from your original decision.

[Tribesman]

Specifically, the RoE. You say it wouldn't make a difference--that's bull.
Would you like a list of historical events where changes to the RoE have had a big negative difference , or a list of examples where changing or not following the RoE has made a big negative difference .
theres a nice one from Belgium in 1914 dealing with Franc-tireurs , that caused quite a backlash that ultimately led to the fall of empires:yes: bad publicity you see .....beastly animals :whip: hey they did another change in rules that ended up with your lot joining in didn't they :yes: vile murdering brutes:whip:
Hey how about one nearer to now , where they just bent the rules to teach the scum a lesson , that bloody sunday , bit of a screw up wasn't it , really made people flock to support a terrorist organisation that was on its last legs and had little support , but hey to overcome that they then went and changed the rules over detention , which made even more terrorists .:wall:

So when you were talking about Bull , were you refering to your own statement ? it appears so :thumbsdown:
Actually come to think of it you had some pretty lax RoE someplace out in Asia , free fire something or others , if its there kill it just in case sort of thing , did you win that one ?
or the other one where you had the same set up out there , did you win that ?
errrrrr.....that was a :no: wasn't it , and another :no: .....:yes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The USA has always made the military subordinate to civilian authority for a reason. Political goals do matter.

I sympathize with GC -- too many of my clients are military families for me not to have an inkling of that to which he refers -- but there is a reason for most of those ROE.

Still, it must be galling to face an opponent who only has to worry about tactical results and personal survival (and the latter is purposely discarded in some cases). GC will be in a position wherein he will not be able to fire his weapon despite being fired upon by an opponent who is mixed in with -- for example -- a group of obviously uninvolved civilians. The annoying part is that if the opponent shoots one of the civilians while attempting to snuff GC, it will still be GC's fault simply for being present in that country -- at least according to the PR people of the opposition.

Our own history suggests that either a total hard-case approach or just using a few A-teams and nothing else is the way to go. Sending tankers out in humvees to do infantry work is not the answer.

[Tuuvi]

Would you like a list of historical events where changes to the RoE have had a big negative difference , or a list of examples where changing or not following the RoE has made a big negative difference .
theres a nice one from Belgium in 1914 dealing with Franc-tireurs , that caused quite a backlash that ultimately led to the fall of empires:yes: bad publicity you see .....beastly animals :whip: hey they did another change in rules that ended up with your lot joining in didn't they :yes: vile murdering brutes:whip:
Hey how about one nearer to now , where they just bent the rules to teach the scum a lesson , that bloody sunday , bit of a screw up wasn't it , really made people flock to support a terrorist organisation that was on its last legs and had little support , but hey to overcome that they then went and changed the rules over detention , which made even more terrorists .:wall:

So when you were talking about Bull , were you refering to your own statement ? it appears so :thumbsdown:
Actually come to think of it you had some pretty lax RoE someplace out in Asia , free fire something or others , if its there kill it just in case sort of thing , did you win that one ?
or the other one where you had the same set up out there , did you win that ?
errrrrr.....that was a :no: wasn't it , and another :no: .....:yes:
I could be wrong, but you seem to think every soldier is a murderer, which is not true. We are not suggesting relaxation of RoE so that our soldiers can kill defenseless people. We are suggesting relaxation of RoE that let insurgents kill our defenseless soldiers.

[Tribesman]

I could be wrong, but you seem to think every soldier is a murderer
You are correct you are wrong .

We are not suggesting relaxation of RoE so that our soldiers can kill defenseless people. We are suggesting relaxation of RoE that let insurgents kill our defenseless soldiers.
right
now for the first bit I take it you read "beastly animals " and "vile murdering brutes" and didn't place them in them context of the historical events of the changes to Rules that were mentioned .
Would you care to try that ? you can even look at the reasons why they changed the rules (they did make some sense , both the rules and the changes) then you can look at the outcome and wider effect that resulted from them changes .
Then you can change your first line I quoted .
Simple isn't it:2thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

Poor GC can't put two and two together because he doesn't like the number four .

We could win in Iraq within 3 years given total free reign.
No you couldn't , because for all your talk of "powerfull nations beating the weak" you don't have the forces and couldn't put up with the fallout from such actions .


We should be able to do what we have to do, whatever we have to do. We are the freaking experts--not the Media, not Congress, not the people that push the military to do stupid Politically Correct crap like not shoot back at someone because the area is too populated
Straight out of boot camp and an freaking expert already :dizzy2: promotion and experience must be very very fast nowadays .
tell you what drop the expert keep the freaking and you might be right:thumbsdown:

[Tribesman]

have faith in this organization's ability to fight a war--we've only been doing it for 200-some years.
Ah the organisation , and the commander in chief of that organisation would be shrub wouldn't it :laugh4:
But hey 200 years that some going isn't it , so what was it it took in the Phillipines against some rag tag natives where you really put rules out the window hmmmmm40 + years wasn't it .
But hey I don't expect you to answer that since you don't see that you couldn't win two wars where you threw the rules regarding civilians out the window and lets face it the top military man , the real great I will be back expert screwed up completely saying he could get total victory with only 8,000 American troops because they were such a powerful nation fighting the weak .
Oh and if you cannot see a connection between the results in changes to rules of engagement concerning the franc-tireurs , the unresticted submarine warfare and any changes to rules in Iraq then you really are beyond hope .
Though what I suspect is that you just don't like the answer you get if you think about it because that means your initial thoughts are just soooooo wrong .:yes: Because remember it isn't just politicians that make these rules its the military itself , and as you said , they do be de experts so dey do and have had a long long time to work them out :idea2:

[dacdac]

im preeeeety sure that the next president to be elected will have to be in support of withdrawal of the troops. i think the next coutry our troops will enter will be either Russia or to help out Darfur. Why Russia? i dont know, they just always seem to be able to find a way to piss us off.

[Tribesman]

i think the next coutry our troops will enter will be either Russia or to help out Darfur.
Well I was thinking of betting money on a return to somalia , but yesterdays footage of them dragging the bodies of Americas new allies through the streets of Mogadishu will put a bit of a kybosh on a return to that mess .

[Lemur]

im preeeeety sure that the next president to be elected will have to be in support of withdrawal of the troops.
Um, in theory at least, our current president is in support of withdrawal. "As they stand up, we will stand down," etc., etc. It's just a question of timing.

I hate to be a downer, but in the 20th century, the average anti-insurgency campaign took 9 years to run its course. That's without the complicating factor of the let's-have-a-civil-war crowd in Iraq. The next president will want to get out, no doubt, but he may not have the option to do so in a hurry. We're only four years into this mess.

[Tuuvi]

right
now for the first bit I take it you read "beastly animals " and "vile murdering brutes" and didn't place them in them context of the historical events of the changes to Rules that were mentioned .
Would you care to try that ? you can even look at the reasons why they changed the rules (they did make some sense , both the rules and the changes) then you can look at the outcome and wider effect that resulted from them changes .
Then you can change your first line I quoted .
Simple isn't it:2thumbsup:
If you would stop putting phrases like "Beastly animals" and "vile murdering brutes" and make your posts a little less condescending, I think you would find that your arguments would be much more effective.

No you couldn't , because for all your talk of "powerfull nations beating the weak" you don't have the forces and couldn't put up with the fallout from such actions .
Well we have the forces, but you are right, with public opinion the way it is right now the government probably couldn't get away with it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But hey 200 years that some going isn't it , so what was it it took in the Phillipines against some rag tag natives where you really put rules out the window hmmmmm40 + years wasn't it .

Depends how you define it. The insurrection against U.S. control of the Phillipines began on 2/4/1899 and lasted over three years, reaching it's official "conclusion" on 7/4/1902. Sporadic violence/resistance occured for decades afterward (and arguably has never stopped regardless of the regime in control of the Phillipines), but any realistic efforts to destabilize US control were wrapped up in reasonable time.

Sources:

Boot, M. (1902). The Savage Wars of Peace.... New York: Basic

Linn, B. (2000). The Phillipine War, 1899-1902. Lawrence: UofK Press.

May, G.A. (1983). "Why the United States Won the Phillipine-American War, 1899-1902." Pacific Historical Review, 52, pp. 353-377.


But hey I don't expect you to answer that since you don't see that you couldn't win two wars where you threw the rules regarding civilians out the window and lets face it the top military man , the real great I will be back expert screwed up completely saying he could get total victory with only 8,000 American troops because they were such a powerful nation fighting the weak.

Actually, we fought dozens of "wars" where the civilians were specifically targeted. Our domination and near elimination of the native Amerind tribes was haphazard but often quite viscious.

Nor is your assessment of the Vietnamese conflict completely accurate as to us "throwing out the rules." While there were "free fire" zones delineated and a number of instances where property was destroyed (and sometimes genuine innocents being killed as at My Lai), there were even more instances of the USA adhering to impractical (in GC's tactical definition) ROE's: A refusal to attack NV for many years, our unwillingness to cross into Cambodia despite its being used as a conduit for supplies, our reticence at mining Haiphong, our never having taken the offensive against NV itself for the purpose of smashing it entirely.

Historically, the USA has a better track record than many at quelling guerilla type conflicts.


Oh and if you cannot see a connection between the results in changes to rules of engagement concerning the franc-tireurs , the unresticted submarine warfare and any changes to rules in Iraq then you really are beyond hope.

It's a classic concern in war. PR does indeed matter, and the German Empire did set a tone that allowed the USA to overcome significant internal reluctance and to go to war against Germany in WW1. Where your parallel runs short is in the nature of the opposition. Imperial Germany, by any account, was a nation with full standing. The opposition forces in Iraq -- though backed by Iran and possibly others -- are not of themselves a nation-state with full standing. They lack the official "legitimacy" that would make this parallel complete. Since they use this lack of legitimacy to their advantage whenever possible, counter-insurgency tactics which treat them differently than a non-"official" opponent may have some validity. The PR issues still, of course, remain.

[KukriKhan]

Not to distract from the historical argument (fascinating, I admit), I just want to point out that "bogged down" suggests a morrass or swampy-type place from which one cannot extract oneself without extreme difficulty, and the expenditure of considerable time and effort to accomplish such.

I don't think the us is in that actual position. We could leave, totally, tomorrow.

We have the resources.

What stops us?

Ask the Iraqi's, I say. National referendum. "Americans stay" or "Americans go". Purple thumbs will tell the tale of what the survivors of Iraq want.

If it's "yanks go", we leave, knowing we did our best.

If it's "yanks stay", we have validation.

Unless there's some other tangible reason for us to continue this non-stop Parcheesi game.

[ShadeHonestus]

If it's "yanks go", we leave, knowing we did our best.

If it's "yanks stay", we have validation.

Unless there's some other tangible reason for us to continue this non-stop Parcheesi game.

tin hats would say it was an illegitimate referendum, even 60% + voted

[Lemur]

tin hats would say it was an illegitimate election referendum, even 60% + voted
Hmm, well we can't rule out something just because a fringe group would yell "conspiracy!" Unless by tin hats you mean a large swath of our population ...

[ShadeHonestus]

Hmm, well we can't rule out something just because a fringe group would yell "conspiracy!" Unless by tin hats you mean a large swath of our population ...

yes that large fraternity which suffers from lead poisoning...

[Pannonian]

I'm not even going to go into your little historical "examples" since I disagree with your viewpoint on those as a separate subject, but even your application of them to this argument won't work. At best those examples are still a ways removed from the scenario we face in Iraq. There are successful examples of a relaxed RoE crushing a determined resistance in an occupation. Alot more than there are examples of empire-shattering failures to pacify a people. Especially considering the Insurgency is technologically backwards and supported by nations we could crush like bugs if given the opportunity.

The examples of weak nations being subdued by powerful nations are endless. That's the history of freaking western civilization.

If you want to relax RoE for the purpose of pacifying Iraq, you could always follow the ultimate historical example, set by your own country, and nuke Baghdad. No-one doubts that would effectively bring an end to most of the violence, and the rest of the world would stop messing with the US and will now listen to what you say. Is that what you want?


I'd stake my paycheck on it: We could win in Iraq within 3 years given total free reign. I'm not saying we should go plow through every house in bagdhad... but there shouldn't be any rule saying we can't. We should be able to do what we have to do, whatever we have to do. We are the freaking experts--not the Media, not Congress, not the people that push the military to do stupid Politically Correct crap like not shoot back at someone because the area is too populated, or not destroy a building because somebody considers it holy--despite that building being a headquarters of some kind for the enemy.

How long would it take to repair the damage to the US that giving you free rein would cause? The media wouldn't stand for it, so you'll have to shut down the free press. People will protest and vote out whichever party gives you your lead, so you'll have to cancel elections and free speech. Your allies won't support you, so you'll have to coerce them into providing resources for your use, etc.


Take your attempt at historical debunkery and put it where it belongs--the Bargain Bin of ideas, sold to whoever needs a cheap excuse for an argument. History is rife with examples of successful--and unsuccessful--occupations, for multitudes upon multitudes of reasons. Iraq is what it is, and you can't point at the German occupation of Belgium and say "Haha! It'll be just like that in Iraq!"

:wall:

Is GC at all representative of the US military?

[Tribesman]

If you would stop putting phrases like "Beastly animals" and "vile murdering brutes" and make your posts a little less condescending, I think you would find that your arguments would be much more effective.

I used those phrases because they are examples of the phrases that appeared at the time in the media throughout the world to describe those incidents , they worked to get the public amd politicians to despise the actions taken by the Germans and boost recruitment , in the same way that Abu-Ghraib and events in Fallujah etc have boosted opposition to the coilition and boosted the terrorists .


there were even more instances of the USA adhering to impractical (in GC's tactical definition) ROE's: A refusal to attack NV for many years, our unwillingness to cross into Cambodia despite its being used as a conduit for supplies, our reticence at mining Haiphong, our never having taken the offensive against NV itself for the purpose of smashing it entirely.

Yep and there were damn good reasons for not going into Cambodia (though they did but wellll you know the result there) or N. Vietnam , they learnt that in Korea . just like with the position now , they know that if they for example followed GCs idea and ignore the or not destroy a building because somebody considers it holy--despite that building being a headquarters of some kind for the enemy.
and blew up a big shia shrine the religeous nuts controlling the straights would make the coilitions position very bloody precarious indeed or if they did it to a Sunni shrine they would be getting it from a different direction .

[Don Corleone]

Well, the entire thread is a fallacy, as it equates the War in Iraq and the War on Terror as being one and the same. They're not. To some, one is a subset of the other (I would claim they're non-related events). I think we'll be out of Iraq before the 2008 election, most likely July or August, to give voters a chance to realize it.

I think we'll be responding to and attempting to subvert Islamic terorrism for generations to come. This business in Iraq certainly hasn't helped matters, but by the same token, regardless of whether we invaded Iraq or not, or even Afghanistan for that matter, we were going to be taking attacks from Islamic extremist groups like Hizbollah and Al Queda for decades to come. Nothing short of dismantling the constitution, delcaring Sharia would end that.

[Blodrast]

Well, the entire thread is a fallacy, as it equates the War in Iraq and the War on Terror as being one and the same. They're not. To some, one is a subset of the other (I would claim they're non-related events). I think we'll be out of Iraq before the 2008 election, most likely July or August, to give voters a chance to realize it.


Then you're in disagreement with your president, because that's WHY (at least, the official reason) you went to Iraq in the first place...
Need more confirmation of that ? See Pindar's Hitchens thread...

[Devastatin Dave]

To be honest, I don't see the US "bogged down" at all. Seriously, how much as life really changed day to day for the average US citizen. You wouldn't even know that there is a war going on. Face it, this terrorism thing is going to go on and on, but its only going to be something that the average American only gives a #### about if the terrorist attack happens during during American Idle and they have to break to cover it.

[econ21]

You wouldn't even know that there is a war going on.

Because there isn't. The whole "War on Terror" rhetoric was specious at best; an excuse to dismantle peacetime rights at worst.

It is annoying that all the "real" wars these days - IIRC Falklands, Iraq I & II, etc - were not officially called "wars" to avoid certain legal niceties. And things that are not real wars (on terror, on drugs etc) are called wars, perhaps for the same reason.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Face it, this terrorism thing is going to go on and on, but its only going to be something that the average American only gives a #### about if the terrorist attack happens during during American Idle and they have to break to cover it.


American Idle? Is that the show where the great unwashed compete to come up with the best excuses for not working, so they can win a year's welfare and a lifetime supply of Dunkin' Donuts?

:wink3:

[Devastatin Dave]

American Idle? Is that the show where the great unwashed compete to come up with the best excuses for not working, so they can win a year's welfare and a lifetime supply of Dunkin' Donuts?

:wink3:
I knew i should have put quotes around "Idle"!!! Thanks for the twist of wit!!:2thumbsup:

[KukriKhan]

In this Tavern, we always serve up our shots of wry with a twist. Much better than bitter(s).

[caravel]

American Idle? Is that the show where the great unwashed compete to come up with the best excuses for not working, so they can win a year's welfare and a lifetime supply of Dunkin' Donuts?

:wink3:
Priceless...

:bow:

[Navaros]

I notice some criticism of my "bogged down" phrase.

In rebuttal of that I must say that the phrase "bogged down" still applies when one analyzes the situation. Yes, it is a choice that the USA is making to be bogged down.

But since the option to leave Iraq will never be acted upon in the forseeable future, the existence of that choice is a moot point.

Deliberate self-bogging is still bogging.