The Iraq thread 3

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]People, people, let the kid post - play nice. He might learn something.

Well ,i rather had the impression that he got his arguments somewhere from a site called "100 arguments why We are the braves and France Taliban Allies". (sponsered by Enron)

Seriously ,how dumb he's arguments are ,they are clearly the same dumb argument's made a 1000 times by other US war supporters.

[denoir 0]

And he is representative for about 50% of the US population. If we want them to learn something we can't very well chase them away directly.

HOBOMAN has some very skewed perceptions of the war. The best thing we can do is to show him that his perceptions are wrong. Then he might learn something and tell his friends about it.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think we are missing a lot of history that went into Iraqs last two decades.  The great friendship of the US with Saddam is exactly what lead Iraq to a fragile state, upon which Iraq was now attacked and put into disorder.

By the time United States became a "friend" in the 80s, Iraq was a "fragile" state.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]...

Ran,

I think he talking about the 35 Roland missiles found at Baghdad International Airport last April. Also, Australians found some at a airfield.

[Apollo 0]

User Hoboman is full of patriotism and nationalism ,and probably think's , just like 98% o the poppulation ,that being patriot means supporting "the boys" when they are going to war.

Sure about now 50%-60% of American's are against this war NOW.But what difference does this make??

Before the Iraq war a solid percentage of Americans was against the war ,but when the war actually started the US poppulation stood Massivly in support for their president ,a staggering 98% of the poppulation supported the war at that point.Why did so many people changed their mind at that point?

Patriotism is a strong cultural fundament in the U.S it seems ,so much that it can be used at any point by any US president to rally a hughe percentage of people behind a certain cause.

It's a cultural mentallity that Not supporting "our boys" is almost morraly wrong.

Therefor my fear ,why we might convince a lot of Americans at this point about the nonsense of this war because of the situation on the ground.What can we Europeans do when an American president declares war on any country withough our support and uses patriotism to rally support for his cause resulting in a staggering percentage of support?

As i see it ,as long as America has such a strong Patriotitic and nationalistic culture it will always be easy to gather support for a new war ,however war weariness will rise very fast if the situation doesn't go as intented.

[bn880 5]

Quote[/b] ]I think we are missing a lot of history that went into Iraqs last two decades. The great friendship of the US with Saddam is exactly what lead Iraq to a fragile state, upon which Iraq was now attacked and put into disorder.

By the time United States became a "friend" in the 80s, Iraq was a "fragile" state.

Yeah well, there is/was more than one bully in the world, just give someone a chance. History is not kind on our(human) reputation .

[ran 0]

Quote[/b] ]...

Ran,

I think he talking about the 35 Roland missiles found at Baghdad International Airport last April. Also, Australians found some at a airfield.

So what ? Do you have any idea of the ammount of heavy weapons smuggled worldwide yearly ?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]So what ? Do you have any idea of the ammount of heavy weapons smuggled worldwide yearly ?

Do not beat me up....I just guessing what he/she is talking about..

[bn880 5]

But Ran is looking for a punching bag... I'm too old for that job, on the other hand you would be great hanging from his basement cealing.

[denoir 0]

User Hoboman is full of patriotism and nationalism ,and probably think's , just like 98% o the poppulation ,that being patriot means supporting "the boys" when they are going to war.

Sure about now 50%-60% of American's are against this war NOW.But what difference does this make??

Before the Iraq war a solid percentage of Americans was against the war ,but when the war actually started the US poppulation stood Massivly in support for their president ,a staggering 98% of the poppulation supported the war at that point.Why did so many people changed their mind at that point?

Patriotism is a strong cultural fundament in the U.S it seems ,so much that it can be used at any point by any US president to rally a hughe percentage of people behind a certain cause.

It's a cultural mentallity that Not supporting "our boys" is almost morraly wrong.

Therefor my fear ,why we might convince a lot of Americans at this point about the nonsense of this war because of the situation on the ground.What can we Europeans do when an American president declares war on any country withough our support and uses patriotism to rally support for his cause resulting in a staggering percentage of support?

As i see it ,as long as America has such a strong Patriotitic and nationalistic culture it will always be easy to gather support for a new war ,however war weariness will rise very fast if the situation doesn't go as intented.

I know and I know that you know that I agree with all that.

All that I'm saying is that yelling at them won't help. We'll just be dismissed as "Saddam-loving communist terrorist-supporting cowards from "old Europe" ".

We should maintain the standards that we claim to hold and provide a rational, calm and diplomatic front. European foreign policy is to find agreements on a diplomatic level and to lead by example. And I think that we as individuals should strive for the same principles. Fight back if you are attacked, but don't be the agressor.

In hoboman's case it is very simple. He has demonstrated that he has a very factually incorrect picture of Iraq. It's easy to show him the errors of his ways, without chasing him away from the thread. Would it be a waste of time to educate him? Probably, but I'm an optimist and if there is a chance to enlighten him, I think it's worth the time

[bn880 5]

Oh come on, that post will send any 14 year old flying off into defensive mode. Not to mention someone older.

[Apollo 0]

You know that i agree Denoir.

But sometimes i fear that if we don't shut up soon about all the thing's were right in that the American people will vote Bush the next upcomming ellections just to do differently than the Europeans want the Americans to vote.

What the average Joe smoe in American think's is not much of my bussiness ,but i see it as an interrests for most Europeans to not have GW Bush as the next American president ,he still can cause a lot of dammage if he gets the next 4 years.

But American's are just so erradice in their political oppinions that i still fear that GW Bush will win the next ellections.

[redliner47 0]

denoir, i want you to move to the US and start a rabid pro-Kerry campaign.

Everyone will vote Kerry when they know a Swede is backing him up

[ralphwiggum 6]

let's not go offtopic here. IKEA is as bad as it is.

[HOBOMAN 0]

And he is representative for about 50% of the US population. If we want them to learn something we can't very well chase them away directly.

HOBOMAN has some very skewed perceptions of the war. The best thing we can do is to show him that his perceptions are wrong. Then he might learn something and tell his friends about it.

Perceptions are wrong?

Now one's thoughts could be not educated, or not well informated, but your opinion can not be wrong. That's why we have politics. That's why debate on this very thread. As most of you pointed out, my age. I'm sorry this factor has played into my debate, but regardless of age, I still have the right to share my opinion. I understand most of you believe my perceptions are not well informed and uneducated because of my age. I myself would not listen to a person of my age if in your position. But all I ask of the world is to show a bit of respect for those in Iraq regarless of your views towards the politics of war and to recognize both sides of the political view. Regardless of age, orgin, or country, we should all atleast listen to each other even if we don't agree.

[denoir 0]

"Perception" refers to how you sense the actual situation. It's a big difference between perception and reality.

To illustrate: Your perception was that the UN can survive only because of US financing and that it has never rebuilt any governments.

That is a wrong perception which can be corrected by comparing it with the reality which is that the US is not the main financer of the UN - that it actually has a huge debt to the UN that it hasn't paid and that the UN has been involved in many successful rebuildings of governments.

Your opinon on the other hand may be that the UN sucks. It's a subjective statement which you of course are entitled to.

[HOBOMAN 0]

Sorry that I was exagerating to make my point that the UN has a diffcult time agreeing, therefore renders little power because of their feuds. Better?

[bucket man 2]

My thoughts of HOBOMAN were completely wrong. When I saw his posts first I thought "Oh great theres another guy who rambles on about saddamterroristfrenchlover".

To my pleasure I have noticed that he is not anywhere near that stupid and will actually keep things civil.

I personally am not at all bothered of your age as Im 15 years old myself. Whuuuss* There goes all the credibility I ever had.

[HOBOMAN 0]

My thoughts of HOBOMAN were completely wrong. When I saw his posts first I thought "Oh great theres another guy who rambles on about saddamterroristfrenchlover".

To my pleasure I have noticed that he is not anywhere near that stupid and will actually keep things civil.  

I personally am not at all bothered of your age as Im 15 years old myself. Whuuuss* There goes all the credibility I ever had.  

No problem

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Breaking News: Phillipines are withdrawing their troops from Iraq to save the life of a hostage.

Quote[/b] ]Philippinen ziehen Truppen aus dem Irak ab

Die Philippinen ziehen ihre Truppen aus Irak ab, um das Leben einer von Extremisten festgehaltenen Geisel zu retten. Gleichzeitig zu dem spektakulären Beschluss strahlte ein arabischer Fernsehsender Bilder des Entführten aus, auf denen er um Gnade bittet.

Am Samstag teilte die Regierung in Manila ihren überraschenden Beschluss mit. Bisher galt die Linie, dass man sich nicht von den Geiselnehmern erpressen lassen wolle. Das philippinische Soldaten-Kontingent umfasst rund 50 Soldaten und Polizisten, sein Mandat läuft am 20. August ab. Zu diesem Datum würden die Truppen endgültig abgezogen, erklärte ein Sprecher von Präsidentin Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Zuvor war eine Verlängerung des Mandats erwogen worden.

Neben den Soldaten und Polizisten sind nach offiziellen Angaben rund 4100 philippinische Zivilisten auf US-Stützpunkten tätig. Bei dem Entführten handelt es sich um einen Philippiner, der als Beschäftigter einer saudiarabischen Firma für die US-Streitkräfte in Irak arbeitet. Der Sender al-Jazeera zeigte am Samstag ein Video, auf dem der Mann seine Regierung bittet, die Soldaten aus Irak abzuziehen.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,308154,00.html

No English news report yet.

[EiZei 0]

Oh great, now they will start thinking that their tactics will work..

[Joku_ 0]

Quote[/b] ]I think that sums up some things even today.  

BTW: preventing "unwanted" governments in a foreign nation is or can be immoral in many ways, and should be agreed upon via an organization like UN.

And, 30K troops would have a very hard time stopping for example a communist regime from taking power, from bases in deserts.  Let me rephrase that: it looks like soon shit is going to fly even with ~140 troops there, and with 20K->30K you can only imagine how vastly out-numbered they would be.

I meant that they wouldn't even try to control Iraq, but to just bombard querillas and do some raids and try to make unwanted government's life extremely difficult. If they stay out of cities, they could guard southern oil fields and pipelines and some oil harbor. Guerilla attacks could be made more difficult by blocking roads from all civilian traffic near oil fields. Though this might require a bit more troops, maybe something like 40K->50K.

This style approach would be far cheaper and probably result in less casualties. If things would go well, it might even result in some profit from oil. Sure, that's immoral but so what?

Btw, I think that it would be fairly easy to defeat an insurgent city like Fallujah if you wouldn't have to care about civilian casualties:

1. Siege city and let no-one go in or out (not even red cross)

2. Bombard the city's civilian infrastructure, especially water purification plants and food storages

3. Wait until they surrender or die to starvation  

[mr_rOk 0]

Quote[/b] ]Btw, I think that it would be fairly easy to defeat an insurgent city like Fallujah if you wouldn't have to care about civilian casualties:

1. Siege city and let no-one go in or out (not even red cross)

2. Bombard the city's civilian infrastructure, especially water purification plants and food storages

3. Wait until they surrender or die to starvation  

hahahaha like Germans did to Sevastopol (and tried at Stalingrad) in WW2.

Your plan of guarding only oil related facilities would result in a "crime & terrorist haven" and would bring nothing but bad life for most Iraqis.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]1. Siege city and let no-one go in or out (not even red cross)

2. Bombard the city's civilian infrastructure, especially water purification plants and food storages

3. Wait until they surrender or die to starvation

Dude ,this aint no medieval times anymore.

But i guess youre joking ,not that mass bombardlments arn't done anymore these days ,but they inflict a lot of dissent especially in democratic nations.Russia for ex. wasn't really congratulated neither for Laying Grozny practicly to waste.

And why would they surrender? They can rather lay their arms down and dress them up as normal civilians again and let the insurgency stop for a few days until the Americans are gone again.They are insurgents using guerilla warfare ,they should be used as using civilian clothes as cover.

Quote[/b] ]I meant that they wouldn't even try to control Iraq, but to just bombard querillas and do some raids and try to make unwanted government's life extremely difficult. If they stay out of cities, they could guard southern oil fields and pipelines and some oil harbor. Guerilla attacks could be made more difficult by blocking roads from all civilian traffic near oil fields. Though this might require a bit more troops, maybe something like 40K->50K.

This style approach would be far cheaper and probably result in less casualties. If things would go well, it might even result in some profit from oil. Sure, that's immoral but so what?

This is probably how it eventually will come down to.Even at this moment the Americans control only patches of land wich are of strategic importance to them.

[HOBOMAN 0]

I believe if too many countries pull out of Iraq, that the coalition will lose support and might leave before the job is done. The international community can not let insurgency and terror convince them back down from the job and stop us from doing what is right to do. The coalition can't leave until Iraq is a sercure state fully functioning by themseves, if they leave now , the war would be pointless.

Btw Maybe we should pour boiling lime on the insurgents and fire flamming arrows at them