Holy ****! (Iraq) Helo shot down, up to 35 aboard, 20+ casualties

[Nubclear]

I personally can't stand Dubya, or Ashcroft, and ask LotM or others about my characterizations of Remmy, Wolfie, et al. But comparing them to the likes of Hitler, Bormann, Goring, Himmler, Goebbels, and lesser scum such as Heydrich and Kaltenbrunner is beyond absurd.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The trolling is getting a bit old, Ned and my brother died as a result of Agent Orange, so you can **** off now with the what I would have done in 'Nam commentary. If I'd been emperor, I never would have gotten involved in the war, from 1946 on, and certainly wouldn't have felt the need to kiss French shlong wrt their former empire and national ego to get them to go along with NATO and oppose the Russkies. So, you heard right, we never would have been there.

All you're doing is sugarcoating the fiasco of "Vietnamization" as excuse to say, "Gee, we invaded, but you haven't welcomed us with open arms and we can't hack it, so we're looking for an excuse to get the hell out while still being able to rationalize to ourselves we won even if we can't convince anyone else." Sorry, but your Commander in Chief said things would be a bit different. We don't have the option of watching our proxies lose two years after we pull out.

Your buddy Bush of the noble and glorious Republican party said the goal was to make Iraq a "model" and a "beacon of hope" for the ME. And what about all that talk about basing American troops in Iraq so we can exert leverage on Saudi, Iran, and Syria? What about all that talk?

Hard to make sure we get those contracts and get Iraq to play swing producer on oil prices if the new Iraqi government gets knocked over in a coup by former Baathists, or goes into a sectarian civil war. We're stuck with a mess, whether you like it or not.



And you're a good two to three years from that, depending on what you get for a representative government scheme, assassinations, and the diverging interests of different Iraqi interest groups.

MtG, I have said this before, but it seems to bear repeating. I, along with most Americans, originally supported the war in Vietnam because we believed that we would do what was necessary to win. When later it became clear that Johnson had no strategy that would lead to victory, but simply was killing as many Americans as possible without hope, I turned against it. I too would have been killed in Vietnam had I not been declared 4F when I was drafted. I am very sorry to hear about your brother.

In retrospect, I admit, I agree that we should never have gone beyond supporting the SV gov't. They had to win that war on their own. If they could not, so be it. Our mistake was getting our own troops involved. As time went on, the population began to perceive us as the enemy and we began to treat the population as the enemy as well. In the famous word of the song, I believe by Guthrie, "What were we fighting for."

The USSR, rather than learning from our mistake in Vietnam, repeated it in Afghanistan. They could have stayed out and merely supported the government against the Mujahadeen. But they chose to make it their own war against the people. They could not win and had their asses handed to them in terms of thousand dead with no hope of victory.

I am not in favor of pulling out of Iraq, but am in favor of letting the Iraqi's fight this war themselves. Our primary problem is the growing perception by the Sunni's that this is a fight for Sunni liberation from America. We can only enhance that perception by continuing to engage in the Sunni triangle. I base what I say here primarily on what happened to us in Vietnam and to the USSR in Afghanistan.

On Sunday's talk shows, Rumsfeld all but said that this was now America's strategy. He steadfastly resisted the call for more troops, saying that this not the answer. He wisely, in my opinion, even questioned our basic strategy on the war on terror saying that simply killing the terroris was not going to solve the problem because our problem was that our current strategy was only creating more terrorists.

As to the Democrat call for more international troops, well, even I support this. But, do the Democrats truly believe that France, Germany and Russia will send troops to the Sunni triangle to fight the Ba'athists? I think they do not. Otherwise they would be spending time in the capitals of Europe asking just that of the Europeans.

Kennedy, god rest him, knew that a victory in Vietnam critically depended upon support of its people. This is why he relunctantly agreed with the removal of Diem who was alienating the Buddists. What he would have done next had he lived was unknown. But at the time of his death he was aware that we were failing in Vietnam because we were not winning the critical war for the "heart and minds" of the people. I doubt that Kennedy would have conducted the war the way Johnson did.

Vietnamization was all about reversing the disasterous policy of the Johnson regime. Nixon turned the war back to the SV and pulled out. That is what we need to do in Iraq.

As to your assertion about maintaining large military forces in Iraq permanently, I have not heard that from Bush. What I have heard is that we will leave as soon as we can. I have heard nothing else. However, as I have said before, I am increasingly concerned by his statements that Iraq is now the frontline in the war on terrorism. This seems to indicate that Bush has no intention of withdrawing any time soon. Thus there appears to be a growing disconnect between Rumsfeld and Bush on strategy.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by NeOmega

You missed the "backyard" part of my statement I guess. Note we never invaded Japan, and Truman decided a nuke was a better option.

Also, the Japanese did not use suicide as a tactic throughout the war, nor were they ever stuck defending their homeland, nor did they have a common religion with the people in which America was occupying when they were in such an "occupational" defensive status. finally, "thousands" of Kamikaze planes were not used in the late stages of the war, way less than that.

WW II Japan is not a relevant comparison.

According to this site: http://www.paralumun.com/warkamikaze.htm

There were 2940 kamikaze sorties during the war. These were strategically directed sorties, but there were numerous instances of suicide attacks from the very beginning of the war at Pearl Harbor (where one of the wing commanders purposefully crashed his crippled aircraft into a hangar rather than parachute to be taken prisoner) to the very end of the war with the "attack" of the Yamato on the U.S. invasion fleet off of Okinawa, an attack where the Yamato was only given enough fuel to reach Okinawa, not enough for a return to port. Suicide was a military, spiritual and political weapon throughout the war, the massive kamikaze sorties at the end of the war were simply an increase in intensity and hierarchical control.

The Japanese were most certainly defending their home islands during the last year of the war, they were simply not defending them on the ground, yet. Certainly the U.S. would have gone on with their invasion if the nuclear bombing didn't yield a surrender, and IMO there is little doubt that they would have prevailed. Whether or not you accept this as a relevant comparison, it does suggest that suicidal vigor alone is no substitute for having the other means necessary for victory.

[Case]

Originally posted by Fez
The US and its respected coalition cannot pull out.

Respected? No-one respects the coelition - its a collection of American lap dogs (Australia, Spain, Italy, UK, etc) and countries supporting the US for purely mercenary reasons.

[MichaeltheGreat]

You've been Fezzed.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Part of my function is to make people long for Ming.

Keep up the good work!

Now people think of Ming as the epitomy of gentleness and reason.

I always thought Ming was fair.

"Asking" and "credibility" are also not issues here. I don't care whether anyone thinks I have "credibility" or not, and I don't "ask" unless I'm in the mood to offer someone an opportunity to chill themselves out. Think in terms of "Ordering" and "authority to enforce orders" and then you're on the right track.

It must be lonely at the top.

The UN hasn't claimed that the US occupation of Iraq is illegal.

It is, nevertheless. The US sought, and failed to obtain, the sanction of the UN Security Council for it's attack. When France (w. Germany, Russia and China) blocked it, they were the subject of a huge outpouring of invective by the Bushies. (Remember "freedom fries"? ) Why was this so important to them?

Because it is a prerequisite under the UN Charter for a "legal war." Because of the US's economic clout, no country is willing to press the point, so no case has been brought or decided. But Bush and his gang know that if the world political winds shift, they could be handed over to the Hague as war criminals. I hope one day they are.

However, absent a ruling by a competent international authority that the US action was illegal, I'll take the position that it was, in that the invasion was merely a continuation of a state of hostilities that never terminated, due to Iraqi noncompliance with numerous UNSCRS over the last 13 years, plus Iraqi noncompliance with the terms of the cease fire granted by coalition forces in February, 1991.

Sounds a bit convenient and arbitrary to me. I'm just saying.

None of this compares in the slightest with "lebensraum" and the wholesale campaign of conquest and annexation begun by the Nazis. If it did, do you think we'd really leave your gold, natural gas and hyrdoelectric resources alone, and that you wouldn't be up against a wall for your views?

I'm afraid the US already owns most of those things. If they didn't, do you think they'd treat us any different than their other neighboring countries: Guatamala, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia, Grenada, Chile, etc.......? Shall I go into the history?

Yawn, I'm sure this is going to be all the mythical evils of the PATRIOT act, which is (for those who've actually bothered to read the actual bill, and compare it's changes to the established legal history) pretty tame. Gee, warrants to tap phones now apply to the criminal suspect and the phones he/she uses, instead of to a phone number, and anyone who happens to use that phone. And they still require showing of probable cause and authorization by a judge or magistrate.

Too much detail to go into here. Have a look at this link for an analysis: http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/rep...DC&Content=159

So we're fighting them back, and for whatever reason, Bush decided that dealing with the ******* Hussein regime was an appropriate continuation of that. Big deal.

For whatever reason? Big deal? Do you not need a good reason to go to war and kill thousands of civilians, enemy soldiers, plus your own soldiers? C'mon, you've got to take your citizenship more seriously than that. Or else what are you fighting for?

More tinfoil hat stuff. How about some actual real evidence, not the "there's a water district out in the desert in California with a big fence and they wouldn't let us see what was inside" website nonsense. I'm sure some enterprising Russian satellite operators, not to mention anyone flying a private aircraft, could provide us with aerial photos, GPS or UTM coordinates, and other hard data, but nooooooooooo.... Reality is sooooo not fun.

It's Gitmo, silly.

The Nazis were never actively opposed by "millions" of Germans - they would never have had a chance to establish themselves. It also whitewashes the complicity of millions of ordinary Germans who had no real problem with things as long as they were personally benefitting and the costs were minimal and abstract.

According to William Shirer, 100,000 trade unionists marched against Hitler in Berlin the day before he was made Chancellor. In the April 1932 Presidential election the results were as follows: Hindenburg (conservative) 19,359,983 (53%), Hitler (Nazi) 13,418,547 (36.8%), Thaelmann (Communist) 3,706,759 (10.2%).

A few months later, he was made Chancellor by Hindenburg despite a sharp drop in Nazi support (they lost 2 million votes in the November 1932 elections). The reason? The conservatives and the industrialists and bankers were concerned with a growth in support for the left. Hitler was their last gamble to hold onto power.

Nor did he disappoint them. Less than one month after taking office, the Reichstag was set on fire, blamed on the Communists and despite a further election in which the Nazis recieved only 44% of the vote, the Reichstag voted to hand over it's constitutional powers to Hitler's government for 4 years. Shirer describes the move as "deceptively simple" and "having the advantage of cloaking the seizure of absolute power in legality."

The bottom line is that while they had a choice, a majority of Germans did NOT support the Nazi Party.

I personally can't stand Dubya, or Ashcroft, and ask LotM or others about my characterizations of Remmy, Wolfie, et al. But comparing them to the likes of Hitler, Bormann, Goring, Himmler, Goebbels, and lesser scum such as Heydrich and Kaltenbrunner is beyond absurd.

Glad to hear it. They're paler versions, I'll grant you. So far. But they have to be stopped. You can start by no longer supporting their war.

[Alexander's Horse]

You need to get some Australian troops in there. Put them in the toughest areas. They'll sort it out - no worries.

[Case]

...and given what Bush and Blair are going through, such a deployment would also sort out John Howard

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I personally can't stand Dubya, or Ashcroft, and ask LotM or others about my characterizations of Remmy, Wolfie, et al. .

Yup - mtg IS quite harsh on Rummy, Wolfie and Feith. He doesnt mention Rice and Cheney alot, perhaps because they are not directly in the way of the military people who he respects more.

I think MTG has a tendency which he shares with the left to lump Rummy and Wolfie together. Which i can understand, since Wolfie publicly supports Rummy and hasnt resigned or anything. (of course you could say the same for Powell vis a vis Bush, etc) My sense is that the Rummy-Cheney view is quite different from the Wolfie-Bolton neo con view, despite past shared affiliations in PNAC, etc. Wolfie I think is a more or less genuine hard line neo-wilsonian - he honestly thinks we can build a democracy in Iraq, and that we need to to win the WOT. Rummy and Cheney, I think, share the general conservative skepticm of nation-building and neo-wilsonianism in general. I have no proof, and i know that it was Wolfie, not Rummy who dressed down Shinseki in public on the number of occupation troops, but I the reluctance to use more troops seems more in line with Rummys goals (make the army lean and mean, make it more "usable") then Wolfies ("reinvent the Middle East") I suspect this leads to tension on a number of occupation related issues.

I would suggest reading an interview with Wolfie by Dave Ignatius of the WaPo. Sorry , i dont have the link handy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned



Vietnamization was all about reversing the disasterous policy of the Johnson regime. Nixon turned the war back to the SV and pulled out. That is what we need to do in Iraq.

.

In SV our pull out resulted in a communist takeover. This was not a disaster for us, because in the interval between 1965 and 1975

A. The would be "dominoes" Thailand, Indonesia, etc had largely stabilized - making the domino theory irrelevant.
B. The split between China and the USSR had come close to war (in 1969) and the Chinese were eager for a strategic alliance with the US. The Grand strategic environment had changed

Even so the loss of credibity was costly, just not as costly as the the loss of lives and money.

If we get out of Iraq today, it will likely end up either in civil war, in a baathist return, or in a radical Islamist state. Any of these would be a disaster for the US in the WOT - but the last of the 3 would be a very big disaster. OTOH, a democracy in Iraq would be a big success. (and yes despite the bombings, the Iraqis are moving along in discussing a method for selecting a constitutional convention - to be announced Dec 15)

Now if in say 2 years, Iraq is no better than it is now, and, OTOH, the strategic position of radical Islamism has changed as much as the position of Communism from 1965 to 1975, we can certainly just walk away. But we arent there yet. For now Iraq IS the front line, and Iraqization is not a contradiction of that, but a recognition that Iraqis can more effective than Americans in many respects in achieving security in their own country.

One distinction with SV - in SV there was very much a conventional war going with the NVA. It may not have been an air/armor war, but it was a war with battalion sized regular infantry units. Something where US troops were far superior to all but a few ARVN units. The main military activities in IRaq, OTOH, are not walking point in the jungle and having firefights - its going into houses and searching, detaining and interrogating, etc. Activities for which command of the language and local culture would seem to be important.

Second distinction. with the exception of some refugees from the North, most SV had never lived under a communist govt. MOst had lived under dictatorships supported by the US, and before that under the French. Is it any wonder that motivation was a problem?
In Iraq the population has lived 20 years under the Baathi. Most have lost people to the Baathi. In at least 75% of the country they are eager to destroy the Baathi, and get on with building their country afresh. Their skills may be lacking, but their motivation is not.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by techumseh

2. My comparison of the current US regime and that of Nazi Germany is based on 4 things:

-attacks on the civil and human rights of their own people

-

this is a repeated trope from the far left - ashcroft is Heydrich.


Mr, tecumseh, my great grandfather was murdered by the Nazis. My parents in law were in Auschwitz. 3 of my wifes 4 grandparents were murdered by the Nazis.

I can assure you, that all rather have dealt with the ashcroft Justice dept.

Gitmo is a detention camp for people caught on the battlefield. No children. No women, afaik. No one is killed there. No one has to back breaking labor. No prisoner has to do ANY labor, AFAIK. Harsh interrogation techniques perhaps, but then these are people who have been involved in terrorist orgs and have actually turned over terrorist plans under interrogation. These are not innocents, not vicitims of racial persecution. And their treatment, as far as i can tell, is something that my inlaws and their fellow inmates would have dreamed of receiving.

The comparison is not only wrong, it is vile, and - yes - trivializes the holocaust.

[HershOstropoler]

"No children."

Just minors.

"No one is killed there."

Just driven to suicide.

"but then these are people who have been involved in terrorist orgs"

As proven by whom? By Rumsie as cop, prosecutor, witness, judge, jury and henchman.

It's far from the holocaust, but your happy little trivialization is far off too.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Case


Respected? No-one respects the coelition - its a collection of American lap dogs (Australia, Spain, Italy, UK, etc) and countries supporting the US for purely mercenary reasons.

Idiot. What kind of drugs have you been smoking? You should become a comedian... up there with Michael Moore.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"No children."

Just minors.

"No one is killed there."

Just driven to suicide.

"but then these are people who have been involved in terrorist orgs"

As proven by whom? By Rumsie as cop, prosecutor, witness, judge, jury and henchman.

It's far from the holocaust, but your happy little trivialization is far off too.

Mionrs - what 17 year olds? Youre comparing this to people who murdered 4 year olds.

Driven to suicide - youre comparing this to being murdered? How many people commit suicide in european prisons? yet we're told that theres a huge moral difference between the US and europe cause we have the death penalty.

Proven - who proves that a POW is one? These men were caught on battlefields. Theyre illegal combatants, not POWS cause they are not part of a recognized army.

Do you really think theyre NOT members of AQ? You can argue for different procedures if you wish, but to compare them to my inlaws at Auschwitz IS a vile trivializations. BTW, nice to call my post a triviliazation. Interesting rhetorical trick. In line with lots of other stuff out there.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
""No one is killed there."

Just driven to suicide.

whats the suicide rate in gitmo? What the suicide rate in US prisons? In euro prisons? Among people with these demographics in their home countries? And odnt forget, these are individuals who have joined organizations that glorify suicide, that may have a proclivity for suicide.