Diplomatic revolt in UK

[billvon 2,427]

>And if the Iraqi people would sit down and put a damper on their
> hatred of all things American, they might figure out that if they let
> us conduct ourselves over there, EVERYTHING about their lives would
> be better.

Right! We'd treat them as well as our allies the Israelis treat the Palestinians. After all, the Israelis have no problems with the Palestinians, and they live side by side in peace and harmony.

>Maybe it really is time to pull the fuck out, like I guess the U.N.
> would love for us to do, and let them die in their own filth, just to
> show by contrast what they could have had, but rejected.

Too late. You can't start a war like this and just walk away. It's our responsibility now, no matter how nasty and impossible the situation gets. The time to decide you don't want the responsibility is before you start the war, not years later.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Biggest problem in Iraq right now is the Diplomats get in the way and
> the appeasers allow the militants to regroup. IMO thats the only

Quote

> reason our guys are still dying.

Quote

I can imagine Saddam Hussein himself giving such a speech before annhiliating another group of "terrorists" like the Kurds.

You have a pretty vivid imagination then.

>This is war. People die in wars. Sometimes it's innocent people.
> Sometimes its not so innocent people. Hopefully, we will remember
> the lessons of Vietnam and start fighting this one to win instead of
> allowing the appeasers to cause more American deaths.

Quote

The primary lesson of Vietnam is that you should not fight a war you don't need to, and you should not lie to start one. Apparently we didn't learn either lesson. Would you have looked forward to another 50,000 americans dying in Vietnam to claim you "won?" Did the US fall after it failed to win the Vietnam War? Did communists succeed and take over the US?

The primary lesson of Vietnam, Somalia etc. is if you are going to start a war, be prepared to see it through. If not, don't start it.
Had we been in Vietnam to win, 50,000 American military wouldn't have die. The problem was it wasn't fought with this goal.
Vietnam wasn't fought because it was an immenent threat to the U.S. It was fought because of a fear that communism would destroy capitalism.

Quote

It's about time that we stop seeing ourselves as the country that can and should beat the crap out of anyone we don't like. The problem with being a schoolyard bully is that the people we pick on have a habit of growing up.

I don't see us that way, but I agree if thats the way you see us, you should stop.
You think we need to be worried about Japan, Germany, Panama Vietnam, and Bosnia?


>And oh, yes Bill, the diplomats are doing such a great job. Lets
> continue to let them operate. Maybe the death toll will top 1000 and
>then John Kerry will be elected.

Quote

Right! If we keep killing, surely fewer people will die. War is peace.

True. Same rational for dropping the A-bomb on Japan.



(edited for clarity)

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[billvon 2,427]

>The primary lesson of Vietnam, Somalia etc. is if you are going to
>start a war, be prepared to see it through. If not, don't start it.

I agree with you there, actually. Which is why I disagree with all the people who want to just pull out. But I also disagree that if you just kill enough people you can win. By taking Hussein's position (i.e. kill all who oppose us) we become the new tyrant, and since we have too much of a social conscience to perform the sorts of genocide he pulled off, we will lose. We cannot hope to hold Iraq if even 10% of the people there would rather die than submit to the rule of a violent, vicious avenging christian force. So it behooves us to not _become_ a violent and vicious force.

Negotiations are going to be critical in the coming weeks to defuse some of the situations in Iraq. Some will fail and we will have to use military force. If we are good most will succeed and a town will come under our control without much more bloodshed - and we will prove that death and destruction is really not our goal, and that we really do welcome peace if people are willing to offer it. Even when it's offered by people we don't like.

>You think we need to be worried about Japan, Germany, Panama
>Vietnam, and Bosnia?

Well, we don't need to be worried about Australia, Canada, Mexico, Russia or India (unless they get into it with Pakistan) either. On the other hand, we do still have to worry about Afghanistan, despite one war and one support of a civil war.

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

And if the Iraqi people would sit down and put a damper on their hatred of all things American, they might figure out that if they let us conduct ourselves over there, EVERYTHING about their lives would be better.

Why should they? Look at our history in that region. Remember the Shah of Iran. Who put him in and supported him. Were the lives of his subjects like ours? It's not that simple. We know very little about Iraq, its history, culture, traditions and religious groups. We also support Israel ( dont want to debate this). I mean look at the facts, it's not black and white nor as simple as sit down, listen to us and your life will be better.

[Gravitymaster 0]

>The primary lesson of Vietnam, Somalia etc. is if you are going to
>start a war, be prepared to see it through. If not, don't start it.

Quote

Quote

I agree with you there, actually. Which is why I disagree with all the people who want to just pull out. But I also disagree that if you just kill enough people you can win. By taking Hussein's position (i.e. kill all who oppose us) we become the new tyrant, and since we have too much of a social conscience to perform the sorts of genocide he pulled off, we will lose.

I'm not advocating killing all who oppose us, just the ones trying to kill our troops.

Quote

We cannot hope to hold Iraq if even 10% of the people there would rather die than submit to the rule of a violent, vicious avenging christian force.

We aren't trying to hold Iraq. We are trying to establish an Iraqi run govt. and then get out. It is Iranian backed clerics like Sadr who stir up the masses of mostly uneducated Iraqi's who have got to go. We definitely don't want another Arafat in Iraq.

Quote

So it behooves us to not _become_ a violent and vicious force.

We aren't. We are exhausting every diplomatic solution first. Once we have exhausted this effort,
the diplomats need to shut up and let our military do its job. If people in the street take up arms against our troops, they need to be shot dead in their tracks.

Quote

Negotiations are going to be critical in the coming weeks to defuse some of the situations in Iraq. Some will fail and we will have to use military force. If we are good most will succeed and a town will come under our control without much more bloodshed - and we will prove that death and destruction is really not our goal, and that we really do welcome peace if people are willing to offer it. Even when it's offered by people we don't like.

Agreed

>You think we need to be worried about Japan, Germany, Panama
>Vietnam, and Bosnia?

Quote

Well, we don't need to be worried about Australia, Canada, Mexico, Russia or India (unless they get into it with Pakistan) either. On the other hand, we do still have to worry about Afghanistan, despite one war and one support of a civil war.

My statement was in response to yours that we have to be worried about those we have "picked on" causing us worry.

• Quote

[billvon 2,427]

>I'm not advocating killing all who oppose us, just the ones trying to kill our troops.

OK, good to see you've gotten away from "kill all those who won't surrender."

>We aren't trying to hold Iraq. We are trying to establish an Iraqi run
> govt. and then get out.

You can't do that without holding it. You have to put down rebellions that would topple the new government. You have to support their troops and police, which are currently as likely to desert or join the other side as they are to fight for a new government. And to do all that you need a massive presence in the country, one that will remain there as long as it takes.

>We aren't. We are exhausting every diplomatic solution first. Once
>we have exhausted this effort, the diplomats need to shut up and
>let our military do its job.

You've got that backwards, I'm afraid. What we are trying to do in Iraq is show that a diplomatic effort _can_ work - that a bunch of diplomats can run a country, and that you don't need an armed-to-the-teeth warlord to ruthlessly supress all opposition in order to have a working government. Which, of course, is what the Iraqis have had for as long as anyone there can remember. Which in turn means that we have to support the diplomats (first ours, then the Iraqis) with the military, not the other way around.

If we do the opposite - if we give them "take it or leave it" ultimatums, and then follow them with overwhelming assaults that leave hundreds dead, then we will show them that the biggest warlord always wins. And they will prepare for that next warlord, who will arrive as soon as we leave to fill the violence vacuum we've left in our wake.

It will take some time - years at least - to prove to them that diplomats can be stronger than RPG's. And to prove it to them we have to live it.

> If people in the street take up arms against our troops, they need
> to be shot dead in their tracks.

Or we need to get out of that location and send in diplomats. Does that mean that sometimes US troops will die who didn't need to? Yes. The time to decide you were not OK with that was _before_ we invaded while claiming a mission of liberation. We are there now, and we have to do what it takes, even accept losses, in order to get a new goverment up and running.

> It is Iranian backed clerics like Sadr who stir
> up the masses of mostly uneducated Iraqi's who have got to go. We
> definitely don't want another Arafat in Iraq.

There will be Iraqi clerics who give us trouble too, and there will be a lot of them for a long time. From most polls, support for a continued US presence is waning, and there will be plenty of people willing to turn a blind eye to cleric-led militias. And to keep another Arafat, Khomeini or Hussein from taking power we have to support the new government militarily for a long time. Consider the fate of the Shah of Iran.

[vmsfreaky1 0]

I'd just blame the US rather than finger pointing at Bush.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I'm not advocating killing all who oppose us, just the ones trying to kill our troops.

Quote

OK, good to see you've gotten away from "kill all those who won't surrender."

Wrong. I'm not getting away from the context in which I made my original statement. You are confusing my comment on the current situation in Fallujah with my overall diplomatic views.


>We aren't trying to hold Iraq. We are trying to establish an Iraqi run
> govt. and then get out.

Quote

You can't do that without holding it. You have to put down rebellions that would topple the new government. You have to support their troops and police, which are currently as likely to desert or join the other side as they are to fight for a new government. And to do all that you need a massive presence in the country, one that will remain there as long as it takes.

Not going to debate the definition of "holding" you know very well what I meant.

>We aren't. We are exhausting every diplomatic solution first. Once
>we have exhausted this effort, the diplomats need to shut up and
>let our military do its job.

Quote

You've got that backwards, I'm afraid. What we are trying to do in Iraq is show that a diplomatic effort _can_ work - that a bunch of diplomats can run a country, and that you don't need an armed-to-the-teeth warlord to ruthlessly supress all opposition in order to have a working government.

Agreed, but first you have to gain control. The militants have proven they don't want a diplomatic solution.

Quote

Which, of course, is what the Iraqis have had for as long as anyone there can remember. Which in turn means that we have to support the diplomats (first ours, then the Iraqis) with the military, not the other way around.

It's not a question of showing we support the diplomats. It's a question of whether the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds etc will support them.

Quote

If we do the opposite - if we give them "take it or leave it" ultimatums, and then follow them with overwhelming assaults that leave hundreds dead, then we will show them that the biggest warlord always wins. And they will prepare for that next warlord, who will arrive as soon as we leave to fill the violence vacuum we've left in our wake.

I think you are showing some naivety about how Arabs precieve the world. Iraq is a 3rd world country with a 15th century mentalty. Their culture is based more on respect for power than diplomacy. There was a reason Saddam was so successful. They feared and respected him. If our military shows too much weakness by stumbling in the middle of the war, we will never succeed. We have to win the war first and then bring in the diplomats.

Quote

It will take some time - years at least - to prove to them that diplomats can be stronger than RPG's. And to prove it to them we have to live it.

Agreed, we just have to finish the fighting first.

> If people in the street take up arms against our troops, they need
> to be shot dead in their tracks.

Quote

Or we need to get out of that location and send in diplomats.

Oh, good. You going to volunteer? They will just kill the diplomats.

Quote

Does that mean that sometimes US troops will die who didn't need to? Yes. The time to decide you were not OK with that was _before_ we invaded while claiming a mission of liberation. We are there now, and we have to do what it takes, even accept losses, in order to get a new goverment up and running.

Yep. Win the war, disarm the insurgents and then send in the diplomats.

> It is Iranian backed clerics like Sadr who stir
> up the masses of mostly uneducated Iraqi's who have got to go. We
> definitely don't want another Arafat in Iraq.

Quote

There will be Iraqi clerics who give us trouble too, and there will be a lot of them for a long time. From most polls, support for a continued US presence is waning, and there will be plenty of people willing to turn a blind eye to cleric-led militias. And to keep another Arafat, Khomeini or Hussein from taking power we have to support the new government militarily for a long time. Consider the fate of the Shah of Iran.

Unfortunately, I am afraid this may be inevitable.

• Quote

[nigel99 144]

The problem with this mess is that the US & UK ignored the diplomatic solution when it was a real option (prior to the war) - I think a case of a stitch in time saves nine - it is alot harder now. Secondly the US specifically does not seem to understand that people could hate Saddam - but still prefer him to the US. I come from a backwoods African country with an evil dictator and I know for a fact that the population hate him - but do NOT want the UK to interfere they prefer Bob.

The final issue is that now that the coalition have interefered they are impossing a western democracy on the nation - and bitterly opposing a theocracy - regardless of what the nation wants - that does not create peace easily.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"There was a reason Saddam was so successful."

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'us' backing him in the mid eighties during his war with Iran. Mind you, 'we' also backed the other guys, as the Iran -Contra scandal showed..

Even when he gassed the Kurds, 'we' still supported him.
"A UN security council statement condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the war was issued in 1986, but the US and other western governments continued supporting Baghdad militarily and politically into the closing stages of the war."
source:-http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_iraq_timeline/html/chemical_warfare.stm


Och its all good, the newly (coalition) appointed administration are really getting things going over there.
They have a new flag.

Is it any wonder that the locals are reluctant to accept regime change imposed by the West?
'We' continue to support unpopular regimes, and even governments with a "15th century mentality" in this region. So I reckon the challenge might be to convince the Iraqi people that we really do have their best interests at heart. You can't do that without diplomacy, or while pointing a gun at them.
New flags help as well.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Kennedy 0]

So you blame the difference in sector violence on who is tasked with that sector? That is truly naive. Do you think if the brits were tasked with Fallujah, they'd be doing any better right now? Please.

You also completely mischaracterize the actions of the British forces. They are dealing with different kinds of insurgents.

Quote

As far as a solution goes, take a step back and learn from the way the British police and govern in Iraq.

Yeah, british police are so successful in their own country.

And why is it you are incapable of seeing the differences between US controlled areas and British areas? Is there a Sadr equivalent in the brit area?

Quote

The US Sappers had no knowledge of how to deal with culvert bombs and other IEDs. So what did they do? Ask the Brits who've been dealingf with a terrorist threat for over 35 years? No they went to old manuals on booby traps from Vietnam. Why reinvent the wheel?

Where are you getting this garbage? Have you forgotten that our last three wars were against irregulars using improvised everything, including explosives?

Also, you've had 35 years, and have accomplished basically squat in Northern Ireland. (don't tell you found peace, you've had that before; you're cycling, not improving) We were in Afghanistan for what, a year, and sent every terrorist in the region underground or to his maker.

We're not reinventing the wheel, we're using a more effective one.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Of course McNamara would disagree. Admitting it would put the blame squarely on his shoulders.

For the last time, a properly deployed and instructed force can over come guerrilla warfare.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

He was not joking, he was advising use of a tried and true tactic for ferretting out fighters from civilians.

I'm sorry you can't tell a joke from tactic of warfare.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I thought we won back in May when GWB made his victory speech on the carrier.

You thought wrong.

For those of us who couldn't understand, Dubya was declaring victory over Saddam's military. For those of us who listened to the entire speech or read the transcript, he also cautioned against assuming everything was over. Do try to pay attention.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 2,427]

>Wrong. I'm not getting away from the context in which I made my
>original statement. You are confusing my comment on the current
>situation in Fallujah with my overall diplomatic views.

OK, then I disagree that we should kill every man, woman and child in Fallujah who refuses to march into our camps, and I am glad for the sake of decency that no one who believes as you do is in charge.

>Agreed, but first you have to gain control. The militants have proven
>they don't want a diplomatic solution.

We will never have the sort of iron-fisted control you describe. There will always be people with guns who want to harm US soldiers, and often the solution will be to leave them alone. There are militias in the US who would harm US soldiers; we've seen what happens when we try to "take then out." Fortunately we don't try to do that any more.

>It's not a question of showing we support the diplomats. It's a
>question of whether the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds etc will support them.

No, we're in power now. Our support is what will start a government off successfully. Only if the Iraqis learn to support it in a similar manner will the government be successful.

>I think you are showing some naivety about how Arabs precieve the
> world. Iraq is a 3rd world country with a 15th century mentalty. Their
> culture is based more on respect for power than diplomacy.

If that's true, and they cannot learn that there is another way, then we might as well leave now. The result will be the same. If a Khomeini will be in charge in 20 years no matter what we do now, why not cut our losses?

>Agreed, we just have to finish the fighting first.

That's like saying "robbery is wrong, and as soon as I clean out the last bank I will stand firm on my principles."

>Oh, good. You going to volunteer? They will just kill the diplomats.

They will indeed kill some, and that's the price we (and the Iraqis) will pay. The time to decide you didn't want to pay that price was a year ago.

>Yep. Win the war, disarm the insurgents and then send in the diplomats.

We couldn't "win" the Korean or Vietnam wars. Israel has not won their 'war' against the Palestinians, in an environent very similar to the one we are figthing. We will never win to your standards i.e. disarming of everyone who would harm us. Again, if that's the objective, I'm for getting out now while we've only lost around a thousand troops. At least we won't lose ten thousand to a war we can't win.

We have no good options at this point, just options that don't suck as much as other options. The best option out there right now is to get as much help as we can (non-US help, from countries that they dislike less) to set up a new government, and support diplomatic efforts to stop the fighting as quickly as possible. Military support will be required for many years, but it should be to protect and support the new government, not to subjugate Iraq under US military rule. And that means if the new government says "get out of Fallujah and let us handle it" we have to listen to them. Even if it means not killing all the people we want to kill.

[kiltboy 0]

Quote

They have a new flag.

Its an Eddie Izzard sketch waiting to happen. "no flag, no country that's the rules"

David

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

For the last time, a properly deployed and instructed force can over come guerrilla warfare.

Really? Few example would be good.

1. American Revolution. We used guerilla war fare. Who lost? Please dont tell me the Brits were a second class army. Under your quote we should all have accents now and the Union Jack should be over DC.

2. Cuba. Who won and who lost? Again Guerialla warfare. If you disagree read some of Che's discussions on Guerilla war. BTW some of his work is used in some of our military schools here from what some tell me.

3. Russian Revolution. Not exactly guerilla war fare per se but still an uprising that did not use a conventional army, yet defeated the Czar.

4. Columbia. As hard as the Columbian gov and USA dump money, Billions, and use conventional means the FARC still controls a huge part of the country. FARC is a terrorist org and employ guerilla warfare, yet they have been strong since 1963.

Read what Mac, Westmoreland and Gen Gian said about Vietnam. Guerilla warfare does and will win over conventional means/army when the situation is ripe for it. History proves it.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Wrong. I'm not getting away from the context in which I made my
>original statement. You are confusing my comment on the current
>situation in Fallujah with my overall diplomatic views.

Quote

OK, then I disagree that we should kill every man, woman and child in Fallujah who refuses to march into our camps, and I am glad for the sake of decency that no one who believes as you do is in charge.

Quote

I'd be willing to accept surrender of unarmed civilians. I would not however stop once the decision had been made to go in, for the purposes of a truce. The militants have shown us too many times they only use this as a ruse to re-group.


>Agreed, but first you have to gain control. The militants have proven
>they don't want a diplomatic solution.

Quote

We will never have the sort of iron-fisted control you describe. There will always be people with guns who want to harm US soldiers, and often the solution will be to leave them alone.

I am glad you aren't in charge of our military strategy.

Quote

There are militias in the US who would harm US soldiers; we've seen what happens when we try to "take then out." Fortunately we don't try to do that any more.

We only leave them alone when they aren't breaking the law.


>It's not a question of showing we support the diplomats. It's a
>question of whether the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds etc will support them.

Quote

No, we're in power now. Our support is what will start a government off successfully. Only if the Iraqis learn to support it in a similar manner will the government be successful.

I disagree we are "in power" now. We do have control of much of the country, but to say we have control is naive. My argument is about what we need to do to gain power. I agree the Iraqi's need to support the govt. The problem is the militants aren't ever going to support it because most are uneducated and react emotionally to what the Imam's and other clerics fanaticism.


>I think you are showing some naivety about how Arabs precieve the
> world. Iraq is a 3rd world country with a 15th century mentalty. Their
> culture is based more on respect for power than diplomacy.

Quote

If that's true, and they cannot learn that there is another way, then we might as well leave now. The result will be the same. If a Khomeini will be in charge in 20 years no matter what we do now, why not cut our losses?

I'm not saying they cannot learn another way. Thats why we are there. I'm saying you must get their respect first. By constantly trying to negotiate with militants that only want to use cease fires to regroup, we will never accomplish our objective.


>Agreed, we just have to finish the fighting first.

Quote

That's like saying "robbery is wrong, and as soon as I clean out the last bank I will stand firm on my principles."

Nope, it's like saying "show us you want to negotiate first and then we will talk". I think the militants have shown a true disingenious attitude towards a cease fire and I believe ot is because they are backed by the Iranians, who want to have as much power in the new Iraqi govt as possible. I also believe many of the agitators are outsiders who do not want an democratic Iraq because it is a threat to their desire for a theocracy.


>Oh, good. You going to volunteer? They will just kill the diplomats.

Quote

They will indeed kill some, and that's the price we (and the Iraqis) will pay.

You going to be one of the "volunteers"? How can you argue against killing innocent Iraqis' and then be so cold hearted when it comes to diplomats?

Quote

The time to decide you didn't want to pay that price was a year ago.

Again, I agree. But, we are way past that.

>Yep. Win the war, disarm the insurgents and then send in the diplomats.

Quote

We couldn't "win" the Korean or Vietnam wars. Israel has not won their 'war' against the Palestinians, in an environent very similar to the one we are figthing. We will never win to your standards i.e. disarming of everyone who would harm us. Again, if that's the objective, I'm for getting out now while we've only lost around a thousand troops. At least we won't lose ten thousand to a war we can't win.

We were restrained in Vietnam and Korea because of fears or China and the USSR getting more involved than they already were. Israel has been restrained by the US because of our fears of an uprising throughout the Middle East.

Quote

We have no good options at this point, just options that don't suck as much as other options. The best option out there right now is to get as much help as we can (non-US help, from countries that they dislike less) to set up a new government, and support diplomatic efforts to stop the fighting as quickly as possible.

On this we agree, we just disagree on the best way to get there. I'm holding judgement on getting other countries involved until I see what is going to come out of the investigations into the UN Oil for Food scandal. I think this is going to have alot of impact on what happens in Iraq.

Quote

Military support will be required for many years, but it should be to protect and support the new government, not to subjugate Iraq under US military rule. And that means if the new government says "get out of Fallujah and let us handle it" we have to listen to them. Even if it means not killing all the people we want to kill.

If, at some point in the future this is the situation and we feel the Iraqis' can handle it, I'd agree.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[Skyrad 0]

'So you blame the difference in sector violence on who is tasked with that sector?'

No I think its the way the job is being done.

'They are dealing with different kinds of insurgents.'

In Britan we call this 'the wrong kind of leaves argument'

'Yeah, british police are so successful in their own country.'

Read agin and you will see I wasn't talking about the British police.

'Do you think if the brits were tasked with Fallujah, they'd be doing any better right now?'

Damn straight!

'Is there a Sadr equivalent in the brit area?'

Q.E.D (look it up)

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[billvon 2,427]

>I am glad you aren't in charge of our military strategy.

Well, they tried your strategy at Waco. Didn't work out too well.

>We only leave them alone when they aren't breaking the law.

There is no law. It's a war. People kill each other for (sometimes) no reason and it's perfectly acceptable. Unless you plan on prosecuting our troops for murder when they accidentally kill someone in a mosque, you can't really make any claim to "breaking laws."

>I'm not saying they cannot learn another way. Thats why we are
> there. I'm saying you must get their respect first. By constantly
> trying to negotiate with militants that only want to use cease fires to
> regroup, we will never accomplish our objective.

Just killing them all is worse. The lesson they will learn is that he who has the most guns, wins, and that democracy, freedom and diplomacy are just words to lure people into the killing field.

If we're going to talk the talk on democracy and diplomacy we have to walk the walk.

>Nope, it's like saying "show us you want to negotiate first and then
>we will talk".

So kill them first, then talk to them? Hmm. Sounds like there might be a hole in that plan.

Many negotiations will fail, and they will re-attack after regrouping, and we will lose troops. Some negotiations will succeed. It will be these successes that turn Iraq into a 'real' country capable of non-tyrannical self-rule. The price we will pay (and are paying) is dead and dismembered US soldiers. It's a heavy price, but a price we cannot weasel out of paying. At best we can get other countries to share in that burden until more negotiations succeed than fail, and a true government can emerge from the wreckage.

>You going to be one of the "volunteers"?

Nope! You were for the war. Did you fight there?

> How can you argue against
> killing innocent Iraqis' and then be so cold hearted when it comes to
> diplomats?

Because we caused this. We bear the responsibility to fix it.

And heck, we'd have to kill around ten thousand diplomats to match the number of innocent people we've (accidentally) killed. So we're still way ahead of the game.

>We were restrained in Vietnam and Korea because of fears or China
> and the USSR getting more involved than they already were. Israel
> has been restrained by the US because of our fears of an uprising
> throughout the Middle East.

Exactly! And while one thing that will restrain us in this case is our humanity (even good soldiers would have trouble exterminating the population of Fallujah as you suggested) another thing will be similar fears. If we are brutal enough that we lose support of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia it's all over.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I am glad you aren't in charge of our military strategy.

Well, they tried your strategy at Waco. Didn't work

Quote

out too well.

>We only leave them alone when they aren't breaking the law.

Quote

There is no law. It's a war. People kill each other for (sometimes) no reason and it's perfectly acceptable. Unless you plan on prosecuting our troops for murder when they accidentally kill someone in a mosque, you can't really make any claim to "breaking laws."

I was answering your statement about militia's in the US. This thread is way off track and there seems to be somewhat of a lack of focus on what context statements are being made so I'm done. Thanks for the banter.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[Kennedy 0]

OK, rephrasing

Today, a properly equipped, deployed, and instructed force can over come guerrilla warfare by foreign enemies.

Your examples were so incomparable it literally made me laugh.

American Revolution.
(A) British not trained or supplied.
(B) Americans used regular troops and battles, as well as guerrilla tactics
(C) It was 225 years ago; warfare has changed just slightly.

Russian Revolution.
(A) This was not guerrilla warfare by any stretch of the imagination.
(B) This was peasant fighters forming a rag tag army.
(C) The troops refused to fight against their own people; this has nothing to do with foreign enemies.

Need I go on?

Quote

Read what Mac, Westmoreland and Gen Gian said about Vietnam. Guerilla warfare does and will win over conventional means/army when the situation is ripe for it. History proves it.

I read it, and it doesn't say that at all. Maybe your revisionist history says that, but reality tells a different story.

(don't confuse innovative tactics with guerrilla warfare)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Casurf1978 0]

I'll give you the Russian Rev was not exactly guerilla warfare (I stated that), but still a peasant army won against a conventional army. Yes the Army turned. I'll give you that one.

Quote

Today, a properly equipped, deployed, and instructed force can over come guerrilla warfare by foreign enemies.

Afghanistan? Perfect example of guerilla warfare. Small groups using unconventional means against the Soviet Union. Yes we equiped them, yes we gave them SAMs, hell they were using 19th century muskets too. But who won. Wait let me look at my 'revisionist' history. Russia didn't lose they just walked away. Then again some might say the russians were poorly equiped and not properly trained. Dont think so.

Cuba. Happened 50+ years ago still who won. Che went on to start other 'revolutions' in south america, but didn't follow his own advice on guerilla warfare and ended up on a slab in Bolivia. Prime example of conventional army winning in Bolivia.

Before mocking the examples I gave you and saying they are "incomporable" read what Che and Mao say about guerilla warfare. I'll leave you with a small exert from Che:

"The guerrilla band is an armed nucleus, the fighting vanguard of the people. It draws its great force from the mass of the people themselves. The guerrilla band is not to be considered inferior to the army against which it fights simply because it is inferior in firepower. Guerrilla warfare is used by the side which is supported by a majority but which possesses a much smaller number of arms for use in defense against oppression."

Quote

(don't confuse innovative tactics with guerrilla warfare)

Then what is Guerilla warfare?

[damion75 0]

Quote

My Diplomatic Solution:

"You in there (Fallujahnese). This is the U.S. Military. Drop your weapons and come out with your hands up. You have 15 minutes to comply".

After that we allow any residents of the city to come out single file with hands up. They will be checked for weapons and allowed to stay in a temporary refuge camp.

"This is the U.S. Military, again. This is your last chance to come out with your hands up. If you fail to surrender we are coming in after you. Nobody will be left alive".

Dude, you scare me. Will your temporary refuge camp have small chambers to provide a 'final solution' too?

And people wonder how the Nazis found soldiers to do their ethnic cleansing for them. "That's not me" you cry "I'm not a bad person". Well you did just advocate slaughtering an entire city for the crime of not trusting the soldiers who have been firing at them for nearly a month...

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

Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that life is serious - look at the platypus.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

My Diplomatic Solution:

"You in there (Fallujahnese). This is the U.S. Military. Drop your weapons and come out with your hands up. You have 15 minutes to comply".

After that we allow any residents of the city to come out single file with hands up. They will be checked for weapons and allowed to stay in a temporary refuge camp.

"This is the U.S. Military, again. This is your last chance to come out with your hands up. If you fail to surrender we are coming in after you. Nobody will be left alive".

Dude, you scare me. Will your temporary refuge camp have small chambers to provide a 'final solution' too?

And people wonder how the Nazis found soldiers to do their ethnic cleansing for them. "That's not me" you cry "I'm not a bad person". Well you did just advocate slaughtering an entire city for the crime of not trusting the soldiers who have been firing at them for nearly a month...

Umm Dude you might want to confer with one of the moderators about what happens when you start interjecting nazi and/or Hitler into a conversation. I would also suggest you read the ensuing lenghthy discussion we had before you go getting too scared.