PDA

View Full Version : "The only thing these sand niggers understand is force"



George.
07-09-2006, 07:44 AM
Or, why killing civilians is always a bad idea, and why racist xenophobes lose wars of occupation:

What's an Iraqi Life Worth? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/07/AR2006070701155_pf.html)


In Iraq, lives differ in value -- and so do deaths. In this disparity lies an important reason why the United States has botched this war.

... recall a more recent incident, in Samarra . On May 30, U.S. soldiers manning a checkpoint there opened fire on a speeding vehicle that either did not see or failed to heed their command to stop. Two women in the vehicle were shot dead. One of them, Nahiba Husayif Jassim, 35, was pregnant. The baby was also killed. The driver, Jassim's brother, had been rushing her to a hospital to give birth. No one tried to cover up the incident: U.S. military representatives issued expressions of regret.
...
The killing at the Samarra checkpoint was not an atrocity; most likely it was an accident, a mistake. Yet plenty of evidence suggests that in Iraq such mistakes have occurred routinely, with moral and political consequences that have been too long ignored. Indeed, conscious motivation is beside the point: Any action resulting in Iraqi civilian deaths, however inadvertent, undermines the Bush administration's narrative of liberation, and swells the ranks of those resisting the U.S. presence.
...
Unfortunately, Franks and other senior commanders had not so much learned from Vietnam as forgotten it. This disdain for counting bodies, especially those of Iraqi civilians killed in the course of U.S. operations, is among the reasons why U.S. forces find themselves in another quagmire. It's not that the United States has an aversion to all body counts. We tally every U.S. service member who falls in Iraq, and rightly so. But only in recent months have military leaders finally begun to count -- for internal use only -- some of the very large number of Iraqi noncombatants whom American bullets and bombs have killed.

Through the war's first three years, any Iraqi venturing too close to an American convoy or checkpoint was likely to come under fire. Thousands of these "escalation of force" episodes occurred. Now, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, has begun to recognize the hidden cost of such an approach. "People who were on the fence or supported us" in the past "have in fact decided to strike out against us," he recently acknowledged.

In the early days of the insurgency, some U.S. commanders appeared oblivious to the possibility that excessive force might produce a backlash. They counted on the iron fist to create an atmosphere conducive to good behavior. The idea was not to distinguish between "good" and "bad" Iraqis, but to induce compliance through intimidation.

"You have to understand the Arab mind," one company commander told the New York Times, displaying all the self-assurance of Douglas MacArthur discoursing on Orientals in 1945. "The only thing they understand is force -- force, pride and saving face." Far from representing the views of a few underlings, such notions penetrated into the upper echelons of the American command. In their book "Cobra II," Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor offer this ugly comment from a senior officer: "The only thing these sand niggers understand is force and I'm about to introduce them to it."

Such crass language, redolent with racist, ethnocentric connotations, speaks volumes. These characterizations, like the use of "gooks" during the Vietnam War, dehumanize the Iraqis and in doing so tacitly permit the otherwise impermissible. Thus, Abu Ghraib and Haditha -- and too many regretted deaths, such as that of Nahiba Husayif Jassim.

As the war enters its fourth year, how many innocent Iraqis have died at American hands, not as a result of Haditha-like massacres but because of accidents and errors? The military doesn't know and, until recently, has publicly professed no interest in knowing. Estimates range considerably, but the number almost certainly runs in the tens of thousands.
...
Who bears responsibility for these Iraqi deaths? The young soldiers pulling the triggers? The commanders who establish rules of engagement that privilege "force protection" over any obligation to protect innocent life? The intellectually bankrupt policymakers who sent U.S. forces into Iraq in the first place and now see no choice but to press on? The culture that, to put it mildly, has sought neither to understand nor to empathize with people in the Arab or Islamic worlds?
...
Moral questions aside, the toll of Iraqi noncombatant casualties has widespread political implications. Misdirected violence alienates those we are claiming to protect. It plays into the hands of the insurgents, advancing their cause and undercutting our own. It fatally undermines the campaign to win hearts and minds, suggesting to Iraqis and Americans alike that Iraqi civilians -- and perhaps Arabs and Muslims more generally -- are expendable.
...
For all the talk of Iraq being a sovereign nation, foreign occupiers are the ones deciding what an Iraqi life is worth. And although President Bush has remarked in a different context that "every human life is a precious gift of matchless value," our actions in Iraq continue to convey the impression that civilian lives aren't worth all that much.

That impression urgently needs to change. To start, the Pentagon must get over its aversion to counting all bodies. It needs to measure in painstaking detail -- and publicly -- the mayhem we are causing as a byproduct of what we call liberation. To do otherwise, to shrug off the death of Nahiba Husayif Jassim as just one of those things that happens in war, only reinforces the impression that Americans view Iraqis as less than fully human. Unless we demonstrate by our actions that we value their lives as much as the lives of our own troops, our failure is certain.

jack grebe
07-09-2006, 08:07 AM
I think you could have come up with a better title.....I personally find it very offensive

Paul Pless
07-09-2006, 08:16 AM
Jack, kinda trollish with the title eh? Almost as if the article and issue can't or won't stand on its other merits.

George.
07-09-2006, 08:25 AM
In their book "Cobra II," Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor offer this ugly comment from a senior officer: "The only thing these sand niggers understand is force and I'm about to introduce them to it."

I don't recall anyone here finding the book offensive, or taking offense at the fact that not only senior officers, but also common soldiers regularly refer to the people they are supposed to be "liberating" as sand niggers.

Methinks that what you all find offensive is that someone is pointing out the racism, xenophobia, and arrogance that are a defining part of your Iraq venture.

KNOCKABOUT
07-09-2006, 08:56 AM
I don't recall anyone here finding the book offensive, or taking offense at the fact that not only senior officers, but also common soldiers regularly refer to the people they are supposed to be "liberating" as sand niggers.

Methinks that what you all find offensive is that someone is pointing out the racism, xenophobia, and arrogance that are a defining part of your Iraq venture.

Oh stuff it in a hole George. Your title is completely offensive and unnecessary. As well as your holier-than-thou commentary. Guess what, you salsa-dancing-backwards-headed-nitwit, when youre at war you dehumanize the enemy. This is not an argument of right or wrong, I am merely pointing out that your comments are out of context as you relax in the surf of Angros dos Reis. Not only are your points foolish, but to be sure - unfair, as you clearly have a limited view of such things. So if you feel next time that your posting on things you really know relatively little about; hover, hover, a finger over the "post" button and consider that what you may be posting could possibly be wrong or even offensive, or both as in this instance.

Ian McColgin
07-09-2006, 09:04 AM
Thank you George for both the thread title and the article. We must not pretend that we are innocent here.

JimD
07-09-2006, 09:09 AM
... you salsa-dancing-backwards-headed-nitwit...

Isn't that what Margaret Thatcher called the Argentines?

KNOCKABOUT
07-09-2006, 09:26 AM
No, I believe Thatcher "handbagged" the Argentines as "Tango-dancing-yellow-livered-block-heads" the differences I know are hard for the uninitiated to discern, but they do exist, and I was, and am still, a great admirer of the ol' gal. The only member of parliament to carry a "set" since Churchill.

Phillip Allen
07-09-2006, 09:27 AM
I don't like the title but surly Kraut, Hun and Jap have been used in combat (don't know what they call the Americans)

The title may drive a point but that point will be lost in the PC driven crowd... Geroge shouldn't re-phrase the quote but ought to consider replacing it.

LeeG
07-09-2006, 10:07 AM
George, your argument could be made better connecting Cheney and the neo-cons doctrine of pre-emptive war as articulated in the '92 defense planning guidance than the language of soldiers tasked with implementing it.

The bizarre part is that the neo-cons "noble lie" did a forward somersault in Iraq. The concept of pre-empting a definate threat was fast forwarded to PREVENTING a theorized threat. The opportunity of 9/11 shredded the concept of pre-emption for the particular goals of whacking down weak dictator with the biggest tool we have/pay for in the tool box.
If we applied maximum force to every 1% threat we'll collapse like the Soviets.

jack grebe
07-09-2006, 10:07 AM
Do We Really Need To Show Our Intellect Through Name Calling?

George Ray
07-09-2006, 10:11 AM
The title is offensive.
My first thought was to to resent the person that started the thread assuming that the words/thoughts were his/her own. Now that I realize that it is a quote that comes from the 'LIBERATORS', I feel better knowing that the shock value is useful as a wakeup call to the sleepy well-fed masses ( myself included ) craving security at any cost, and valuing human life highly, as long as the lost life is 'one of ours'. Sadam and company were a bad bunch and are right up there with the Idi Amin, Jeffry Dalmer and the Pol Potts of the world, but the cure is looking worse than the disease especially when the liberators continue to justify it as 'doing good for others' more that 'covering our own butts.' Be honest about your motives and gain respect from others. Wrap yourself in religious tracts and and flags to cover selfish motives invites well deserved scorn.

Trickle down altruism: Feed the horse enough oats and the sandnigger gets a warm breakfast.

*************

Thank you George for both the thread title and the article. We must not pretend that we are innocent here. , 'Ian'

Ditto!

geeman
07-09-2006, 10:14 AM
It always resorts to name calling.

LeeG
07-09-2006, 10:15 AM
No, but one thing is true is that one of the significant reasons for the militant neo-cons experiment in social engineering the middle east was done by people with no military experience who wanted "to show" the nations in the region we will use force. It's an overcompensation, misuse of power where reality takes a back seat to group-think.

geeman
07-09-2006, 10:21 AM
While what George posted is true,lets not forget (since not many of us have been in that position) that soldiers and civilians die every day over there from cars packed with bombs that refuse to stop.I cant in all honesty say I wouldnt start shooting myself if I ordered a car to halt and instead it shot forward instead.I dont mean to condone these actions or say its right.Simply that putting yourself in front of a speeding car that refuses to stop,knowing that a soldier or several people were killed the day before or even that very day at another checkpoint wouldnt hamper my thinking.My congrates to anyone here who can say with authority that they WOULDNT stop the car any way they could if faced with that scenario.Its very easy for us to "decide" here that the guys are wrong when they start firing,we're not the ones the car is aiming at.

LeeG
07-09-2006, 10:46 AM
geeman, so maybe the strategy of destroying a gov't and it's military on false pretenses but not planning or applying sufficient resources for reconstruction has consequences on the ground?

In the movie War Tapes a soldier who speaks Arabic says that an open hand facing another person is similar to saying hello, the normal gestures we use and the Iraqis use for signifying stop are not similar. Likewise it's not clear all the time that slowing down when being shot at is a good idea if you don't know that the authorities (us) are shooting or you're in the field of fire and speeding up to get away makes more sense than slowing down to provide a better target.

KNOCKABOUT
07-09-2006, 10:47 AM
The point here is that while some of us do not support the war, we find the compassion, yes compassion, to support those who must serve it. I find the title grossly offensive as it tars me and my experiences as a general statement; and it possesses no such true reflection. To be sure, the title to the post is a negative and inciteful remark made by an ignorant man, yet echoed by a man for positive response, whom bears no responsibilty for the outcome, or process for resolution.

Morality in war is not a luxury instituted for the benefit of the enemy, it is for the returning soldier who must reassert him or herself into society after many months of barbaric behaviour. It is a hard thing to maintain, as emotion floods the psyche when friends die, or are severly wounded. Whether you agree or disagree with the conflict, do not inject civilized mores into conflict; as it is exactly the suspension of these ethics that lead to conflict, they enjoy slender usage on the front line where preservation of oneself and ones comrades is the paramount objective.

Phillip Allen
07-09-2006, 10:53 AM
The point here is that while some of us do not support the war, we find the compassion, yes compassion, to support those who must serve it. I find the title grossly offensive as it tars me and my experiences as a general statement; and it possesses no such true reflection. To be sure, the title to the post is a negative and inciteful remark made by an ignorant man, yet echoed by a man for positive response, whom bears no responsibilty for the outcome, or process for resolution.

Morality in war is not a luxury instituted for the benefit of the enemy, it is for the returning soldier who must reassert him or herself into society after many months of barbaric behaviour. It is a hard thing to maintain, as emotion floods the psyche when friends die, or are severly wounded. Whether you agree or disagree with the conflict, do not inject civilized mores into conflict; as it is exactly the suspension of these ethics that lead to conflict, they enjoy slender usage on the front line where preservation of oneself and ones comrades is the paramount objective.


yes...

geeman
07-09-2006, 10:59 AM
Knockabout said it much better then I did.

geeman
07-09-2006, 11:03 AM
Those guys over there have no idea whats in front of them, nor do you , what they face each day,,and your worried about their grammer? Worried about name calling in the heat of battle? How dare you George.

S/V Laura Ellen
07-09-2006, 11:22 AM
I think you could have come up with a better title.....I personally find it very offensive

I agree with Jack. Lose the thread title, it's very offensive.

LeeG
07-09-2006, 11:28 AM
True Geeman, supposedly GW does.

a nice speech that GW tacked up on his wall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Collins_(soldier)

Tristan
07-09-2006, 11:48 AM
As usual, the kids, and some older, are given the "team" talk ("We got rid of an evil dictator. We're bringing democracy to these poor people") and off they go where they are, at best, tolerated, and for the most part, hated. Sure, I feel for these poor troopers, but can anyone give me a cogent reason for this damned war beyond trying to set up a puppet government, beyond a failed attempt to control the country's oil, beyond, "He tried to kill my daddy."

geeman
07-09-2006, 11:58 AM
I dont like that "we're" there.I dont think we needed to be there in the 1st place.However those boys ARE there.They are going through hell every day.The LEAST we can do is not be so petty as too second guess their every thought,every word they might say in the situation their in.Put yourself in these guys shoes.Think about the people back home monday morning quarter backing every breath they take ,every move they make.I dont know how they do it day in and day out.Right war or not,those kids deserve our respect,and their not getting it.

Tristan
07-09-2006, 12:09 PM
They have my respect for their dogged ability to obey orders and do their jobs in a terrible situation, but WHY SHOULD THEY BE THERE and why should they have to stay there. Is it because "he tried to kill my daddy?" Is the rational now"We're in, let's win?" Is it "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out?" Is there anyone in the house or senate or war dept. who has the guts to say "This war is a trumped up house of cards, a war we can't possibly achieve any meaningful result in, and we need to admit it and get the hell out." No, let's be real Americans. Let's be patriots. Never admit Dubbya made a huge mistake, just keep beating the drum, forget reason, just keep thinking, "support the troops," bury and grieve the ones who don't make it, and keep our heads firmly buried in the sand about the stupidity of the whole thing. Keep on making the same dumb mistake over and over and over again.

KNOCKABOUT
07-09-2006, 12:39 PM
I think there is a case to be made for regional stability and protecting the economic interests of the United States of America. Jingoistic as that may sound, the world is different today than it was back in 1973. Back in 1973, OPEC suffered almost as much from the embargo as did we. Today there are alternative markets, namely our current boogieman: China, who will gladly usurp the unsold supply. So parking an army in the ME as a way to ensure stability is not outside the realm of reasonable, and perhaps even policy-wise, responsible actions.

The world is not fair, and we as citizens of the US have lived under unfair circumstances, vis-a-vis artificial trade and control of the financial markets, relatively cheap energy, and the awesome technological advantages that go along with this control. All of this breeds success and the obvious guilt of success some of us feel. But if we did not embark upon this process... believe me some nation would be glad to wrest control of the top spot. As I mentioned, none of it is fair.

As for the folley of the venture... drops right on the doorstep of our president and his cabinet ,whom appear to be, each one in their own peculiarly devastating way, illiterate in history. But preparation and execution as well as the maintenance of the conflict are above my paygrade, and I generally suffice my ability to speak out on the topic with a shrug, while I stare at the tops of my shoes.

And if you have cause to protest the outer edge of American domestic economic policy (as I believe our foreign policy is merely a tool for jiggering domestic economic issues, which is merely a plank in the platform of some schnook seeking reelection). Then be sure to protest the vacation you take this summer, the cost of airfare, your job, your wifes job, and the fact your children have, if not a terrific education, at least a serviceable one, that you as a parent can help correct. In short, we are not, but we ought to be all spiritually in Iraq, and we are all responsible for the hopeful and judicious outcome. I did not vote for the man, twice, but he is the man until some other screwhead comes along to occupy the seat hes been warming.

And I dont know why you think heads are buried in the sand... that there is little about Iraq in the news, or pushed as a anti-policy agenda speaks volumes of our major metropolitan news monopolies, and doesnt say whooey about what I believe to be good and right in my heart. And there are more of us out there - frustrated, peaceful, and unfortunately - muted. Our time will come.

jack grebe
07-09-2006, 12:50 PM
to use a term like that George, is to not only berate those of middle eastern desent, but also those of african/american desent where the latter part of that derives. Sorry, I don't buy the reasoning that "He" said it....not me. you repeated the term by posting.how in the hell can we get past these petty predjudes and move on if you cannot see the wrong of it, bury it and move on with life. what, in gods name, are you teaching the young? that is what will influenace the future.....good or bad

Meerkat
07-09-2006, 12:56 PM
If the administration was responsible, it would be giving more than lip service to weaning us off oil.

Paul Pless
07-09-2006, 01:04 PM
George, your title merely sidetracks us from the true point of the article. Ninety percent of the responses ths far have had little to do with the subject at hand...

Meerkat
07-09-2006, 01:13 PM
That's cuz rips are easily diverted! :D

Milo Christensen
07-09-2006, 01:26 PM
The title is not only offensive and needlessly inflammatory, but it uses a term not in general use by the occupying force. The derogatory term used much more often by U.S. forces, particularly when speaking to Iraqi men is Hajj or Hajji. Which is, in general, a term of respect for those Muslims who have been on the pilgrimage to Mecca. When used as a general term it does tend to disparage the honorific associated with the term.

When a military is being used as an occupying force, where any, repeat any, indigenous person could be an insurgent, it is and always has been a tradition of the occupying force to use derogatory terms for those being occupied. And I defy you to find any examples of an occupying force that didn't use derogatory terms about the locals.

It would also be instructive to know the terms used by the locals for the occupying force. Such balance will never be forthcoming from any liberal member of the forum.

LeeG
07-09-2006, 01:34 PM
Milo, what are the terms used by locals for the occupying force?

Paul Pless
07-09-2006, 01:40 PM
particularly when speaking to Iraqi men is Hajj or Hajji.

I wonder how they respond to being called ragheads.

Paul Pless
07-09-2006, 01:41 PM
what are the terms used by locals for the occupying force?

infidels maybe, or perhaps kafir...

Tristan
07-09-2006, 01:59 PM
The problem is not supporting the troops, the problem is in the mindless, "we can't pull out now," as if there is some purpose to staying beside the vain hope that a miracle will happen to turn this fiasco into something positive. Pull out the troops, reduce our oil consumption, tighten our belts a bit, rediscover American ingenuity and toughness, and TRY to pay down the monster debt the US is currently in.

Paul Pless
07-09-2006, 02:30 PM
Pull out the troops, reduce our oil consumption, tighten our belts a bit, rediscover American ingenuity and toughness, and TRY to pay down the monster debt the US is currently in.

I agree, just maybe not in that exact order.

Bob Cleek
07-09-2006, 02:47 PM
What does it matter what you call somebody you are going to kill?

America needs to quit buying the bull**** left over from the Second World War. Remember back then, it was easy to cast Japan in racist terms, but not so easy to do the same with Germany, Italy and Russia. There were, after all, a whole lot of American Germans, Italians and Russians that were going to have to fight their cousins in the Old Country.

What to do? Well, you create new "races," like the Nazi's and Facists and Commies. Then you cast the people as "oppressed" and your war as a "liberation." Hence, we "liberated Europe," but we "beat the Japs." War isn't about liberating anything, unless somebody has just conquered it and you're taking it back. It's about killing all the bad guys.

We aren't "liberating" Iraq from "opression." We were supposedly protecting ourselves from "terrorists" with "weapons of mass destruction," remember? If Hajji doesn't know enough English to understand "Halt!" being shouted by a soldier with a gun at a checkpoint, oh well...

The concept of "liberating" oppressed nations only absolves a people of responsibility for the wrongdoing of their own nation. "Liberating" Europe meant there wasn't a Nazi left alive when the war ended (except for those set aside for show trials and use as US rocket and weapons scientists.) NO ONE had any idea those were extermination camps! The human rights atrocities we've seen in Iraq are now being blamed on Saddam and his sons... surely there aren't any Iraqis alive today who may have ever supported that regime, right?

Was is ugly and war will trouble your conscience deeply. If it doesn't, your country's lying to you about it or you are a sociopath.

Their willingness to face the elemental uglyness of war made "Bomber" Harris and Curtis LeMay the two greatest military strategists since the invention of gunpowder. Their approach was basic... kill as many of them as you can with as little loss to yourself as possible, until there are no more left to fight, then take the rest prisoner. This has been the way since the beginning of man. Before you can do this effectively, you must dehumanize the enemy. You can't be wondering how many kids he has as you zero in on his head. This is the purpose of racism in the natural order of things and why racism must be appropriately employed, rather than permitted to become devalued by careless everyday useage.

skuthorp
07-09-2006, 04:01 PM
"Before you can do this effectively, you must dehumanize the enemy. You can't be wondering how many kids he has as you zero in on his head. This is the purpose of racism in the natural order of things and why racism must be appropriately employed, rather than permitted to become devalued by careless everyday useage."

Thanks Bob, I do remember the rubbish fed to us before Vietnam, and the pressure to accept it as truth.

Nicholas Carey
07-09-2006, 04:04 PM
What does it matter what you call somebody you are going to kill?Because dehumanizing people through language -- calling them kike, wop, nigger, slant, gook, Charlie, raghead, kraut, etc. -- make it easier for things like Dachau, My Lai, Rwanda, Kosovo, Darfour, etc. -- to happen.

One should respect one's enemies.

Memphis Mike
07-09-2006, 04:23 PM
"Was is ugly and war will trouble your conscience deeply. If it doesn't, your country's lying to you about it or you are a sociopath."

Is that why so many of the Righties are not troubled by Iraq?

Bob Cleek
07-09-2006, 05:33 PM
Yes, yes, and yes... in that order!

Tristan
07-09-2006, 05:35 PM
"Was is ugly and war will trouble your conscience deeply. If it doesn't, your country's lying to you about it or you are a sociopath."

Is that why so many of the Righties are not troubled by Iraq?

Because it's the Christian way!:D:D:D

Donn
07-09-2006, 05:36 PM
I agree with Jack. Lose the thread title, it's very offensive.

Consider the source. This is the fellow who considers himself culturally superior to Americans.:rolleyes: He's about on par with Gary E and his "WETBACK" thread.

jack grebe
07-09-2006, 06:35 PM
if your talkin about me Donn, I didn,t even post on the wetback thread

Donn
07-09-2006, 06:47 PM
Talking about you? I don't think so. Got a guilt complex?

Norman Bernstein
07-09-2006, 07:31 PM
Having read the original post, and all of the responses, I'd say leave the title as it is. Sure, it's offensive.... but it's also a profound truth, and the entire concept of dehumanizing and degrading the 'enemy' in order to make killing them easier is a repeating theme in nearly all wars. Try watching 'Destination Tokyo' with Cary Grant, in which some remarkably racist and xenophobic scripting is passed off as 'patriotism'.... in that greatest of all patriotic wars, WWII.

jack grebe
07-09-2006, 07:38 PM
but at some point in time you have to make up and move on......hard to do when you have taught a generation to hate them

brad9798
07-09-2006, 08:51 PM
Well, hell ... why stop there? The only thing regular niggers understand is force.

Not my personal opinion ... but George. is sinking quickly ...

I used to think him a decent poster ... but man, what the f*ck is up with that title?

Not what I want my kids to understand, to be sure.

brad9798
07-09-2006, 08:52 PM
AND all that hillbilly's and whitetrash understand is force also ... so what?

BrianW
07-09-2006, 09:07 PM
They're soldiers and Marines, that's how they talk. If ya want politically correct double speak, look to the politicians.

huisjen
07-09-2006, 09:07 PM
So what do african american troops call the iraqis?

Dan

brad9798
07-09-2006, 09:53 PM
Perhaps I should call myself a 'NAZI-AMERICAN' ... afterall, that IS my heritage ...

Well, that and a Southern SLAVE HOLDER ... Hell, after the CW was over, NO slaves left my great, great, great grandparents plantation ... heck, where would they (truly) go?

So, according to MY heritage, Jews, Catholics, Niggers and Sympathizers were the enemy of ... well, at least, my bloodline.
-----------------

BrianW- I understand that completely ... but georgedot is neither one.

Memphis Mike
07-10-2006, 12:18 AM
This is a hateful thread.

geeman
07-10-2006, 12:21 AM
This has got to be one of the most idiotic threads ever posted,why are we bothering?

Chris Coose
07-10-2006, 06:11 AM
We ought to stick with rape, murder, torture and general mayhem rather than using bad names.
Much less offensive, apparently.

Anybody get the idea that what we hear and see of this war is the tip of the iceberg?
America is a very fuck#d up place.

PeterSibley
07-10-2006, 07:01 AM
Consider the source. This is the fellow who considers himself culturally superior to Americans.:rolleyes: He's about on par with Gary E and his "WETBACK" thread.

The source Donn, is , Andrew L Bacevich ,Washington Post,

"You have to understand the Arab mind," one company commander told the New York Times, displaying all the self-assurance of Douglas MacArthur discoursing on Orientals in 1945. "The only thing they understand is force -- force, pride and saving face." Far from representing the views of a few underlings, such notions penetrated into the upper echelons of the American command. In their book "Cobra II," Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor offer this ugly comment from a senior officer: "The only thing these sand niggers understand is force and I'm about to introduce them to it."
You do like shooting the messenger don't you ?

Mrleft8
07-10-2006, 07:01 AM
I'm not wearing any underwear.....

Phillip Allen
07-10-2006, 07:21 AM
How strange...beyond his original post, not a peep outa George...

PeterSibley
07-10-2006, 07:28 AM
I rackoon he did the deed ...probably gone sailing !
Be kinda nice in Agra dos Reis ......

Donn
07-10-2006, 07:29 AM
The source Donn, is , Andrew L Bacevich ,Washington Post,



You'll note, Peter, that the subject of my post, which you quoted, is the title of the thread. George. is the source of that title.

Thanks to George. and Gary E, it's no longer a question of simply not reading the threads of offensive posters. When the offense is included in the thread title, it cannot be avoided.

Milo Christensen
07-10-2006, 07:34 AM
How strange...beyond his original post, not a peep outa George...

He's green dotted. He's out there. Hopefully ashamed of himself, but that's NBL.

Wonder what the Argentinians call the Brazilians, there's no love lost between those two countries.

PeterSibley
07-10-2006, 07:44 AM
You'll note, Peter, that the subject of my post, which you quoted, is the title of the thread. George. is the source of that title.

Thanks to George. and Gary E, it's no longer a question of simply not reading the threads of offensive posters. When the offense is included in the thread title, it cannot be avoided.

George posted that title , he is not however the original source,we owe that to some unnamed military xenophobe.

George.
07-10-2006, 07:48 AM
George, your title merely sidetracks us from the true point of the article. Ninety percent of the responses ths far have had little to do with the subject at hand...

Yes. But those diversions come from the crowd that always tries to divert any discussion of the train wreck in Iraq. Rest assured that they would find a different excuse in a second. ;)

The fact is that the title is a quote from an American commander. The red-state xenophobes here are focusing on the N-word - the dreaded N-word. They are offended by my pointing out that it is used by American troops, but are not offended by the use itself. You see, it is OK if the Sacred American Troops do it. Hypocritical bull****.

The real point, of course, is not that Iraqis are called "sand niggers," but that US commanders claim that "the only thing they understand is force." So they keep applying more and more force, and killing more and more innocents, and generating more and more hatred and violent reaction.

FAR more innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed than US troops. So excuse me if I don't put the lives and hardships of US troops on a higher pedestal than that of ordinary mankind, let alone sand niggers. The American jingoists here may do so, and think that we should "understand" any and all abuses by Americans because they are being shot at, while we must never forgive the way the Iraqis react because they are being shot at, and bombed, and rounded up for torture.

But they might at least realize that people outside the US would have a more objective viewpoint than that...

And finally:


Oh stuff it in a hole George. Guess what, you salsa-dancing-backwards-headed-nitwit...


...Thatcher "handbagged" the Argentines as "Tango-dancing-yellow-livered-block-heads" the differences I know are hard for the uninitiated to discern, but they do exist...

We dance samba down here, you bacwards-headed-nitwit from whatexitland. Salsa is from Caribbean Hispanic countries. The differences, I know, are hard for the uninitiated to discern, but they do exist. :p :D

Osborne Russell
07-10-2006, 09:56 AM
Typical Red-smear. Too delicate to read a Red quoted saying "nigger" but not to use everything short of it on the one quoting. Infantility in defense of patriotism is apparently no vice.

PatCox
07-10-2006, 10:12 AM
I think that the offensive term in question is just an inconvenient truth that everyone wants to pretend is not in common use.

To those who object to it, I have to ask, what other aspects of reality do you think we should pretend do not exist? American racism, check, we'll pretend that does not exist. Now what else? How far down in the sand must I stick my head so that I can continue to believe that we are the bestest of the best and fight for justice and freedom and all is for the best in this the best of all possible worlds?

Your inability to confront and live with the truth is cowardly.

Osborne Russell
07-10-2006, 10:29 AM
"The only thing they understand is force" is good coming from someone who doesn't speak Arabic and couldn't have found Iraq on a map before he went there, and maybe still can't; his superiors, ditto; who probably never voted, or if he did, voted for a man who thinks evolution hasn't been proven, and that the only thing they understand is force.

Larry P.
07-10-2006, 11:11 AM
"You have to understand the Arab mind," one company commander told the New York Times, displaying all the self-assurance of Douglas MacArthur discoursing on Orientals in 1945. "The only thing they understand is force -- force, pride and saving face." Far from representing the views of a few underlings, such notions penetrated into the upper echelons of the American command. In their book "Cobra II," Michael R. Gordon and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor offer this ugly comment from a senior officer: "The only thing these sand niggers understand is force and I'm about to introduce them to it."

There is the quote from an unamed senior officer out of contexted. This is what you claim to represent the official military position. Try again.

George.
07-10-2006, 11:22 AM
As we can see from Larry's repost, not one but two American officers are quoted as saying that "the only thing they understand is force." And the quotes are illustrative of a broader pattern.

Because of such attitudes, according to the original article:


Through the war's first three years, any Iraqi venturing too close to an American convoy or checkpoint was likely to come under fire. Thousands of these "escalation of force" episodes occurred.

Which led to this acknowledgement by a named US officer - and not just any officer, but the commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq:


Now, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq, has begun to recognize the hidden cost of such an approach. "People who were on the fence or supported us" in the past "have in fact decided to strike out against us," he recently acknowledged.

Moral of the story: when significant portions of your troops and officers treat the occupied civilians as "sand niggers" and shoot them just in case, torture them and bomb them with the approval of their top commanders, and generally fail to treat them humanely, you get what you got.

Support the troops - even when they are led by arrogant idiots and are allowed to behave as if American lives were superior to all others. And see what you get.

TomF
07-10-2006, 11:26 AM
Of course the "official" military position will be different. I suspect, though, that this unofficial position, along with slightly less demeaning comments about "ragheads," is a bit more commonplace than people like. As someone said earlier in the thread, in war folks tend to de-humanize the enemy so they can justify shooting them.

I am not sure what context I should look for which would make the term "sand nigger" not demeaning. Or the idea that the only thing "they" understand is force.

The Iraqi insurgents might be forgiven for coming to a similar conclusion about what the Allied forces, or at least their political commanders, can understand.

There's no decent way out of this war now, if there ever was. But winning hearts and minds this isn't.

PatCox
07-10-2006, 11:29 AM
No one ever claimed it represented the official military policy. Try again. Or better yet, address the issue. Are you saying that the average american doesn't never says things like "sand niggers?"

Go ahead and say it, I need a good laugh.

Oh, yeah, and the civil war wasn't about slavery either. hee hee hee.

This gentility is necessary, I suppose, in order to preserve the pretenses.

KNOCKABOUT
07-10-2006, 11:37 AM
There is a clear difference in the term de art employed herein that strays long and clear from using offensive language. And George, your post does not discuss the reality of what is, merely of what could be, and the discussion belongs in the Gene Roddenbury philosophers phorum. And what I object to, is your awkward decision to post inflammatory rhetoric as some sort of proof that the American foray in Iraq is bigoted and wrongheaded. That the US is in Iraq for indiscernable reasons is debatable, yes, and I think the discussion is warranted - and I am all for opening the debate, but to be sure, we are not in Iraq for racist malfeasance.

And lets also remember that no matter what side of the debate you're on on this one, we all agree that the language that was used is insensitive and indeed inflammatory, and its continued usage throughout this posting is uneccessary. So George I stand corrected and in fact you are correct, you're an insensitive-samba-dancing-malicious-screwhead, who would be unwelcome at my exit, or any exit along the Garden State Parkway.

But enough about personal things, lets get back to meat and potatoes. Certain uncomfortable circumstances are at play here. We have an ideological president with a cabinet filled with advocate stewards, a potential crisis that has been developing for 50 years in the ME and the Persian Gulf. And a turning point in the usage of terror and mass media as its underpinning mechanism, as well as the decline of political Islamic revolutionary movements usurped by Islamist fundementalism that scatters its anger toward the west as a matter of functional militantcy and policy. And the US, as the lone force of stabilization in the world, is caught up in a mess - whether from our own design, or pulled from the neccesities of a burgeoning mess - is open to debate. And thats the debate. Not whether some midling warrior is using offensive terms, that is simply not representative. These are complex issues, events that are layered upon events stretching back a thousand years and more, that bring us to this juncture, and to quote one man, and indeed one comment from one man is not only unreasonable under the terms of the debate, but entirely irresponsible.

George.
07-10-2006, 11:39 AM
"the US, as the lone force of stabilization in the world"

ROFLMAO! :D

George.
07-10-2006, 11:42 AM
" And thats the debate. Not whether some midling warrior is using offensive terms, that is simply not representative."

You are right. The debate is not about the term "sand nigger," or "raghead," or whatever. The debate is about whether the excessive and unrestricted use of force, resulting in tens of thousands of civilian deaths, torture, mass detentions, etc., is a proper and effective tactic for an occupying force to pacify a country.

Judging by the results, it is not. And it is immoral to boot.

geeman
07-10-2006, 11:47 AM
For the 1st time since it was added for us to use,,I'm considering using the Ignore feature for this man.He doesnt want debate he wants his own forum. The next thread that comes across my computer from this man who pushes his OWN form of hate ,I think I will use the ignore feature for the 1st time.Up to this point I had always felt it unnecessary to use ignore,however its time for me to at least stop him from fouling my computer with his as Knockabout stated "inflammatory rhetoric".The person I speak of is of course George.

Chris Coose
07-10-2006, 11:54 AM
...we all agree that the language that was used is insensitive and indeed inflammatory, .....

It ain't unanimous.

There is nothing to be civil about when speaking of this GD occupation.

TomF
07-10-2006, 12:15 PM
Wrote a long post - but essentially, it isn't worth putting up here. None will be convinced, or swayed.

The US administration's actions in Iraq are causing very serious harm to US relations with its friends and allies, to say nothing of nations which were already suspicious. Posting evidence supporting such concerns - even from "US" sources - is frequently taken to be US hatred.

It is not. It is hatred of the betrayal of the ideals of the US - ideals regarding "all men being created equal" ... whether they live in the US, or Canada, or Brazil, or Iraq. Betrayal of ideals regarding liberty, democracy, freedom of speech, etc.

There is hatred here - hatred of the betrayal. Those ideals are among those that many, inside and outside the US, held and still hold. It is shameful indeed that they're being degraded.

Popeye
07-10-2006, 12:16 PM
my new word for today is ..

affray

now i need to try using it in a sentence

KNOCKABOUT
07-10-2006, 12:17 PM
It ain't unanimous.

There is nothing to be civil about when speaking of this GD occupation.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Donn
07-10-2006, 12:25 PM
Up to this point I had always felt it unnecessary to use ignore,however its time for me to at least stop him from fouling my computer with his as Knockabout stated "inflammatory rhetoric".The person I speak of is of course George.

Unfortunately, the Ignore function does not eliminate his thread titles from your screen.

huisjen
07-10-2006, 01:06 PM
George, if you want to have greater sucess in debate, I suggest you narrow your focus, and leave out distracting details unnecessary to the arguement. Your thread title contains an inflamitory expression which distracts from your stated goal of discussing force as the only option. You really can't be surprised that casting the military command as racist distracts from discussing "force".

Dan

Bob Cleek
07-10-2006, 01:23 PM
Remember that classic Saturday Night Live skit with Chevy Chase doing a word association test with Richard Prior?

Chris Coose
07-10-2006, 01:24 PM
I'm sorry you feel that way.

No need to feel anything for me. Like a couple of other uncomfortable areas of my life, dubbya policy is safley compartmentalized.

When Iraq comes to mind and I speak, I sound like Swearengen in "Deadwood". But when I'm at the dinner table I don't tell my 9 year old daughter to, "pass the fuc*ing salt".

Iraq has about as much civility as Deadwood and should be called exactly what it is. An unsafe lawless hell cluster where real people get murdered, raped and permently damaged. All at the behest of madmen.

KNOCKABOUT
07-10-2006, 01:36 PM
No need to feel anything for me. Like a couple of other uncomfortable areas of my life, dubbya policy is safley compartmentalized.

When Iraq comes to mind and I speak, I sound like Swearengen in "Deadwood". But when I'm at the dinner table I don't tell my 9 year old daughter to, "pass the fuc*ing salt".

Iraq has about as much civility as Deadwood and should be called exactly what it is. An unsafe lawless hell cluster where real people get murdered, raped and permently damaged. All at the behest of madmen.

Chris these are unfortunate, irrevocable, and confirmed truths. And I respect your anger at the administration, I too feel a great deal of ire toward this administration that has belittled the great institutions of this country, coopted our global goodwill, and generally misled any potentiality for reconciliation. But, I believe it preferable to leave out the rhetoric when discussing policy and resolution as it steers the mind away from the task at hand, and merely serves to distract. And though I found the title entirely disrespectful to the forum, I understand Georges usage. But to continue to harp the language is innappropriate. I do not understand the "Deadwood" reference exactly, but I get the gist. As far as how the conflict in Iraq can be characterized, your metaphor sounds about right, and it does not contain anything inciteful, racist, partisan and uncharacterisitc to the topic at hand. George on the other hand seems to take great pains to insert rhetoric, and must gain some childish glee from watching his posts stir an unmanageable pot. The issues are policy based not racist driven and derived.

Chris Coose
07-10-2006, 01:54 PM
As far as how the conflict in Iraq can be characterized, your metaphor sounds about right, and it does not contain anything inciteful, racist, partisan and uncharacterisitc to the topic at hand.

So the guys who have power to change, resolve or increase this insanity get to use terms like sand or dune n_ _ _ _ _ r and those of us observers who have no power shall remain civil, above rhetoric and classy?

I appreciate you return message. But I am glad George is here - all the international guys who have the courage to post real dirt.

KNOCKABOUT
07-10-2006, 02:27 PM
Good Luck

Tristan
07-10-2006, 04:22 PM
A recent conversation my wife and I had concerning this thread.

Me: Ever hear any of your troops, NCO's, peers or higher ups use the term Sand Nigger?
im

I've been hearing the term for 20 years. I cannot imagine it is not common usage in the US Army and MC. Bet they don't refer to them as "those nice Iragi people."

John of Phoenix
07-10-2006, 04:46 PM
The only openly racist thing I ever heard while on active duty...

Only? How long were you in? Never overseas?

Chris Coose
07-10-2006, 04:58 PM
http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/aaBlog/2004/media/05-10_AbuGhraibPrison.jpg

"That's Mr. Dune n_ _ _ _r to you sir."

We talking the same occupation here?

Jesus, wouldn't want to get rhetorical here.

Paul G.
07-10-2006, 05:16 PM
Whats wrong with you guys? You invaded a country, and have systematically tortured and killed thousands of dads and moms and kiddies in the search for your fabled wmds and the mysterious international man on a donkey, bin laden, and you get all hot under the collar about a thread title and see fit to attack someone whos country as far as I know hasnt invaded any oil rich sovereign states.
lately.

Grow up

The title gets your attention, its selling copy....hey you guys INVENTED and perfected the advertising game!!!

Osborne Russell
07-10-2006, 05:28 PM
But, I believe it preferable to leave out the rhetoric when discussing policy

If you're going to use ordinary words, but give them new definitions, you need to let the rest of the world in on the new definitions. Using ordinary definitions this statement is an absurdity.

Meerkat
07-10-2006, 05:30 PM
Whoa! When did policy stop being rhetoric? ;) :D

Osborne Russell
07-10-2006, 05:30 PM
She has over twenty years in and is an active duty, Army LTC.



Things are a bit different in the barracks. Officers aren't supposed to fraternize as I recall.

PeterSibley
07-10-2006, 05:34 PM
"the US, as the lone force of stabilization in the world"

ROFLMAO! :D

Beat me to it !:D

Tristan
07-10-2006, 05:38 PM
I don't suppose the military calls them "rag heads" either.

KNOCKABOUT
07-10-2006, 05:39 PM
http://decider.cf.huffingtonpost.com/

Osborne Russell
07-10-2006, 05:40 PM
I felt superior there. I thought, *"I'm the big American from across the sea. I'll sock it to these people here."... I really felt, I belong here.* It may seem ridiculous saying this. Why in the world would a guy commit himself to South Vietnam? Well, why would a guy commit himself to South Dakota? We weren't in My Lai to kill human beings, we were there to kill *ideology* that is carried by -- I don't know. Pawns. Blobs. Pieces of flesh, and I wasn't in My Lai to destroy intelligent men. I was there to destroy an intangible idea.


-- Lieutenant William Calley

Before this, there was no racism in Viet Nam, and no atrocities. But then there were, see above. However, this didn't make Viet Nam a war of racist imperialism.

Before then there were no atrocities, no racism, and no imperialism, except every war except WW1 and WW2, except for the propaganda.

After Viet Nam, there were none, except in Abu Ghraib, and at the checkpoints, and these didn't happen, and if they did, they shouldn't be discussed because it is "inappropriate" and "offensive" in the context of the blood on America's hands.

Pathetic. If you're going to be Red, at least be manly.


"Pentagon leaders yesterday spoke in support of a top general who has told church audiences that the war on terrorism is a battle with Satan and that Muslims worhship idols . . . Army Lt. General William G. Boykin said of a 1993 battle with a Muslim militia leader in Somalia:; "I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."; . . . General Boykin said Islamic terrrorists hate the United States "because we're a Christian Nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian . . . and the enemy is a guy named Satan.""

PeterSibley
07-10-2006, 05:45 PM
For the 1st time since it was added for us to use,,I'm considering using the Ignore feature for this man.He doesnt want debate he wants his own forum. The next thread that comes across my computer from this man who pushes his OWN form of hate ,I think I will use the ignore feature for the 1st time.Up to this point I had always felt it unnecessary to use ignore,however its time for me to at least stop him from fouling my computer with his as Knockabout stated "inflammatory rhetoric".The person I speak of is of course George.

That would be a pity Geeman.I come here to read posts, to read opinions other than my own ....even yours:).George posts well, writes well ..to miss out on another opinion just because it annoys you would defeat, what for me is the primary purpose of this place .

As for hateful posts ...you're joking , really ! When it comes to hate George rates a zero...he likes the USA,he's lived there for years .I guess he's just a little sad about the way one of the worlds great democracies is going, but then he's not alone.

Phillip Allen
07-10-2006, 05:46 PM
Republic...if you please

KNOCKABOUT
07-10-2006, 05:48 PM
Im not quite sure I understand your post Osborne, and what are the references to Red? As far as I remember, war is about as racist a thing as there is. You go out and you kill the other guy. Nobody's debating that war is bad. Its causation man, causation, and you can pander all you want with two-bit semantic stabs, but nonetheless you've missed the point. The situation sucks, so now how do you move gently away from it? Until then support the boys and girls who must return from these horrors.

PeterSibley
07-10-2006, 05:55 PM
Republic...if you please

After recent elections ...it might be a better description .

kharee
07-10-2006, 06:23 PM
As an American, of the coloured persuasion, I pray that my fellow Americans lighten up, take a deep breath and count to ten. If you are a baby boomer or younger you were born into the same America I was born into. An America which is a much better nation than 60 years ago and much better than most other nations. We were born blessed. Get off the guilt trip, we are all born equal in the eyes of God, but by the time we reach the age of reason and then the age of military service we are no longer equal. Some of us seek to win entry to heaven and the twelve virgin bonus prize. Some of us like Gen. Patton would be glad to help them out of this world where ever they go, virgins or no. At the age of 59, I'll settle for a 35 y.o. waitress with three kids. Torture? Emmitt Till was tortured, those naked Arabs piled up were just embarassed at being bare assed in front of a few women. I really don't have much respect for you liberals who try to equate American slavery to a rather light handed and gloved approach to war as we are waging in Iraq. As far as the Arabs understanding force, I'm from the Gen. Colin Powell school. A heavy whip hand, cold steel and an iron will and get the job done.African Americans make up 30% of the military, we'll go 50% if necessary. I'm for peace but I prefer a real good war(WWII) to a ****ty peace. God Bless America

Osborne Russell
07-10-2006, 06:26 PM
As far as I remember, war is about as racist a thing as there is.

Then how can you object to the use of "sand nigger" by anyone?

Osborne Russell
07-10-2006, 06:28 PM
A heavy whip hand, cold steel and an iron will and get the job done.

The job being to communicate to the sand niggers the justice of our cause in the only language they understand -- ?

Donn
07-10-2006, 06:35 PM
African Americans make up 30% of the military, we'll go 50% if necessary.

African Americans were more than 50% of my unit in Vietnam. They're the reason I'm still around. Good Marines.

Paul G.
07-10-2006, 06:41 PM
"The only good red is a dead red"
Ronnie "bedtime for bonzo" Reagan

"The only good Terrist is a dead Terrist"
George "ronald mcdonald " Bush

"Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia"
George Orwell

Milo Christensen
07-10-2006, 06:44 PM
What do you expect when the elemental rule is broken: "Never fight a land war in Asia."

John of Phoenix
07-10-2006, 06:51 PM
Asia? "The" elemental rule?

Ok, even if it was THE elemental rule, why would this bunch of chickenhaws know anything about it?

Bob Cleek
07-10-2006, 08:22 PM
Me: Ever hear any of your troops, NCO's, peers or higher ups use the term Sand Nigger?

Her: (With mouth a bit agape) I have never heard that term in my life.

Without knowing the LTC's MOS, I suppose I may be somewhat rash here, but hell, if our officers are that far out of touch with the real world, no wonder Iraq has turned into such a cluster-f**k. (And if she says she's never heard that one, you KNOW she's lying!)

George.
07-11-2006, 11:52 AM
George has clearly taken the lead here in USA bashing of late.

Jim: do you equate the men in charge of the Iraq disaster with the USA? Do you equate bashing their obvious mistakes and prejudices with bashing America?

If so, you are the one bashing America.

I know enough of America to know that America does not mean excessive force, or torture, or fear whipped into hatred whipped into violence. I know enough to know that America, though afflicted with all the shortcomings of humanity, is an idea that strives to rise above all that.

And I understand that none of that may be taken for granted. America can backslide just like the next nation. Americans can lose themselves just like any other people. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance - the price of not only freedom, but also of justice, and moral leadership. Become complacent, wave the flag blindly, and you are on the path to tyranny.

If bashing some of the ideas that seem to be gaining root in America is bashing America, then so be it. Spare the rod and spoil the child. I, for one, will not stand silent while I watch her ideal being soiled by the unscrupulous and the innane. I am sorry that some so-called True Americans are willing to do so.

And as for the dreaded N-word, get over it - I don't mean you, Jim, but the sanctimonious hypocrites who are crying bloody murder all over this thread. It is a peculiarly American complex - a guilt complex of a few among the Americans, who have plenty to feel guilty for. If you don't want to see it quoted, campaign for your own redneck troopers to stop using it. Otherwise, assume your hypocrisy, and stuff it.

George.
07-11-2006, 11:53 AM
...a rather light handed and gloved approach to war as we are waging in Iraq.

It is not a war. It is an OCCUPATION. About as light handed as the ones the Kaiser's armies held.

Osborne Russell
07-11-2006, 01:05 PM
Right on, George. The ones that cry about America-bashing are the worst America-bashers.

Meanwhile -- why don't they call it an occupation? The "war" was declared over, I thought. Do they mean the global war on terror? What does Iraq have to do with that?

I think "occupation" has too many syllables, and too many connotations that don't fit The Myth comfortably.

KNOCKABOUT
07-11-2006, 02:53 PM
Then how can you object to the use of "sand nigger" by anyone?

I dont you idiot, I object to its continued use in this thread. Havent you been reading? Even George has given it up (finally), its time you followed suit.

KNOCKABOUT
07-11-2006, 03:02 PM
George, could you please tease apart the differences between a war and an occupation for me? Its time you answered some questions on your own thread.

Osborne Russell
07-11-2006, 03:22 PM
I dont you idiot, I object to its continued use in this thread. Havent you been reading? Even George has given it up (finally), its time you followed suit.

If you object to it in this thread, how come you don't object to it in Iraq, or in the media?

Paul G.
07-11-2006, 05:03 PM
An occupation is where you kill civilians slowly, a war is when you do it fast....

KNOCKABOUT
07-11-2006, 05:33 PM
If you object to it in this thread, how come you don't object to it in Iraq, or in the media?

Well to put this mildly, I was a soldier once and I understand the dichotomy, and I understand the need for shedding military behaviours when you eat brunch downtown on First Ave. You cant take the stink of combat to Mommas couch, and you cant take the smell of Mommas couch to combat. Cut those guys a break. They are kids! Living half a world away, and doing things, and living under circumstances that are impossible for you and I to imagine - in short they are coping. Defamation helps you cope, and coping keeps you alive; and then after a while not even that helps anymore, and the lines of division blur, and character breaks down. And it would be real nifty if there were some sort of flashing yellow light that popped over your head at that point, but nothing happens. And then trouble starts. So whatever mechanism helps an eighteen year old American Corporal move through another incredibly dangerous and overly monotonous day of road blocks and patrols, that puts him another day closer to discharge and the rest of his life - I do not begrudge him.

You and George on the other hand, farting around on of all bourgeois things wooden boats, should be ashamed to conjur that filth. Any Private would know better, but you two pander it around like it is some intellectual badge of courage, emboldened by the playful usage of racism. As if to say its OK to invoke racist attitudes when combating racism - and to paraphrase a bit "The only thing these racists understand is force..." This is obviously entirely wrong. If you want to discuss the issue, fine, if George wants to get 4,000 posts on his thread by being flamboyant, fine, all thats done. But you do not need to continue to harp, as it not only shows a complete lack of imagination, but distracts to the point where you two knuckleheads have offered nothing more than

"We shouldnt be in Iraq"

I hear that so much it makes me puke. COngratulations, did you think that up all by yourself? You're right, we shouldnt be there, so lets just push our hands deeper into our collective pockets, stare at the tops of our shoes and leave all the boys and girl from Idaho and Kentucky and California and all the other states in between to fend for themselves. They'll figure it out, catch a plane home, and the last guy - turn out the lights please.

It does not work like that. And Georges evocation is simplistic bashing, on an overly slow and fat easy target. And while George may put Iraqis first in his arguments, I do not. My first duty and responsibility is to my fellow Americans. Whether that be to praise, support and comfort them, or indite, prosecute and jail them. Whatever the outcome, an American is my first responsibility.

I respect the effort man, and I mostly agree with the overall theme here, but that does not mean it needs to degrade into overt racism. I am not the PC police, believe me, but there are certain boundaries that must not be crossed for reasons of depth of moral character. Straighten up brother.

KNOCKABOUT
07-11-2006, 05:37 PM
An occupation is where you kill civilians slowly, a war is when you do it fast....

Actually Paul, you have it entirely backwards. But, I knew you wouldnt be able to discern any meaningful differences - because none exist. Though I am still anxious to hear what George has to say about the topic - given his expertise...

Osborne Russell
07-11-2006, 06:04 PM
Cut these guys a break -- but any PFC would know better. Defamation helps them cope, but leads to atrocities, but it's OK if it helps them cope. They aren't racists, but we are when we quote them. War is hell but one mustn't say so. Mustn't soil Mommy's couch.

You have the most remarkable talent for self-contradiction. Did you have it pre-Chimperor, or is this something else to thank him for?

KNOCKABOUT
07-11-2006, 06:18 PM
Cut these guys a break -- but any PFC would know better. Defamation helps them cope, but leads to atrocities, but it's OK if it helps them cope. They aren't racists, but we are when we quote them. War is hell but one mustn't say so. Mustn't soil Mommy's couch.

You have the most remarkable talent for self-contradiction. Did you have it pre-Chimperor, or is this something else to thank him for?

I have no idea what you are refering to (Pre-Chimperor?! I think maybe you watch too much TV), but finally, you are beginning to understand the conditions, and that contradiction abounds. Much of life outside the United States is contradiction my friend, you really ought to travel. And if you cant take the time, at least read a book, and if the newstand is out of "Readers Digest," find Henry Miller "The air conditioned nightmare."

Chris Coose
07-11-2006, 08:39 PM
George, could you please tease apart the differences between a war and an occupation for me? Its time you answered some questions on your own thread.

The Nazis invaded and occupied a bunch of Europe.
The US put a can o war on to them for which they deserved.

The US invaded and is now occupying Iraq.
We deserve just what we are getting for being as stupid and arrogant as Hitler.

Don Olney
07-11-2006, 08:45 PM
Here, here for Knockabout! And any man who recommends "The Air Conditioned Nightmare" by Henry Miller is okay in my book.

KNOCKABOUT
07-11-2006, 09:49 PM
The Nazis invaded and occupied a bunch of Europe.
The US put a can o war on to them for which they deserved.

The US invaded and is now occupying Iraq.
We deserve just what we are getting for being as stupid and arrogant as Hitler.

So Chris you equate current administration policy to Hitler? As much as I dont care for the administrations' policies, I think your metaphor is a big fat goose-egg. There is such a chasm between the two, that Im going to throw you a freebie so that you can rethink that statement and come back to me with something befitting a real considerate thought. Otherwise I'll tear through it...

shamus
07-11-2006, 10:32 PM
NEWSFLASH:
geeman is considering ignoring George!
END NEWSFLASH

KNOCKABOUT
07-11-2006, 10:58 PM
Oh and by the way... The Soviets were the ones who did the whoopin, and they brought the whole twelve pack and a pack of condoms. The U.S. mainly provided the cap so that whatever the Soviets happened to be mashing that day wouldn't squirt out the other side. Do you have any idea what Soviet artillery density alone was? Do you have any real concept of how ruthlessly the Germans and the Soviets fought one another? Theres a reason the Iron Cross was awarded on the Eastern front... Read a book on General Panfilov, he and Paton are hand in glove, only Paton had all the advantages and Paanfilov had to invent them along the way. The Soviets as unpopular as it is to utter such apostasy around here, saved allied hides.

Paul G.
07-12-2006, 12:03 AM
Actually Paul, you have it entirely backwards. But, I knew you wouldnt be able to discern any meaningful differences - because none exist. Though I am still anxious to hear what George has to say about the topic - given his expertise...


The ignorant await the great teaching...

Chris Coose
07-12-2006, 05:13 AM
So Chris you equate current administration policy to Hitler?

No. I used a fairly recent conflict to help you understand the difference between an occupation and war.

I do not equate dubbya and hitler except in one area. They both thought they knew what would be best for the occupied. dubbya turns out to be dumber than hitler. Not equal at all.

Milo Christensen
07-12-2006, 05:43 AM
KNOCKABOUT knocks 'em out! A left to the jaw, a right to the ear, another left, another right. They're down for the count! Good job, says I.

KNOCKABOUT
07-12-2006, 06:02 AM
The ignorant await the great teaching...

The differences are semantic Paul. If one draws a list of all the characteristics of "war," then those of "occupation," something very odd begins to emerge from the lists. The high points are all the same. You can call an occupation a war - as the guy whos land your standing upon certainly does; and on the flip side war is most definately an occupation. The differences are semantic, terminology dreamt up late at night by congressional screwheads and spinsters so that you, me, and all the other fat dumb wheaties eating rounders won't pay attention to the fact we're at war. But dont take it from me, sit on your duff and write a list. Hell publish it here so we can discuss it, I would love to see what you come up with - but I've done this exercise before, and I've been shot at, I've been at "war," and I've "occupied" and the piss that trails down your leg after getting zinged - smells exactly the same.

And Paul, you dont need to be so reverential. I am a very level headed guy, and if there is something you dont know, always feel free to ask...

KNOCKABOUT
07-12-2006, 06:09 AM
No. I used a fairly recent conflict to help you understand the difference between an occupation and war.

I do not equate dubbya and hitler except in one area. They both thought they knew what would be best for the occupied. dubbya turns out to be dumber than hitler. Not equal at all.

I know you think you used an example, but really all you did was throw some words up in hopes they would stick. Well they pealed off. What exactly was your original point?

And please go back and reread your previous post. You did exactly equate the two. Look, I cant debate you and your opinions if I have to step across the table to help arrange your Scrabble letters every time you post something. Take a minute, gather your thoughts and write something meaningful. As far as what you have stated in this posting... please read my reply to Paul above, and if you take the time to write a list and take the time to really do this well, you might just learn something, this might be a very interesting exercise...

Good luck, and I sincerely mean that, and I would very much like to see what the two of you come up with.

Paul G.
07-12-2006, 06:15 AM
Knockabout you are right the differences are semantic (chomsky would love that) For all intents and purposes the whether we describe it as a war or an occupation the effects are the same.

KNOCKABOUT
07-12-2006, 06:17 AM
There is a huge distinction between an occupation and a war.
It is simplistic to say that their is no difference between them. The War ended when Bush declared it won. Thats when the occupation started. "Youve toppled Saddam (thanks) and you've found no weapons so can you please go home now" Thats an occupation, there is no war except in your head.

Simplistic Paul is to put things into little convenient semantic containers. The English (coalition partners) will not dare say they are at war. Well why not? Because it has a certain smell that the English are uninterested in right now. Not because English arent dying or seeing combat - they are.

And your statement here really gasses me up: "The war ended when Bush declared it won." You have just proved that this is a semantic issue Paul. Bush can declare anything he wants. Declarations are meaningless without actions, and the actions behind the Bush declaration are counter to his utterences. Bush declared the war over because we and the rest of the world are weary of it, its a bait and switch Paul. Please take a moment off your soapbox to recognize this.

KNOCKABOUT
07-12-2006, 06:20 AM
Knockabout you are right the differences are semantic (chomsky would love that) For all intents and purposes the whether we describe it as a war or an occupation the effects are the same.

Exactly. Horror and death. But at least we dont have to sugar-coat it with terms and expressions that are less than the gruesome evocation of war.

Chris Coose
07-12-2006, 06:24 AM
Seems to me you knew the difference between a war and an occupation before you made the inquiry.
I'll be your student.
Please explain to me who we are at war with in Iraq. It looks to me like an enemy that emerged after we took over.
A resistance so to speak. Kind of like the French in WWII or the colonists in America and in Iraq they may be known as the sand n_ _ _ _r.

KNOCKABOUT
07-12-2006, 06:57 AM
OK, now we're getting somewhere. Mostly we are at war with factional extremist revolutionary Islamists, and not because we chose the conflict, but because we were singled out in much the same manner the Franks were in the sixth century when Islamic power was at its apex (things are a little different today, but suffice to say an example is being made, and thats the basis for the reference). The days of organized warfare are over, communication and the advantages of employing assymetrical tactics give the upper hand to the little guy, and nations no longer have any real taste to conduct large scale warfare - its costly and it mostly doesnt work. Additionally the ME is basically a very large zone of contiguous political disenfranchisement, and that, coupled with the basic fundemental concepts of Islam, and the Shiite and Sunni variations - equals a big giant mess that Uncle Sam stepped right into.

Heres a fun question for you to consider, and the answer demonstrates the unending problems over there... A Sunni has a gun, loaded, and ready to fire. In front of him stand an Israeli, a Shiite, and an American. Whom does the Sunni shoot first?

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )
07-12-2006, 07:19 AM
KNOCKABOUT There is NO DOUBT you are Jeff Rickers buddy ;)

This is all I'm going to contribute to this noxious thread.
Suffice to say there are those like KNOCKABOUT who like to use socio political history and military history to justify the REASON for occupation.

These are people who have libraries filled with books on war and history of war. Books on tactics of war, battles, biographies of generals and warriors. Maps of invasions and detailed war strategies. Knowledgeable on amunion, caliber, bore and velocity an Kill apogee.

Sound familiar ? ;)

Then there are people who read other books. Or better yet have no interest in the above subject.

I do not understand the warrior mentality. If personally pushed I will push back harder than anyone, but I'm not about to come into your house sit on the couch and watch TV, rape your daughter, kill your wife and if you complain about it punch you in the nose and call it controlling a factional extremist revolutionary neighbor . Folla.

Foster Out

PeterSibley
07-12-2006, 07:24 AM
OK KNOCKABOUT ,seeing you're giving tutorials,why did the US administration think it could invade a country with a 70% Shiite population and have a result anywhere acceptable to that administration ?

It seemed so obvious to the likes of me standing outside the circle of the mainstream media blast (Australia) that when a regime is removed there is chaos .A void is created and that void will quickly be filled....in this case by Iranian inspired (if not Iranian ) Shia theocracy.The Sunni will resist and the US and its allies will be caught in the middle .

What in heavens name did the administration think was going to happen ? Did they want to expand Iran's power, prestige and influence in the middle east ? If not , why do it ????

George.
07-12-2006, 07:36 AM
Cut those guys a break. They are kids! ... So whatever mechanism helps an eighteen year old American Corporal move through another incredibly dangerous and overly monotonous day...


Eighteen year old privates and corporals are entitled a break. They can use profanity and dehumanize the enemy in order to cope - that is understandable for kids.

If you read the opening post, we are discussing the attitudes and policies of American commanders - not the kids being shot at, but the arrogant old fools in charge of the whole operation. The ones who think you can pacify an occupied nation and turn them into friends by force.

Nice try to confuse the issue, though...

Joe Dupere
07-12-2006, 08:50 AM
My son got out of the Marines in November. He did two tours in Iraq, so in light of this thread, I asked him what the members of his unit called the Iraqis. He said most guys in his unit just called them Iraqis. Then Hadjis, gibs (jibs?), ragheads and camel jockeys in descending order. He's heard of the term, SN, but as far as he ever heard, nobody in his unit used that expression.

Just one data point from one Marine, from one platoon, from one
company, with members from all over the US.

Joe

High C
07-12-2006, 08:56 AM
...He's heard of the term, SN, but as far as he ever heard, nobody in his unit used that expression....

The only time I ever heard the term used prior to this thread was from a friend. Maybe 20+ years ago who managed to use it frequently in reference to oil shortage issues. He wasn't military, BTW. In fact, he was a hard core leftist greenie socialist pinko commie hippy McGovern lover.

Tristan
07-12-2006, 09:00 AM
My son got out of the Marines in November. He did two tours in Iraq, so in light of this thread, I asked him what the members of his unit called the Iraqis. He said most guys in his unit just called them Iraqis. Then Hadjis, gibs (jibs?), ragheads and camel jockeys in descending order. He's heard of the term, SN, but as far as he ever heard, nobody in his unit used that expression.

Just one data point from one Marine, from one platoon, from one
company, with members from all over the US.

Joe

And how many African Americans are in his unit?:rolleyes:

George.
07-12-2006, 09:09 AM
Well, it appears that at least one senior officer - the one quoted in the opening post - does call them sand niggers.

If you do a Google search for the term, you get 39.900 hits. You find military bloggers using it, and you find Arabs complaining that it is used against them.

And in Wikipedia, you find this:



Sand Coon
(U.S.) An Iraqi fighter

Sand Monkey
(U.S.) someone of Middle Eastern descent

Sand Nigger
(U.S, UK) A term describing a person that descends from the Arabian Peninsula. In most cases in US and UK use, often a term for a Muslim, terrorists, or anyone wearing a turban.

Sandy
(U.S.) a contemporary abbreviated euphemism for "Sand Nigger"; see also Sawney

For a term that no one ever heard being used, it sure gets a lot of hits, complaints, variations, and even a contemporary abbreviation... :rolleyes:

High C
07-12-2006, 09:20 AM
...If you do a Google search for the term, you get 39.900 hits....

For Google, that's about as close to zero as you can get. :p

Bill Perkins
07-12-2006, 11:29 AM
I saw the inscription : " Iranians= Sand Niggers " on a bathroom wall during the Hostage Crisis 20 some years ago . Hope this helps .

PatCox
07-12-2006, 11:54 AM
The Iranians destroyed the Roman Empire. Killed two emporers in battle, took one captive and ransomed him. Caused the capital to be moved to Constantinople, and so drained the empire's resources that it fell to the barbarians.

Never, ever fight a land war in asia.

PatCox
07-12-2006, 12:40 PM
And while I am at it, I think there is a real, and not merely semantic, difference between war and occupation. It is a very different thing to defeat an army, and to subdue a native population. The methods used might be the same (shooting and bombing people) and the subjective experience of the soldiers might be the same, but the missions are very different, the difficulties encountered occupation as opposed to warfare being not merely a matter of degree but also of kind.

We never had to occupy Germany or Japan; we used the atom bomb to make sure we wouldn't have to, in Japan.

Bob Cleek
07-12-2006, 01:11 PM
This is the "last `N' word" on the subject!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs

geeman
07-12-2006, 01:14 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong here, But I thought we ocupied both Germany AND Japan,after the war,,,,,,,,

Don Olney
07-12-2006, 01:16 PM
I'm pretty sure we occupied Japan because I was born there on a US airbase!

George.
07-12-2006, 01:27 PM
The US occupied Japan, and the US, USSR, Britain, and France occupied Germany.

And according to Knockabout, there was no difference between those occupations and the actual fighting of WWII. :p

PatCox
07-12-2006, 01:48 PM
They were not forceful occupations resisted by a substantial resistance, as both Japan and Germany surrendered unconditionally.

The historical precedents for the US occupation of Iraq would be the nazi occupation of France or Poland, or the US occupation of the Philipines after the Spanish American war.

George.
07-12-2006, 01:51 PM
Fine. Would you say that the Nazi occupation of France was the same as the Battle of France in the summer of 1940?

High C
07-12-2006, 01:51 PM
...The historical precedents for the US occupation of Iraq would be the nazi occupation of France or Poland....

:rolleyes: Off the deep end, Pat...

George.
07-12-2006, 01:55 PM
OK, High C. What are the historical precedents for the occupation of Iraq?

Meerkat
07-12-2006, 02:02 PM
Good thing this isn't a religion thread! :D

High C
07-12-2006, 02:11 PM
OK, High C. What are the historical precedents for the occupation of Iraq?

Get your fix from someone else.

Nomad17
07-12-2006, 02:16 PM
Now I know why I don't read much from this forum... We could have done a lot better if we had given each Iraqi about $500,000.00 and said have a good life. It would have been cheaper and we wouldn't have lost 2000 solidiers lives in Iraq and spent $3,000,000,000.00 dollars and a major looming deficit. We are just to complacent to do anything about it because it doesn't affect us directly. Ah, let them alone...

Nomad17
07-12-2006, 02:19 PM
Think about our enemy... they have old russian AK-47 rifles and RPG's and we have 100 million $ planes, rockets that cost over a million $ each, humvees with armour , etc. and who's winning? We will go broke before anybody wins...

George.
07-12-2006, 02:36 PM
Get your fix from someone else.

Is that a gentle way of conceding?

PatCox
07-12-2006, 03:23 PM
George., I have been arguing that there's a big difference between a war and an occcupation, contrary to some who argued its just semantics.

HighC, I am not comparing the US to Nazi Germany, however, the military mission of our men in Iraq is more analogous to that of the wermacht in France than to the US, for example, in post-war germany.

Whats the difference? Collective punishment. History shows that the only way to control a resisting population is terrorism, its not possible to punish the resistance, they fade into the night, they wear no uniforms, they won't come out and fight when you want, so the only way to make them come to heel is to make their acts of ambush and sabotage too costly for them.

The germans knew this in WWII, and if the french resistance blew up a train, they'd just go to a nearby village and kill 10, 20, 30 randomly chosen people. The only way to turn the populace against the resistors.

The ancient Romans operated similarly.

And so do we; resistors kill and burn three contractors? Okay, level the whole city in retaliation.

Collective punishment.

Terrorism.

Meerkat
07-12-2006, 03:33 PM
At least we no longer decimate the ranks if the Army screws up. We leave that to inaequate supplies of equipment built to the profit-motivated standards of the military-industrial complex.

High C
07-12-2006, 04:13 PM
Is that a gentle way of conceding?

No. It's a gentle way of telling you to kiss my butt.

George.
07-12-2006, 04:14 PM
History shows that the only way to control a resisting population is terrorism, its not possible to punish the resistance, they fade into the night, they wear no uniforms, they won't come out and fight when you want ...

Well said.

This is why modern nations whose national ethos is based on some sort of morality do not try to control a resisting population. It is no coincidence that most of the world was a European colony in 1919, and almost none of it remained so in 1949.

The Romans managed to subdue resisting populations - by decimating them. Literally, killing every tenth person. The Germans tried a somewhat milder version in 1914, and it did not work. The Germans tried again in France in 1940, and the French in Algeria a decade later - and it did not work either. Informed people will not stand for it, either as perpetrators or as victims.

And now the US is trying to subdue Iraq without decimating them. Fat chance. Only an ignorant xenophobic idiot would think it stands a chance.

Chris Coose
07-12-2006, 04:29 PM
The barbaric warrior policy makers in America cannot allow this occupation be called what it is.
It must be a war.
They must smoke the piss out of it at every turn.
An occupation has far more morality attached to it than a war does.

As a war, brutal unlawful contractors get to mosey about and do as they please. One of the first acts of the Iraq government was to review the terms of the mercenaries.
As a war, dubbya gets gitmo.
As a war, dubbya gets to spend over 1 billion per week.

dubbya's opposition would like to call this an occupation. They should because that's what it is.
It is no wonder the dubbya crew has to have it called a war. It is a political agenda thast must be maintained by the murderers.

Tom W.
07-12-2006, 04:50 PM
And now the US is trying to subdue Iraq without decimating them. Fat chance. Only an ignorant xenophobic idiot would think it stands a chance.
Well, it has been said. King George to a tee, if you ask me. When I hear him and the other inner circle-ites say that Al Qaeda is on the run I think they are terribly mis-informed, blatant liars or so stupid they actually believe this. The quagmire is sucking us deeper and deeper and it will get much worse before it gets better.

KNOCKABOUT
07-12-2006, 04:50 PM
The US occupied Japan, and the US, USSR, Britain, and France occupied Germany.

And according to Knockabout, there was no difference between those occupations and the actual fighting of WWII. :p

Well when four million men stop fighting on a converged point, because there is no one left to fight for the moment, thats one thing; but remember the cold war and the Berlin airlift began almost immediatey after the bullets stopped flying. I am envious of your beautifully simplistic view of the world, I wish I could go back and see things with the clarity of a child.

George Jung
07-12-2006, 05:41 PM
I know a few of the locals who have had military experience in Iraq; The ones I've talked to supported being there, thought they had acheived some positive goals, and uniformly said the news media did not accurately reflect their perceptions of how the war has gone.
I've not had the chance to talk with any about this thread 'controversy', until last night. One of my friends' son just returned from Iraq this week; he had served with one of the special forces units (can't tell you which or where; but he was in the thick of it, I'm told). I asked about the use of these slurs; his response: infrequent, and never the use of 'SN'. FWIW

Donn
07-12-2006, 05:45 PM
I can echo those observations, GJ, from freshly returned grunts, to a cousin who is a contractor in the Green Zone. They never heard the term. They're kids, though.

Bob Cleek
07-12-2006, 07:22 PM
Well, I spent some time talking with a "government contractor" who had formerly been with the US military in Iraq and returned on a private contract for more money. She (yep, it was a gal) came back and bought a brand new Hummer (the real one, not the H-2 or H-3 wannabes) so you know she's gung-ho. Not your usual knee jerk liberal. Worked out of the "Green Zone" in Baghdad.

Her assessment? "Not winnable, but definitely loseable! We are in a hopeless situation over there. Don't know who the enemy is, don't know what the fight is about, except to stop the terrorism there. Not having any success with it. Local government totally useless. Civil war undeniable any day now."

That was a month ago and she seems to have been dead right. They are openly fighting between themselves in the streets of Baghdad.

We went there to take out Saddam and his WMD's. We took out Saddam. There aren't any WMD's. Why are we still there?

http://a.im.craigslist.org/5H/rV/sQfAra6yQYAPIfW5st0iRQ87HSwu.jpg

Meerkat
07-12-2006, 07:24 PM
OIL

Bob Cleek
07-12-2006, 07:30 PM
I could go for that, if only our gas prices weren't going in the other direction, much to the great delight of the oil industry! I'd say they ought to pump cheap oil until the place is dry. That's the only way they can make the effort worthwhile now.

George Jung
07-12-2006, 07:38 PM
Just goes to show you, everyone sees things a bit differently, eh? I'm curious - what's a conservative San Franciscoan look/act like, Bob? Seems to be a bit of a contradiction - or a differnt critter than perhaps the rest of the country sees.

PeterSibley
07-12-2006, 07:58 PM
I'll post this query again,perhaps you're still in teaching mode .

....................................
OK KNOCKABOUT ,seeing you're giving tutorials,why did the US administration think it could invade a country with a 70% Shiite population and have a result anywhere acceptable to that administration ?

It seemed so obvious to the likes of me standing outside the circle of the mainstream media blast (Australia) that when a regime is removed there is chaos .A void is created and that void will quickly be filled....in this case by Iranian inspired (if not Iranian ) Shia theocracy.The Sunni will resist and the US and its allies will be caught in the middle .

What in heavens name did the administration think was going to happen ? Did they want to expand Iran's power, prestige and influence in the middle east ? If not , why do it ????
__________________

Bob Cleek
07-12-2006, 08:14 PM
Well, George, I'd hardly call myself a conservative... nor a liberal. I try to apply common sense and whatever wisdom the Good Lord gave me to whatever issue comes along. As for SF and the Bay Area, it's changing. I'm third generation San Franciscan. Grandparents came in the 1890's. Nostalgia ain't what it used to be. Good luck finding a fisherman at Fisherman's Wharf!

The gal I was talking about was a very good looker, actually. As for San Franciscans generally, they don't look anything like they used to look.

SF has always been a cosmopolitan, laid back place, on the one hand. On the other, it's gone down the toilet in the last thirty or forty years. Once it got it's "liberal - anything goes" reputation, which I historically trace to the Time Magazine cover story on the "Summer of Love" in 1967, every jackass who was, and should have been run out of town elsewhere in the US, seems to have moved here because they thought the livin' was free. (It never was.) Just a bunch of media hype that quickly destroyed another "good thing" we locals had built for ourselves. The last and latest gasp, I'm afraid, was the hoopla about the City being "tolerant" of queers. Yes, we always were. Not a problem. That didn't mean we wanted every limp-wrist in the country to move here and take over the place! The City's really become a shadow of its former self. A really nice place to visit, if you are looking for an amusement park for fairies, but that's about it. There isn't a politician in town who isn't either gay or in their pocket (or wherever). The DINKS ("Double income - no kids) have pretty much run the old line families out of town. The schools are down the drain. Real estate prices off the charts. If you and your "partner" want to live la vida loca... come on out. Otherwise, San Francisco is just a memory. The only thing San Francisco has going for it is a Bay for great sailing and the best publicly funded HIV-AIDS care programs in the country. (Sadly.)

KNOCKABOUT
07-12-2006, 08:18 PM
I'll post this query again,perhaps you're still in teaching mode .

....................................
OK KNOCKABOUT ,seeing you're giving tutorials,why did the US administration think it could invade a country with a 70% Shiite population and have a result anywhere acceptable to that administration ?

It seemed so obvious to the likes of me standing outside the circle of the mainstream media blast (Australia) that when a regime is removed there is chaos .A void is created and that void will quickly be filled....in this case by Iranian inspired (if not Iranian ) Shia theocracy.The Sunni will resist and the US and its allies will be caught in the middle .

What in heavens name did the administration think was going to happen ? Did they want to expand Iran's power, prestige and influence in the middle east ? If not , why do it ????
__________________

I have no idea Peter... Seems like they dont do much reading in the White House, as there isnt a single historical reference to successful conquest/occupation. I think you have me pegged wrongly - I never voted for the guy, and I thought the war would be easy, but the peace impossible.

I think... and let me caveat by saying this is highly speculative, I think the administration was worried about waning US presence in the region. Remember that the US was booted out of Saudi just before the war. Airbases were closed down, Navy facilities dismantled and moved to Bahrain and Qatar, and the established US military presence (as a mechanism for domestic US economic stability - expounded upon in greater detail in an earlier post on this thread) was in danger of being put out to pasture. And with the growing Chinese / South Asian energy/economic threat, the fact that alternative energy markets are in fact viable today whereas 30 years ago there was no such term, the US considered the Iraq war a loss leader on future energy markets. As well as serving as a controlling shadow over Iran and Syria, who by the way DO support international Islamic Fundementalist Terrorism. But this is giving waaaaay too much credit to those clowns in Washington; however, if I were President, thats why I would send the 1st Division in.

If you would like to start a new thread on this as a plausible scenario I'd love to debate it - as I think its sound, but thats not the reason for my involvement in this thread, the gross misuse of language was, and the fact that I have a particular expertise in the region, an expertise that frankly very few do, I speak all the relevant languages save Farsi, and have traveled it extensively, and for this I feel justified in offering tutorials from time to time, as I find most Americans - and westerns in general have a very poor understanding of the region.

Meerkat
07-12-2006, 08:23 PM
Cleek; I attribute SF's decline to two things: the closing of the port in the early 70's, which caused SF to become more of a tourist destination, and the HIV epidemic, which crippled city budgets for at least a decade.

KNOCKABOUT
07-12-2006, 08:27 PM
KNOCKABOUT There is NO DOUBT you are Jeff Rickers buddy ;)

This is all I'm going to contribute to this noxious thread.
Suffice to say there are those like KNOCKABOUT who like to use socio political history and military history to justify the REASON for occupation.

These are people who have libraries filled with books on war and history of war. Books on tactics of war, battles, biographies of generals and warriors. Maps of invasions and detailed war strategies. Knowledgeable on amunion, caliber, bore and velocity an Kill apogee.

Sound familiar ? ;)

Then there are people who read other books. Or better yet have no interest in the above subject.

I do not understand the warrior mentality. If personally pushed I will push back harder than anyone, but I'm not about to come into your house sit on the couch and watch TV, rape your daughter, kill your wife and if you complain about it punch you in the nose and call it controlling a factional extremist revolutionary neighbor . Folla.

Foster Out

Joe baby you got me pegged wrong. I gave it all up years ago, but unfortunately it still rattles around in my head, why dont you and I go to the Yankee game on Saturday and bullsit over hotdogs and beer. Got two tiks on the 3rd base line. Ill trade ya for a sail.

PeterSibley
07-12-2006, 08:41 PM
Knockabout ...I don't have you pegged anyway in particular .I haven't read enough of your postings to form an opinion as to your opinions or politics...you seem to know your stuff....so a serious query .

I AM seriously mystified as to the US administration's objectives and how they came to their somewhat looney conclusions .

They had as much access to good cultural and historical advice as the next man...better .Yet they leapt head long into a bizarre situation .I am TRULY dumbfounded. I was at the time and remain so .How obviously intelligent men ( with obvious exclusions ) can do something like this has to be one of the all time mysteries !

Meerkat
07-12-2006, 08:42 PM
Got two tiks on the 3rd base line. Ill trade ya for a sail.Why not go to the game together and then go sailing together. You might find you have things in common! :)

Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )
07-12-2006, 08:47 PM
Why not go to the game together and then go sailing together. You might find you have things in common! :)

We could do that ;)

But I'm tossing around the idea of doing a weekend cruise on Tidbit just to see how far I can go. Give me a call before Friday and we can iron out the details.

Much better than the subject of this thread ;)

KNOCKABOUT
07-12-2006, 08:50 PM
Knockabout ...I don't have you pegged anyway in particular .I haven't read enough of your postings to form an opinion as to your opinions or politics...you seem to know your stuff....so a serious query .

I AM seriously mystified as to the US administration's objectives and how they came to their somewhat looney conclusions .

They had as much access to good cultural and historical advice as the next man...better .Yet they leapt head long into a bizarre situation .I am TRULY dumbfounded. I was at the time and remain so .How obviously intelligent men ( with obvious exclusions ) can do something like this has to be one of the all time mysteries !

Yes it is a strange twist, which makes me think theres more to it... though the fact is there were I think only a handful of Arabic and Farsi guys at both the FBI and CIA, and absolutely no Urdu or Afghani speakers at the time, so it could just be the madness of ignorance. Whats inexcusable in my book is how its ground on and on. And how our President shields himself from the WH press corps on Iraqi flak by offering that progress takes time... And they mostly buy it. Whatever. Long live the Ford administration.

Meerkat
07-12-2006, 08:53 PM
Maybe the scariest thing about the Iraqistan War(s) is that after every war we've ever fought, large numbers of the country we fought the war in somehow manage to immigrate to the US.

I'm tired of immigrants, legal or otherwise. This country needs time to rehomogenize and the ongoing readjustment caused by the new ethnic input is tiring and divisive IMO.

PeterSibley
07-12-2006, 10:15 PM
Yes it is a strange twist, which makes me think theres more to it... though the fact is there were I think only a handful of Arabic and Farsi guys at both the FBI and CIA, and absolutely no Urdu or Afghani speakers at the time, so it could just be the madness of ignorance. Whats inexcusable in my book is how its ground on and on. And how our President shields himself from the WH press corps on Iraqi flak by offering that progress takes time... And they mostly buy it. Whatever. Long live the Ford administration.

A pity , I was hoping for more ,its looney toons from the start.WMD and the rest of the smoke screen were just that ...but do you thnk the Rumsfeld /Cheney group actually began to believe there own version of reality...being welcomed with flowers etal ?

George.
07-13-2006, 06:59 AM
...remember the cold war and the Berlin airlift began almost immediatey after the bullets stopped flying.

How many German and Japanese civilians did the US kill during the occupation and the cold war?

How many did they kill during the war itself?

Don't you see the difference?

PatCox
07-13-2006, 10:09 AM
What did they think they were doing? Its easy to find out, read the writings of the members of PNAC, People for a New American Century, which included Dick Cheney and Richard Pearle and Douglas Feith, two of the ideological "thinkers" who came up with the idea of invading Iraq.

Ironically, Iraq was justified by a reverse version of the same doctrine that produced the Vietnam war: The Domino Theory. We fought a war in Vietnam because we thought that communist countries were infectious and just by proximity would caue other nearby countries to go communist. The PNACers thought we should invade Iraq and install democracy, and that through the same effect, a domino theory of democracy, other middle eastern and Arab countries would all become secular, democratic, western-friendly countries.

Richard Pearle uttered the most insane words at the start of the Iraq war when he gibbered and raved that our grandchildren hundreds of years from now will sing songs of praise about us for the way we remade the world, or words to that effect.

Another thread in the PNAC ideology: America is a hyperpower and should not be afraid to use force. These people are avenging Vietnam and they are intent on destroying the notion that the US is shy to use force because of Vietnam.

The Rumsfeld effect is a vastly overblown faith in technology which would supposedly make winning wars "easy" and bloodless. "Shock and Awe." That played a role.

Finally, and against the wise advice of Machievelli, the administration neocons made the mistake of relying entirely on corrupt lying expatriot Iraqis for their intelligence. Chalabi would say anything to get himself installed as ruler of Iraq, and apparently he and many others did, and the Cheneys and Rumsfelds and Pearles ate it up. "Mr. Chalabi, tell us again how the Iraqis will throw flowers at us, and immediately form a democratic government, so we can be home by Christmas."

And of course there was the fact that Israel hated Hussein, and Pearle was a Mossad agent, and a paid representative of the Likkud party.

ishmael
07-13-2006, 12:49 PM
I don't know what got us into this. I was supporting because of 9-11, and because I believed, along with most intelligence agencies, that SH might feed bad things to people willing to use them. I may have been wrong.

I was wrong in my support of our attack. We could have dealt with this without invasion if we'd rooted out the corruption in the UN.

This issue of what soldiers in the field call Iraqis is a wholly different. We excuse epithets by 19 year old grunts, but can't by colonels. Well, let me tell you you. A colonel is, on occasion, out of frustration, going to say things not ready for delicate ears.

Thanks for the multiple testimony saying this isn't a general state of affairs.

Let me suggest George that you, along with the media, are inflaming the very thing you decry. You say you want the US to succeed, but what you really want is our failure. By pointing out the indiscretions of war, you betray your prediliction.

Okay, man, let's have the US go down. I'm ready. Are you?

This is a non-issue. But, because the web goes all around it plays into the worst imaginings of the friend and enemy alike.

KNOCKABOUT
07-13-2006, 01:10 PM
A pity , I was hoping for more ,its looney toons from the start.WMD and the rest of the smoke screen were just that ...but do you thnk the Rumsfeld /Cheney group actually began to believe there own version of reality...being welcomed with flowers etal ?

Crazy as it may sound, yes I believe they were eating their own dog food. I think the Rummie crowd prepared for the war by watching reruns of the "Super Friends," I think the cabinet level suffered a complete breakdown of coherent rational thinking, mostly because they were at that point guided by the so-called "One Percent Doctrine." Which basically is a slim evolution of the NYC subway-goon rule of dont-look-the-crazy-guy-in-the-eye. And Saddam looked up from his paper, and got stomped.

Osborne Russell
07-13-2006, 01:40 PM
History shows that the only way to control a resisting population is terrorism, its not possible to punish the resistance, they fade into the night, they wear no uniforms, they won't come out and fight when you want, so the only way to make them come to heel is to make their acts of ambush and sabotage too costly for them.

The germans knew this in WWII ... The ancient Romans operated similarly.

And so do we; resistors kill and burn three contractors? Okay, level the whole city in retaliation.

Collective punishment.

Terrorism.

Exactly. I thought this was well understood before the invasion and had been factored into the plans. I was ready for mass civilian death, because that is the only way to gain control, though it only works in the short run; followed by massive investment to take care of the long run. But the whole operation was only for short term domestic political advantage, which accounts for the loathing of the administration. They bought their power with other people's blood; on the cheap, so they could keep the money for themselves.

Speaking of Machiavelli, here's the common sense on initial ruthlessness --



Hence it is to be remarked that, in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as to not have to repeat them daily; and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits. He who does otherwise, either from timidity or from evil advice, is always compelled to keep the knife in his hand; neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs. For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavor of them may last longer.

TomF
07-13-2006, 02:18 PM
It is better to be feared than loved.

- Machiaveilli

Rick Starr
07-13-2006, 02:20 PM
Should Saddam not have been removed from power? I'm of the opinion that any pretext for his removal is adequate justification, but my opinion is based on a personal distaste for his genocide--others may have differing opinions.

Oddly, I find the real failure lies at the feet of Bush1 who had the clear, legal and moral justification as well as the military and social momentum, to get Saddam and didn't for the sake of (failed) election expedience.

Anyone care to take a stand on this one?

Great big attaboy to KNOCKABOUT for honesty and clear presentation.

TomF
07-13-2006, 02:28 PM
The coalition built for the first Gulf War would have fallen apart if the goals of the war morphed from the repudiation of aggression into Kuwait into some kind of regime change. The basis in international law for Gulf War I was the mugging of Kuwait, nothing more ... nothing less.

George the First judged (correctly, I think) that it was more important to maintain and build upon the first significant broad-based alliance in recent times in the Middle East than to whack Saddam, so long as Saddam stayed home.

A prof for whom I feel enormous respect disagreed - and felt that a wayward missile or a special forces unit from a proxy state should have targeted Saddam then. But he stands firmly in the philosophical tradition that includes Machiaveilli, Thucydides, and in modern times Kissinger.

PatCox
07-13-2006, 02:29 PM
I am still wondering why we sent our boys to die for the Emir of KUwait and his 63 wives. I still remember Ross Perot saying "You'd say I was crazy if I knocked on your door and said "ma'am, mind if I borrow your 18 year-old for a year to go fight and maybe get killed to put the Emir back on his throne."

Osborne Russell
07-13-2006, 02:35 PM
Should Saddam not have been removed from power?

Why and how does this radical over-simplification persist? If there were a scorpion on your foot, could you think of a reason not to hit it with a hammer?

TomF
07-13-2006, 02:37 PM
Pat, we went to the Gulf in the early '90s not to support the Emir of Kuwait, but to uphold the principle of the territorial integrity of sovereign states. It's the foundational concept of international law.

Not incidentally, to be seen to support the territorial integrity of an Arab state was politically vastly important for US positioning ... the US could be seen as more of an impartial party, if it was willing to shed its own blood for Israel one week, and Kuwait the next. Could have been a real springboard towards a collective understanding on the Israel issue.

... and of course, oil helped.

Rick Starr
07-13-2006, 02:39 PM
George the First judged (correctly, I think) that it was more important to maintain and build upon the first significant broad-based alliance in recent times in the Middle East than to whack Saddam, so long as Saddam stayed home.

And yet, each and every facet of the justification for the CURRENT Iraq war, now flimsy and/or faulty, was DEAD SMACK TRUE at the time of gulfwar1. The flimsy and or faulty justification was good enough to mount a full scale offensive this time. Why was it not used to finish the job in gulfwar1 when it was actually true and solid?

Rick Starr
07-13-2006, 02:42 PM
Why and how does this radical over-simplification persist?

Because it is the logical next step in the line of reasoning against the iraq war, only the anti war crowd stops just short of making this leap.

Osborne Russell
07-13-2006, 02:44 PM
And yet, each and every facet of the justification for the CURRENT Iraq war, now flimsy and/or faulty, was DEAD SMACK TRUE at the time of gulfwar1. The flimsy and or faulty justification was good enough to mount a full scale offensive this time. Why was it not used to finish the job in gulfwar1 when it was actually true and solid?

Because that wasn't "the job" in 1. As you say, either 1 or 2 must be bogus; it's 2.

ishmael
07-13-2006, 02:47 PM
I agree with the gloss, the idea, but what the hell led April Glaspe(sp), our amassador to Iraq at a time, when Saddam was massing troops to invade Kuwait to say, "The United States has no opinion on your quarrel."

That had to come from the highest levels, unless the woman was an idiot. You don't get to be ambassador to Iraq if you are an idiot, so it had to come from the hightest levels.

It's well documented.

There's something here that doesn't wash. I'll leave it to the conspiratorialists, but any idiot sees this whole scenario smells like a fish left too long in the shade.

I suspect it stems from power beyond our daily ken.

TomF
07-13-2006, 02:48 PM
Rick,

Gulf War II was not ever concieved in terms of the protection of a state's territorial sovereignty. The justification in international law for Gulf War I ended at the Iraq/Kuwait border .. which is why the broad coalition of states involved was able to be created and maintained prior to and during the fighting.

The invasion of Iraq itself actually challenges the international law principle that justified Gulf War I. The US is not protecting a sovereign state's territorial sovereignty; it is manifestly disregarding it. It is not reacting to an act of aggression, but undertaking a pre-emptive war.

The various justifications which have been made for Gulf War II could all be equally strongly made regarding other nasty states, both in the region, and in other parts of the world. If we're not willing to take out ugly dictators in various bits of Africa etc., focusing on Saddam looks self-serving.

Rick Starr
07-13-2006, 02:53 PM
As you say, either 1 or 2 must be bogus; it's 2.

Thus, if you maintain 2 is bogus, then Saddam should not have been removed from power. I disagree.

You cannot have it both ways.

PatCox
07-13-2006, 02:56 PM
Rick Star, you must also be aware that every single reason given for not invading Iraq in 1991, as set forth in GHWB's memoir, has also turned out to be smack dab right on accurate, as well.

The president's father, obviously, being one of us liberal delusional anti-war nuts, as evidenced by his having Brent Scowcroft write an anti-Iraq invasion editorial in the fall of 2002.

TomF
07-13-2006, 02:58 PM
What criteria should be used to justify removing dictators, Rick? I despised Saddam, but the Iraqis should have taken him out.

If we're allowing ourselves the right to oust Saddam, what's preventing us from ousting leaders in Uganda, Congo, Sudan, Syria, North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc. etc. ?

And God forbid, if some self-righteous state takes enough issue with Guantanamo and alleged covert prisons run by the CIA ... what's stopping that state from assasinating Bush?

No. Territorial sovereignty means just that.

Rick Starr
07-13-2006, 02:59 PM
The justification in international law for Gulf War I ended at the Iraq/Kuwait border .. which is why the broad coalition of states involved was able to be created and maintained prior to and during the fighting. The invasion of Iraq itself actually challenges the international law principle that justified Gulf War I. The US is not protecting a sovereign state's territorial sovereignty; it is manifestly disregarding it.

And yet, in gulf1 we pushed half way into Iraq with the support of the region and the international community.

I know the difference in justification between 1 and 2. If gulf2 could be sold to a skeptical international community then surely the same justification could have been sold far more successfully in gulf 1, back when it was true.

PatCox
07-13-2006, 03:01 PM
You cannot just assume,. Rick Starr, that Saddam being removed from power is an absolute value that trumps everything. For example, if someone were to say "Should Saddam be removed from power if it can be done without great expense and loss of life, and will not harm US international relations" then the answer might be a resounding "yes." But if the question is "should Saddam be removed from power at enormous cost and high casualties and an indefinite commitment to maintaining troops in a hostile land, resulting in the fomenting of anti-american sentiment throughout the muslim world, the alienation of allies, and resulting in the fueling of the terrorist movement, then the answer would be no.

There's never been a debate over whether Saddam is a bad man, the debate was and is over whether it would be, or has been, worth the price to rmeove him. It has not.

Meerkat
07-13-2006, 03:07 PM
Saddam isn't the reason we're in Iraq anyway, nor is it the GWOT - that's marketing to gull a kind hearted people into doing the unthinkable.

It's Oil.

Rick Starr
07-13-2006, 03:09 PM
No. Territorial sovereignty means just that.

Clearly, territorial sovereignty means whatever one wants it to mean at any given time.

Yes the Iraqis should have taken them out, and at the time I said repeatedly that I felt mighty uncomfortable fighting for a people who weren't willing to fight for themselves.

But I find the veil of selective sovereignty useless and cowardly. Your use of Sudan is a prime example.

Meerkat
07-13-2006, 03:11 PM
Whatever their form, governments exist only by the consent of the governed.

Rick Starr
07-13-2006, 03:17 PM
PatCox, I do not believe in the practice of loading a basic question with caveats until it produces the answer I want.

Most questions in foreign policy are almost unbelievably complicated. Some, just a few, are surprisingly simple.

Should Saddam still be in power? I say no. I believe that those who say that the war has been wrong are saying yes.

Please do not misinterpret my belief as one of the ends justifying the means. I believe the means to have been flawed, just as many of you do. But I refuse to overlook the good which I believe has come out of the iraq war, which is principally, but by no means limited to, the removal and trial of Saddam.

Meerkat
07-13-2006, 03:18 PM
If the goal had been to remove Saddam, we could have been in and out in 6 months.

TomF
07-13-2006, 03:19 PM
Sovereignty means whatever we want to make it mean? I disagree - just writing a PhD thesis where that's the focus of the initial chapter.

The conventional definition of territorial sovereignty, in use since roughly the Treaty of Westphalia runs something like this:

"A sovereign state has the sole legitimate use of force within its borders."
For three references from very different ideological perspectives, see:

Kenneth Waltz, "Man, the State, and War"
Hedley Bull, "The Anarchical Society"
Michael Walzer, "Just and Unjust Wars"Look also for Hinsley's book (can't recall the title offhand, and I'm not going to search my bibliography). First published in the 60s, Hinsley's discussion traces the historical development of the concept, and has informed foreign policy ever since it was written.

Challenges to that definition sovereignty don't come from the Foreign Policy or Military worlds ... but from various postmodern influenced writers ... with whom I won't bore you. They'd have little relevance to this discussion.

I've not been talking about "selective sovereignty," whatever that is. And no, we've not toppled or decapitated the Sudanese government, and sent in an occupation force. Were we to officially recognize that the actions of the government-sponsored Janjaweed are as reprehensible as Saddam's ghastly actions, we'd be forced to invade. Right?

Well, why aren't we?

KNOCKABOUT
07-13-2006, 03:54 PM
The Treaty of Westphalia aside for the moment, as its a great bulwark to scholarship but fairly meaningless to the physics of things... And lets let George Bush Sr. off the hook too, and his ill mannered ideological Jesus-boy Georgie Jr.

The problem with the conflict 'aint America. The problem with the conflict can be summed up as (and this is colorful boys, so avert the eyeballs of the faint and young): "The curse of Mohameds cock." Mohamed embodied both philosophic as well as political hegemony over early Islam, he was the embodiement of the theocracy of Islam - and Islam has no built-in concession for resolution of the finer bits (like Judasim and Christianity). And everything after, the day after, they put Mohamed in the ground has been a struggle to regain the high ground...

Everything included in the Koran is set in granite. Done. Fini. Complete. We Jews and Christians enjoy the debate of things, sometimes we get a little carried away and slaughter a few hundred thousand innocent folks (like what the Treaty of Westphalia put an end to). But generally the debate stays within the confines of the debate and matters of theology stay in the church screwed down to the pews. And thats worked for us.

Islam has had the same argument with itself replayed over generations of madhat koran-crazed fundementalists ready to kill their neighbor to prove a point. Dont blame American policy for the two-thousand year old problems of a broken-record religion absorbed by a country that has never really existed, save for tribal domination. Iraq was hardly a paradise when we arrived, and honestly, I think it will be better off when we leave, and not because were leaving (all you smarty-pants who thought I'd leave the semantic door open are wrong), but because the country could generally use the investment. If Mohamed put down a coalition on the ground to go in and clean up Iraq,a and straighten up Baghdad - it would play out in the papers in a perfectly identical scenario to the hell thats going on over there now.

PeterSibley
07-13-2006, 04:20 PM
Should Saddam still be in power? I say no. I believe that those who say that the war has been wrong are saying yes.

Please do not misinterpret my belief as one of the ends justifying the means. I believe the means to have been flawed, just as many of you do. But I refuse to overlook the good which I believe has come out of the iraq war, which is principally, but by no means limited to, the removal and trial of Saddam.

If your justification for the war is not WMD but straight forward regime change ( at least a far more honest if by international law illegal proposition) you have to look at the results so far .

Chaos ...then more chaos...verging into bloody civil war .

In my humble opinion perhaps (just for the fun of it and in retrospect ) we should ask the Iraqis.
Perhaps a poll ?

Would you prefer to continue under your tyrant ?
Would you like to see your country slide towards total chaos and civil war ?

I know they're a gutless mob who don't like hard decisions but its just possible that peace , feeding your children (even under the evil of Sadam) is preferable to the current condition of having the place like a shooting gallery .

Its easy for we armchair commentators to wax lyrical on the lives of the poor benighted Iraqis .....I wonder what they think ?????

Rick Starr
07-13-2006, 04:28 PM
Its easy for we armchair commentators to wax lyrical on the lives of the poor benighted Iraqis .....I wonder what they think ?????

If I had to guess, the only thing I would imagine the iraqi on the street and we in the west would agree on widely would be the benefit of the removal of saddam, which is why I become exasperated at the determination of some, particularly here, to overlook that.

Osborne Russell
07-13-2006, 04:51 PM
the anti war crowd stops just short of making this leap.

Yeah, the rest of the world.

Osborne Russell
07-13-2006, 04:57 PM
Dont blame American policy for the two-thousand year old problems of a broken-record religion absorbed by a country that has never really existed, save for tribal domination.

Saddam was a secularist.

Meerkat
07-13-2006, 05:01 PM
There's a whole lot of repressive dictators I bet many would agree should be removed. On the other hand, they have no proven reservves of oil. ;)

Meerkat
07-13-2006, 05:02 PM
Islam is not 2,000 years old - but Christianity is! ;)

geeman
07-13-2006, 05:05 PM
I have said before and will state again.I know a group of business people ,,all Iraqi, STILL say their glad Saddem is gone.They also STILL state that the terrorists that are causing all the death and destruction are not the majority of the peoples feelings.However they do also say now that due to their people being worn out and simply tired of war,that they tend to blame about anyone that is carrying a gun etc that they see.These same people by the way had friends and relatives that "disapeared" in Saddems " prisons" never to be seen again.

Osborne Russell
07-13-2006, 05:09 PM
Thus, if you maintain 2 is bogus, then Saddam should not have been removed from power. I disagree.

You cannot have it both ways.

Certainly can, as does the rest of the world.

Suppose the decision had been to nuke Iraq. If I oppose that, am I supporting Saddam?

TomF
07-13-2006, 09:19 PM
Not to be pedantic, Knockabout, but the definition of sovereignty matters ... it's why Gulf War I was legal, and Gulf War II is not. And Westphalia detemined it .. has quite a bit to do with the "physics" of the real world. Wouldn't have bothered citing references, if my previously un-referenced discussion hadn't been called "cowardly" by another.

Other than that ... I agree that the civil war was likely to start in Iraq, whoever decapitated Saddam's regime. Same was true with the former Yugoslavia. In some places, a repressive regime manages to bank the fires of tribalistic behaviour for a while ... but once gone, the flames re-emerge.

t.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-13-2006, 10:15 PM
No. It's a gentle way of telling you to kiss my butt.


Man, it's so different around here since I last posted:rolleyes:

Meerkat
07-13-2006, 10:21 PM
No. It's a gentle way of telling you to kiss my butt.Man, it's so different around here since I last posted:rolleyes:Yeah, 'ole gator boy has been showing his wilder side lately. ;) :D

PeterSibley
07-14-2006, 03:15 AM
If I had to guess, the only thing I would imagine the iraqi on the street and we in the west would agree on widely would be the benefit of the removal of saddam, which is why I become exasperated at the determination of some, particularly here, to overlook that.
and that the natural consequene of removing the centre of power from a centralised dictatorship is ??? When Sadam is "removed " certain things happen,like a row of dominos.You can't do A without B then C happening .This is why I'm so amazed at the shallow ,simplistic analysis put forward in the "get rid of Sadam" vein.Civil war is a direct consequence of that,the terror bombings are a direct consequence of that.And we in Australia and the US are responsible ....we broke it but we don't have to live with consequences .We can call our troops back and leave ordinary secular Iraqis (who you and I would have a lot in common with ) up to their ears in mad bombers and religious wackos .

George.
07-14-2006, 08:10 AM
I have said before and will state again.I know a group of business people ,,all Iraqi, STILL say their glad Saddem is gone.

Iraq must look much better off to a bunch of Iraqis sitting... in Tennessee. ;)

Nicholas Carey
07-14-2006, 01:10 PM
I agree with the gloss, the idea, but what the hell led April Glaspe(sp), our amassador to Iraq at a time, when Saddam was massing troops to invade Kuwait to say, "The United States has no opinion on your quarrel."

That had to come from the highest levels, unless the woman was an idiot.Because that was the official line. What she said was what she had been instructed to say by the White House.


You don't get to be ambassador...if you are an idiot....Actually, you do. Most ambassadors are appointed as favors to large campaign contributors. Very few career diplomats ever make ambassador (and then, usually they're usually made ambassador to small countries, the sort of place that the President's pals aren't interested in being ambassador to.

April Glaspie, however, was a career diplomat and this is what she told Hussein:
...we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait...The instruction we had...was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi [Chadli Klibi, president of the Arab League] or via President Mubarak [Hosni Mubarek, president of Egypt.] All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.Needless to say, "Suitable methods", of course, refor to diplomatic methods. The "no opinion" directive had been standing orders since the 1960s (the elisions above refer to that).

shamus
07-15-2006, 02:50 AM
I want all wrongly founded wars and wars of aggression to fail.

Wild Wassa
07-15-2006, 04:39 AM
God you right wing death blossoms make me laugh ... you believe your own bull****.

It is about time most of you Seppos started looking at the news from other countries to get the real truth, your media is a standing joke, sanitized to protect your precious fragile egos ... if you haven't heard the term "sand nigger," where the have you precious little numbers, been hiding your vacuous heads?

The US is killing innocent people, while the proxy US foreign policy is written in Tel Aviv ... it is all about money. Don't insult people by saying it is about freedom.

At least there are some real Americans on this site not just the right wing sheep.

You expect the world to respect you? ... most of the world wouldn't piss on you right wing sheep, even though you war mongers all need a thorough drenching.

Warren.

ps, if you don't know what a 'death blosson' is, google US military slang, ... you might learn something.

kharee
07-17-2006, 09:03 AM
I don't think the theme of this thread is true. Although it might look to be true. Middle Easterners are know as great hagglers in the souk or marketplace. The clerics peruse and debate the finest points of philosophy and religion. They take pride in outlining every nuance of an issue. They love and expect intrigue at every turn of events. War is more immediate. Much more direct. The Western mindset is more direct, simplistic, definitive. In dealing with Easterners we like to cut to the chase, make our move and hit the timer as in Chess. Chermat! Force focuses ones' attention, narrows the latitude for convoluted mind games. A surplus of firepower meshes well with the Western directness. Suffering from a dearth of firepower Easterners try to stretch out the game. Force checks cunning most of the time.