Ramping to Iran war [Archive]

02-09-2005, 03:59 PM

LOL

Dude... the US would get SOOOOOO fucked if it tried to invade/attack Iran.

Iraq was a JOKE.

Iran actually HAS an army, airforce, and a lot of the latest radars, long/medium range missles, and a whole lot of bad stuff you dont even wanna start messing with.

Not to mention that the US doesnt have benefit of "surprise". As a matter of fact, Iran has been "preparing" for invasion (from anyone, but especially USA) for the last 15 years or so.

Iran is mountains, trees, and the population is fiercly nationalistic. Yes, they mostly dont like the extremist governement and religious ways of doing things, but they would not tolerate an invader.

Remember, these people aint a-rabs. They're Persian.

Having said that, there are only a few ways this can work:

- USA (+allies?) make very very precise attacks that will destabilize Iran and allow "insurgents" to take over the current governement that will be pro-western (very very unlikely. as a matter of fact, not even in their wildest dreams)
- USA (+allies?) just destroy the things that bother them e.g. the reactors
- USA (+allies?) attempt inavasion for next 5 to 10 years and finally succeed only after killing a few million Irani and making the rest of the world poor, pissed off, and sad.
- USA (+allies?) attempt invasion and succeed

I've been to Iran many times. Unless US intelligence (hehe, funny) knows something more than what I do, the US shouldn't seriously consider invasion plans. Sure, fine, keep up the pressure and use strong words and play the diplomatic cards all you want.... but you do NOT want to get into this...

Hassan i Sabbah

02-09-2005, 04:04 PM

That's right. Iran is hardcore. Iraq had already had its military smashed. This would be insanity.

Unless Condoleeza Rice agreed to play bad cop in Europe this week, this is impossible. Or impossibly nuts.

e1618978

02-09-2005, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
That's right. Iran is hardcore. Iraq had already had its military smashed. This would be insanity.

Unless Condoleeza Rice agreed to play bad cop in Europe this week, this is impossible. Or impossibly nuts.

We also fought Iraq when its military was intact, in the first gulf war. Back then Iraq and Iran were evenly matched (didn't they fight a war to a stalemate or something?). Any extra toughness in Iran would have to have been built up since then.

The USA is pretty good at invading. Remember before the first Iraq war, everybody was predicting that they would kick US butt (3rd largest army in the world, etc)

BRussell

02-09-2005, 04:13 PM

There's no doubt in my mind that the US could take a few weeks and drop a bazillion of those satellite-guided million-dollar-each missiles and completely destroy Iran's military and communications capability. What, exactly, would happen after that, however, is something that our military planners aren't that keen on thinking about. Flowers in the street maybe? We certainly don't have any more troops to put on the ground. :no:

Anders

02-09-2005, 05:14 PM

Thinking about the history of Iran there is very few people to liberate.

The Iranians actually took their fate in their own hands 25 years ago and toppled an US installed government. They may not find what they have now ideal. But if anyone think they regard an US-decided future as better than what they have now you must be Rumsfeld.

Gene Clean

02-09-2005, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Anders
But if anyone think they regard an US-decided future as better than what they have now you must be Rumsfeld.

:lol:

Gene Clean

02-09-2005, 06:10 PM

Wrong Robot

02-09-2005, 06:21 PM

Oh goodie, more killing, just what the world needs.

pierr_alex

02-09-2005, 07:11 PM

Invasion, Exploitation, Just like the old days… This sounds like the 19th century, what "Old-Europe" used to do…

02-09-2005, 07:20 PM

its true, the US could drop a bazillion satellite guided bombs, cruise missles, etc...

theres just a slight problem with that

the US military is actually running very very thin on ammo.

Lets not mention way too thin on manpower.

For a war on Iran, the US would need years to re-stock before even thinking about it.

Or.. they would HAVE to have Europe, Russia, and any other "willing" (Don't forget Poland!) to pony up their weapons, troops, and ammo.

02-09-2005, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
We also fought Iraq when its military was intact, in the first gulf war. Back then Iraq and Iran were evenly matched (didn't they fight a war to a stalemate or something?). Any extra toughness in Iran would have to have been built up since then.

True, but just remember, Iran Iraq war was fought in a totally compeltly ass backwards war. Missles were haphazardly launched, troops were just sent wave after wave... essentially it was 20th century weapons with WW1 tactics.

Iran has had these last 15 years to wisen up. Reinforce, re-arm, re-everything.

Iran will "fold" into our concept of normality in a generation or two. I know many Iranians and, as said before, have been there various times. They are marvelous people. Its the idiots at th head of governemnt that are ruining it all for the rest of the population. Nonetheless, over the years, very very slowly, things are getting better. And to tell the truth, when I spoke english there they were HOPING I was American because they absolutely love it. Publicly, they have to decry and hate it, but hey, thats politics. I would say I was English btw. *sigh*

However, there IS the slight problem that no matter what, they (the governemnt) really really REALLY are hell-bent on the destruction of Israel... but then again... thats why the USA is so uptight about this whole situation in the first place now isnt it?

pierr_alex

02-09-2005, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
This sounds identical to the run up to the Iraq war - I wonder if the Europeans will be on board this time? If they vote against action, and then later Iran declares itself a nuclear nation, they will look like fools...
We were not on board in Iraq for two reasons:

- Everyone knew there were no WMD in this disarmed, embargoed country that was Iraq. Everyone knew there were no ties between SH(the laic) and OBL(the fundamentalist). The run up to the Iraq war was based on obviously false affirmation, organized after the successful regime change in Afghanistan (witch we participated to), Regime that was officially protecting OBL, self-declared author of the 911 events.

- To us, war should always be the last resort solution. (in short : Only when your attacked). "Preventive-Action" when you can't prove anything is not in our habits.

So now, Iran is a completely different problem...

hardeeharhar

02-09-2005, 07:51 PM

Lets just invade China and be done with it... I mean, we all know the US is just skirting around its desire to do so...

pierr_alex

02-09-2005, 08:03 PM

...or Russia : Puttin is not a democrat after all.
And it's an old problem that would be solved ;-)))

Aurora

02-09-2005, 09:28 PM

While nations stand around doing nothing, nuclear proliferation is about to occur right under Europe's nose. Is Europe stupid enough to let Iran get the weapon? I think they could be.History shows they learn little from their past. Iran needs the bomb for only 1 thing and its not energy.Its war. We need to be reducing nukes in the world not showing other nations how to make them. China,Russia and France and Germany just dont seem to get it.

e1618978

02-09-2005, 09:37 PM

History shows they learn little from their past.

I think that is a little harsh! The Europeans are forming a peaceful union, 60 years ago they were blowing each other up...

the cool gut

02-09-2005, 09:46 PM

I'm a little confused, what are the requirements for a country to be able to have nuclear capabilities? Is it only nations that are predominantly white?

e1618978

02-09-2005, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by the cool gut
I'm a little confused, what are the requirements for a country to be able to have nuclear capabilities? Is it only nations that are predominantly white?

The Nations with seperation of church and state. Like the US, China and Israel (for the most part). Religious people cannot be trusted.

the cool gut

02-09-2005, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
Religious people cannot be trusted.

Uhhhhh ... who in the fuck do you think are running THIS country then?

That can't be the reason, because whats the problem with North Korea then?

e1618978

02-09-2005, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by the cool gut
Uhhhhh ... who in the fuck do you think are running THIS country then?

That can't be the reason, because whats the problem with North Korea then?

North Korea is run by a lunatic, which is pretty much the same thing.

quagmire

02-09-2005, 10:20 PM

Go to Canada or any country get charged with treason. Join Air Force or navy to escape most of the casualty area. So little ways now to avoid the draft. :\
If the draft does start up again and I get drafted, I will happily go. I am serving my country. People may criticize Democrats for not fighting back when the Cole was bombed and the first WTC bombing, look were Republicans are taking us.

e1618978

02-09-2005, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by quagmire
Go to Canada or any country get charged with treason. Join Air Force or navy to escape most of the casualty area. So little ways now to avoid the draft. :\

Would they draft women as well as men this time? I have 3 daughters...:err:

quagmire

02-09-2005, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
What if you're serving your country for something bad?

yes, I would. If the draft was 15 and the draft came back now, I would happily go. Even though I don't support the Iraq war. By saying to avoid the draft by all means possible is really a self-fish attitude on your part. You care about your life more then about your country.

the cool gut

02-09-2005, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by quagmire
I would happily go. Even though I don't support the Iraq war. By saying to avoid the draft by all means possible is really a self-fish attitude on your part. You care about your life more then about your country.

Because some idiot in the White House overextended the military requiring a draft, you would blindly go?

Bush would have some fucking nerve forcing people into his rediculous wars, expecially considering his record. The draft isn't meant to sustain the U.S.'s policy of acting as the world's police force.

quagmire

02-09-2005, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by the cool gut
Because some idiot in the White House overextended the military requiring a draft, you would blindly go?

Bush would have some fucking nerve forcing people into his rediculous wars, expecially considering his record. The draft isn't meant to sustain the U.S.'s policy of acting as the world's police force.

I would not care if a dictator was a president. No mater how corrupt the war, I would still do my American duties. Serve my country anyway I can. If it means dying so be it.

midwinter

02-10-2005, 12:21 AM

midwinter

02-10-2005, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by quagmire
I would not care if a dictator was a president. No mater how corrupt the war, I would still do my American duties. Serve my country anyway I can. If it means dying so be it.

Terrifying. Utterly, utterly terrifying.

SpcMs

02-10-2005, 03:26 AM

slyinthedam

02-10-2005, 05:02 AM

Nightcrawler

02-10-2005, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
We also fought Iraq when its military was intact, in the first gulf war. Back then Iraq and Iran were evenly matched (didn't they fight a war to a stalemate or something?). Any extra toughness in Iran would have to have been built up since then.

The USA is pretty good at invading. Remember before the first Iraq war, everybody was predicting that they would kick US butt (3rd largest army in the world, etc)

But you do know that most of Iraq's armies didn't even fight at all as their general's were paid to not issue instructions to fight, don't you? The payings and negotiations were organized by the CIA.

Besides most of Iraq hated Saddam Hussein, and most of Iraq consists of Shiites that were opressed by Hussein. In Iraq it was a dictatorship that was invaded and dictatorships tend to collapse when a stronger might comes into the country, as under a dictatorship loyalty is always minimal.

Compare that to an Iran that had an anti-american nationalistic revolution and that succesfully kept Iraq in check during a war in which the US helped Iraq with weapons and ammunition and intelligence...

No, an invasion of Iran is no matter what Iran does with its nuclear programme impossible. I could imagine a few american or israeli rockets destroying a few facilities in Iran, but that's all. Iran would retaliate with rockets to Israel and US-bases in Iraq or US-ships, and Israel and US would have to hope that their anti-missile-systems are as successful as they propagate.

The other card Iran can play out is destabilising Iraq by invoking a Shia-insurgency...

so that even air-bombardments are not without risk.

Nightcrawler

02-10-2005, 05:16 AM

wow. brainwashing in the USA has really reached a new high, huh? (or is that 'low')?

I love the USA as much as the guy next to me, but that doesn't mean I don't think twice and possibly doubt what is being asked of me.

Maybe when you're older you'll learn to think for yourself.

groverat

02-10-2005, 06:54 AM

Stop talking about the draft and related loyal feelings and how you feel about either topic. Now. It's swerving back and forth across the personal attacks line.

quagmire

02-10-2005, 03:45 PM

Maybe dictator was a bit harsh on the example. I wouldn't fight for Bush or his lackies, I would defend the American citzens. That's how I see it. I don't care how corrupt the war is or the government. By saying I am brainwashed is uncalled for. I am not brainwashed, it is what I can do for my country. If it takes my life so be it. Sure, I hate the war. But, that won't make me want to be charged with treason. The thing I hate about war is that the government thinks lifes are expandable. :\

groverat

02-10-2005, 10:10 PM

I like how, after saying to stop derailing this thread into the draft, I get two posts about the draft.

It's like I write in some alien tongue.

midwinter

02-10-2005, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by groverat
I like how, after saying to stop derailing this thread into the draft, I get two posts about the draft.

It's like I write in some alien tongue.

OT: You really should change your nickname to "Gröverat." ;)

kneelbeforezod

02-11-2005, 03:48 PM

The current War Nerd column covers a lot of the ground discussed in this thread. Interesting stuff...

From http://exile.ru/2005-January-27/war_nerd.html

Everybody's asking me what'll happen if we attack Iran. To get a quick preview, just do what this guy in my eighth-grade class did: put a firecracker in your mouth, hold it between your front teeth, and light the fuse.

Your friends won't believe you'll go through with it. So when it blows up in your face, you'll expect them to be impressed. And you'll be surprised, just like this guy in junior high was surprised, when all you get is a perforated eardrum and a reputation as the biggest dumbass in the school.

...

Iran is scarier than Iraq in every way you can name. First of all, it's physically way bigger, three times the size of Iraq. The population is 65 million, nearly three times as many as Iraq. The Iranians are young, too. Their birthrate is way down now, around 2 kids per woman, but back in the Khomeini years it was one of the highest in the world. So right now, the Iranian population has a demographic profile that's a military planner's dream: not too many little kids to take care of, but a huge pool of fighting-age men -- about 18 million.

...

If we couldn't get people on our side after deposing a monster like Saddam, what chance do you think we have of winning hearts and minds in Iran? The kids in Iran are pissed off at the way the old Mullahs won't let 'em rock and roll, but the idea that they'll support an American invasion because they're bored is totally insane. It's like imagining that the kids in Footloose would've backed a Soviet invasion of Nebraska because John Lithgow wouldn't let them hold school dances.

Anders

02-12-2005, 06:53 AM

And its taking clues from me I see ;)

sammi jo

02-12-2005, 02:17 PM

Bombing Iran's nuclear facilities would not be an easy task. Their (nuclear) infrastructure is spread across many locations, covering much of the country, Intelligence would have to be orders of magnitude better than what it is now to successfully terminate Iran's WMD program by air strikes. Iran, fearing that Israel may help out, could launch a pre-emptive strike against Israel's own WMD facilities, by staging missile and/ or airstrikes on the Dimona nuclear bomb plants as well as their biological and chemical weapons facilities ...just like what Israel did to Iraq's Osirak nuclear powerplant in 1981.

It's not impossible that Iran may have a nuke (or several) already. In the mid 1990s, Pakistan tested an atomic bomb in response to a test by India a few days previously, and nobody in any of the US intelligence services had a clue they were that far on. This caused a huge rumpus at the CIA. If this is the case, and Iran was invaded, and the war started going really badly for them, it is not inconceivable that they may use one as a last resort.

sammi jo

02-12-2005, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
We also fought Iraq when its military was intact, in the first gulf war. Back then Iraq and Iran were evenly matched (didn't they fight a war to a stalemate or something?). Any extra toughness in Iran would have to have been built up since then.

Iraq's military in the Gulf War folded in the face of a huge international coalition of some 36 participating nations, with the combined air power, and over half a million troops. Iraq had no navy and their air force remained on the ground or scurried over to Iranian airfields where the planes were impounded. Much of Iraq's troop 'strength' were kids, young conscripts, poorly trained and under equipped, who deserted or surrendered, or were killed en masse. And...Iraq has lost hundreds of thousands of their more experienced troops in the Iran-Iraq war which had only finished 2 years previously. Iraq was in debt to some $50 billion (due to that war, as well as Kuwait deliberately driving down the price of oil in the region, meaning that Iraq could not afford to modernize, or replace military hardware.

The USA is pretty good at invading.

Well we've had enough practise at it, but we're not doing that well in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The warlords remain in control in Afghanistan, and the Iraqi insurgency grows in numbers and violence daily.

Remember before the first Iraq war, everybody was predicting that they would kick US butt (3rd largest army in the world, etc)

I recall Saddam Hussein and his dittoheads saying something like that, yes.

02-12-2005, 10:37 PM

i actually think USA did a fine job of INVADING Iraq, its just that it didnt think SERIOUSLY of the after invasion bit. Oops.

Afganistan wasnt an invasion. Afg is a land that is so complex you'd get an aneurism trying to figure it out. The US has pretty much killed off everyone, has given power to whom it might be, and the warring factions are all still there, except they've changed names or alliances. The USA and international community would fail if they were to even consider leaving in the next 10 to 15 years... yes... years. I actually wouldnt be surprised if somekind of UN or other forces would have to stay around there basically for the rest of eternity.

sammi jo

02-13-2005, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by ZO
i actually think USA did a fine job of INVADING Iraq, its just that it didnt think SERIOUSLY of the after invasion bit. Oops.

A fine job huh? What parameters define the 'quality' of an invasion? Perhaps bodycount is a measure: in 22 short months we have just killed an estimated 100,000+ innocent civilians, men women and kids...many by indiscriminate bombing of residential areas from 30,000 ft + (that's the death toll of 36 Sept.11ths...one 9-11 scale disaster every 3 weeks for nearly 2 years).

We destroyed much of their essential civilian infrastructure, in flagrant abuse of the Geneva Convention...thereby committing war crimes. We used napalm against the enemy...again in defiance of international agreements, and we systematically abused and tortured POWs. We wrecked much of that nation's priceless historical artifacts during the invasion, and showed virtually zero respect for their customs and traditions.

A fine job of an invasionhuh...It looks more like a classic case of old-fashioned rape, pillage and plunder. The US/UK invasion of Iraq was no better than a very largescale, big budget act of international terrorism. And the Bush camp has the gall to talk about freedom and liberty? Those tens of thousands whose souls have been 'liberated' from their bodies may understand that, at a pinch.

:(

e1618978

02-13-2005, 09:12 AM

The invasion didn't take 2 years, it took just a few days, so his point stands - it was skillfully invaded. After the invasion was when the problem started.

And how many people would have been killed had Saddam Hussein stayed in power?

e1618978

02-13-2005, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
How do you refute a point without ever responding to it, e-numbers-person?

The purpose of an invasion is to take over a country, which happend very quickly and skillfully - all the talk about collateral damage is besides the point.

midwinter

02-13-2005, 02:23 PM

e1618978

02-13-2005, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
Please define "take over."

How about "occupy to the point where you become a police force, rather than an invading army".

groverat

02-13-2005, 03:11 PM

That is pointless semantic quibbling.

Gilsch

02-13-2005, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
The purpose of an invasion is to take over a country, which happend very quickly and skillfully - all the talk about collateral damage is besides the point. Maybe I need to "update" or "downgrade" my definition of skillful or something because the invasion of Iraq with all the innocent killed and so much of its infrastructure needlessly destroyed in this day and age of lasers and "smart" bombs seems anything but skilled.

Especially when you consider how overwhelmed what was left of the Iraqi forces, were. Too much Fox News kool-aid in that analysis.

02-13-2005, 08:37 PM

militarily speaking: Iraq invasion was a an "A-"

the synergies between all branches was almost perfect. military objectives were executed and mostly accomplished.

Now then... we can skip to "Occupation". So far, from what I have seen and know its around a "D". We can only determine the final grade in time. But so far, crap.

SDW2001

02-13-2005, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
A fine job huh? What parameters define the 'quality' of an invasion? Perhaps bodycount is a measure: in 22 short months we have just killed an estimated 100,000+ innocent civilians, men women and kids...many by indiscriminate bombing of residential areas from 30,000 ft + (that's the death toll of 36 Sept.11ths...one 9-11 scale disaster every 3 weeks for nearly 2 years).

We destroyed much of their essential civilian infrastructure, in flagrant abuse of the Geneva Convention...thereby committing war crimes. We used napalm against the enemy...again in defiance of international agreements, and we systematically abused and tortured POWs. We wrecked much of that nation's priceless historical artifacts during the invasion, and showed virtually zero respect for their customs and traditions.

A fine job of an invasionhuh...It looks more like a classic case of old-fashioned rape, pillage and plunder. The US/UK invasion of Iraq was no better than a very largescale, big budget act of international terrorism. And the Bush camp has the gall to talk about freedom and liberty? Those tens of thousands whose souls have been 'liberated' from their bodies may understand that, at a pinch.

:(

Blame America!

midwinter

02-13-2005, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Blame America!

Someone else invaded Iraq?

SDW2001

02-13-2005, 09:57 PM

A couple of points:

Though I do not support invading Iran at this time (barring major developments), I have no doubt we would be able to defeat their military. Those expressing doubt over this simply have no idea of the military assets we have.

Our air and naval power is overwhelming to say the least. Any full scale war with Iran would probably involve at least 6 carrier battlegroups, 2000 combat aircraft and 1000 Tomahawk cruise missles. This is on top of perhaps 25 B-52 heavy bombers, 12-15 B-2 Stealth's and up to 50 B-1 bombers, etc. Should I go on? This also does not account of the support we would more than likely get from Great Britain and other nations. In other words, Iran would not stand a chance. Now, as BRussell said, what we do once we win is another matter....

Secondly, The US military is not "running short of ammo", particularly satellite guided bombs. It takes a period of time to replenish them after a conflict, but that from my understanding is done.

Just thought I'd throw those points out there....

02-14-2005, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Someone else invaded Iraq?

Hey, don't forget the Polish

:D :D :lol:

SDW2001

02-14-2005, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Blame America!

You've missed the point. First, Sammi Jo's figures have always been highly questionable Secondly, she states many outright falshoods:

sammi jo:

many by indiscriminate bombing of residential areas from 30,000 ft + (that's the death toll of 36 Sept.11ths...one 9-11 scale disaster every 3 weeks for nearly 2 years).

1. I disagree that we "indiscriminately bomb" anyone.
2. She is comparing accidental civilian deaths to 9/11?

We destroyed much of their essential civilian infrastructure, in flagrant abuse of the Geneva Convention...thereby committing war crimes.

That's wrong in so many ways. First, it's not a war crime to destroy civilian infastructure (which we avoided as much as possible this time around...unlike the Gulf War) if it's dual use. This would include bridges, command and control. communications, etc. Secondly, I'd like to see exactly WHAT we destroyed that she can account for.

We used napalm against the enemy...again in defiance of international agreements, and we systematically abused and tortured POWs.

Documentation for either? Systematic torture? Really? There is no evidence of that. There isn't even evidence of torture at all. There is evidence of abuse cases, which is not the same. Either way, there is no evidence showing us that it is systematic.

We wrecked much of that nation's priceless historical artifacts during the invasion, and showed virtually zero respect for their customs and traditions.

Too much CNN, I think. That story about the artifacts we "destroyed" or "allowed to be looted and destroyed" was proven false. The site(s) in questionn reagained a huge percentage of its aritifacts.

A fine job of an invasionhuh...It looks more like a classic case of old-fashioned rape, pillage and plunder.

Hmmm...rape, pillage and plunder? What exactly were we plundering? It seems to me that this war is going to end up costing $300 billion or more. Generally, don't nations seek to profit from plundering? Oh, and I forgot about all those cases throughout history where a nation inavded another, assisted it in setting up a democracy, provided humanitarian relief and said it would leave if asked to do so.

The US/UK invasion of Iraq was no better than a very largescale, big budget act of international terrorism. And the Bush camp has the gall to talk about freedom and liberty? Those tens of thousands whose souls have been 'liberated' from their bodies may understand that, at a pinch.

Well, it certainly is true that civialians have lost their lives. But we're talking about million of people who no longer live in a totalitarian state. We're also talking about two less governments that officially export terrorism proudly. Other than that point, sammi jo is just off the deep end once more.

SDW2001

02-14-2005, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
...and the people who'll suffer the brunt of our "supreme military force?"

That is a wholly separate point, and you know it. I was peaking strictly hypothetically about a military conflict.

Imagine if we thought this way 60 years ago at the height of WWII. Back then, we really DID bomb indiscrimately, because we had to. For example, in the bombing of Dresden, 35,000 people were killed. In today's times, we avoid civilan casualties at all costs.

But more than that, your comment is telling of the true liberal mindset. Someone makes a point about our military power, and you immediately turn to the human factor as a way to derail the debate. We weren't talking about the cost of life or suffering associated with war, which we all know is horrible. We were simply debating the military conflict itself.

Let me ask you, would your thinking changed if Iran attack an ally of ours in the region? Then we might HAVE to go to war.

groverat

02-14-2005, 09:03 AM

How, in good conscience, can you call the deaths resulting from planned attacks on civilian areas "accidental"?

SDW2001

02-14-2005, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by groverat
How, in good conscience, can you call the deaths resulting from planned attacks on civilian areas "accidental"?

I'm disappointed with that comment. It's oddly semantic of you. Yes, the US has targeted "civilian areas", but only when there is a military purpose. For example, we might bomb a house that has a terrorist in it. And yes, sometimes bystanders are killed. But, we do not "target innocent civilians." That is what true terrorists do. They target people going about their daily lives for the purpose of effecting change.

02-14-2005, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001
A couple of points:
....
Our air and naval power is overwhelming to say the least. Any full scale war with Iran would probably involve at least 6 carrier battlegroups, 2000 combat aircraft and 1000 Tomahawk cruise missles. This is on top of perhaps 25 B-52 heavy bombers, 12-15 B-2 Stealth's and up to 50 B-1 bombers, etc. Should I go on? This also does not account of the support we would more than likely get from Great Britain and other nations. In other words, Iran would not stand a chance. Now, as BRussell said, what we do once we win is another matter....

Secondly, The US military is not "running short of ammo", particularly satellite guided bombs. It takes a period of time to replenish them after a conflict, but that from my understanding is done.

Just thought I'd throw those points out there....

Thats all and true. But would the US military actually thin out all the Carrier groups and allocate all that air power to Iran? You still gotta keep a lot of other places in check. Korea, Taiwan, and other "regular" places.

Also, I dont doubt that the US can bomb Iran to kingdom come... but then you're just saying "bomb everything" and let it go? Or what? If the international/US want to control the situation they need ground troops. These resources are just way too thin now.

Only bombing is a possibility... and even then... it require just about everything the US, and allies, can muster up. This would leave said alliance very very dangerously low on reserves if any and that is a big BIG no-no to any military. Never leave your pants down.

Nontheless, Iran has probably learned from mistakes of Iraq and others and has redundancy sites, fake sites, and generally hardened sites. Its not impossible, but it woul require for way too many planes to be over Iranian airspace, and therefore an extremely high probability of ally/US aircrews getting shot down and captured, etc.

Then god know where it would go from there...

BRussell

02-14-2005, 11:02 AM

Here's an aerial photo of Iran's nucular plant from this CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/09/kay.iran/index.html) about Iran.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/meast/02/09/kay.iran/story.suspected.site.iran.2.jpg

Here's an aerial photo of North Korea's nucular plant from this CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/12/nkorea.nukes.ap/index.html) about NK.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/12/nkorea.nukes.ap/story.suspected.site.iran.jpg

Looks like someone is getting their axes of evil mixed up. But hey, you seen one nucular plant, you seen 'em all. (From a story at Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_02_13_atrios_archive.html#110839496315404194) ).

groverat

02-14-2005, 11:11 AM

:lol:

SDW2001

02-14-2005, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
Here's an aerial photo of Iran's nucular plant from this CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/09/kay.iran/index.html) about Iran.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/meast/02/09/kay.iran/story.suspected.site.iran.2.jpg

Here's an aerial photo of North Korea's nucular plant from this CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/12/nkorea.nukes.ap/index.html) about NK.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/02/12/nkorea.nukes.ap/story.suspected.site.iran.jpg

Looks like someone is getting their axes of evil mixed up. But hey, you seen one nucular plant, you seen 'em all. (From a story at Atrios (http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_02_13_atrios_archive.html#110839496315404194) ).

What would you expect from CNN?

midwinter

02-14-2005, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by BRussell

My god. That's why I hate the news.

Yevgeny

02-14-2005, 12:18 PM

Wow, there seems to be quite a few misconceptions in theis thread wrt Iran, so I will try to clear them up:

First of all, the US of A's navy alone could completely destroy Iran if it works in conjunction with some special forces on the ground to do spotting. Did you guys already forget Afganistan? To be honest, the Taliban were harder fighters than the Iranian army.

Secondly, there are plenty of bombs and plenty of ammo. We've had two years to prelenish our stocks, and we had enough bombs to bomb Iraq, North Korea, and China if it invaded Taiwan.

Thridly, there aren't enough troops to hold Iran. We'd have to call up the whole reserve and this is highly unlikely. I seriously doubt that there will ever be a ground war in Iran.

Foruthly, there will be no draft. The only people stupid enough to belive this are people who hate W with all their might and resort to irrational scare tatics to try to convince other people to hate him. The armed forces are completely based on coluntary service. Conscripts make lousy troops and turn the nation against a conflict.

Fifthly, most of the Iranian yourh like America more than their own govenment and probably would not want to die in human wave attacks. Please refresh what you think about Iranian youth- you are wrong (http://www.payvand.com/news/04/mar/1017.html) Iranian youth like America specifically because the government and hardliners hate America, and by liking America, you can stick it to the man.

Sixthly, if you hadn't figured it out yet, Europe and the US are playing good cop/bad cop. Sorry to give away the surprise, but this is what is going on.

Seventh, if Iran doesn't take steps to make their nuclear program acceptable to the rest of the world, they will wind up before the security council at which point in time, China will probably block sanctions so that they can obtain Iranian oil.

Eighth, no, Iran does not need nuclear power, but nuclear power/nucelar weapons are viewed as an issue of national pride. They won't want to give them up and this issue unites the youth with the hardliners.

Ninth, Iran isn't much of a democracy as the unappointed Islamic Guardian Council can remove candidates from the ballots, close newspapers, etc. Iran's elected leadership has a constituency of about 15%.

Tenth, Iran is a state sponsor of terror. Would they give a bomb to Hezzbolah? I hope they aren't that dumb.

Ok, so rather than just point all this out, I will also attempt IMHO to say what we should do.

We shoud apply diplomatic pressure, the carrot of trade and the stick of economic isolation to make sure that Iran's nuclear program doesn't make weapons. Key to this is Iran not controlling the nuclear fuel cycle, meaning that they don't get to refine their own fuel and they should not keep their nuclear waste (as lots of bomb ready goodies are found in used fuel). Europe should give them fuel for free (it really doesn't cost that much) and Europe could give them a several year stockpile so that Iran knows that they won't have a cold winter next year.

All this is to buy time because Iran is facing a real problem- in twenty years the hardliners will comprise only about 10% of the population. Apathy in the government is already high and eventually the government will have to acknowledge that things aren't working out. Iran's hardliners aren't willing to become an Iraq style dictatorship. We can wait them out.

In the meantime, America and Europe will do the right thing that they are already doing under everyone's noses: playing to the Iranian public's love of America and desire to be free. Did anyone other than me realize why Bush said that America was with the people in Iran who want freedom in the state of the union address?

SDW2001

02-14-2005, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by ZO
Thats all and true. But would the US military actually thin out all the Carrier groups and allocate all that air power to Iran? You still gotta keep a lot of other places in check. Korea, Taiwan, and other "regular" places.

Also, I dont doubt that the US can bomb Iran to kingdom come... but then you're just saying "bomb everything" and let it go? Or what? If the international/US want to control the situation they need ground troops. These resources are just way too thin now.

Only bombing is a possibility... and even then... it require just about everything the US, and allies, can muster up. This would leave said alliance very very dangerously low on reserves if any and that is a big BIG no-no to any military. Never leave your pants down.

Nontheless, Iran has probably learned from mistakes of Iraq and others and has redundancy sites, fake sites, and generally hardened sites. Its not impossible, but it woul require for way too many planes to be over Iranian airspace, and therefore an extremely high probability of ally/US aircrews getting shot down and captured, etc.

Then god know where it would go from there...

You're not listening...or rather reading.

I am NOT speculating on what we'd do to hold territory. Not at all. That would be a serious problem with our active duty and reserve troop levels (at least right now). I am merely speculating on actualy combat with Iran.

As for "being caught with our pants down", that is not likely. If North Korea invades the South, the 37,000 military personnel in the area will be overrun quickly by the probably 1,000,000 North Korean troops that are sent. Should this happen, it will be the US technological advantage that wins the day. We will divert much our remaining airpower to the region, which can be done in less than 24 hours.

The air force alone has 2,000 aircraft or so including reserves. This does not account for another 1,000 aircraft that the Navy and Marines have. We would also send a few more carrier battlegroups (I believe we have twelve active), which include the aformentioned Tomahawk missiles and conventional and nuclear warheads launched by Submarine.

Furthermore, the US would certainly not be going it alone. Add to this the reserve air power of the Brits, French, Germans and perhaps even Russians, and NK will not stand a chance. And if Kim is so insane and stupid as to use one of his coveted nuclear toys, then despite the horror I think most of us can predict that the US would not hesitate to respond with a force 1000 times greater.

Again, I'm not talking about the horror war here. I am simply saying that the US can fight two wars at once, and win them both.

Yevgeny

02-14-2005, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
You're not listening...or rather reading.

As for "being caught with out pants down", that is not likely. If North Korea invades the South, the 37,000 military personnel in the area will be overrun quickly by the probably 1,000,000 North Korean troops that are sent. Should this happen, it will be the US technological advantage that wins the day. We will divert much our remaining airpower to the region, which can be done in less than 24 hours.

The air force alone has 2,000 aircraft or so including reserves. This does not account for another 1,000 aircraft that the Navy and Marines have. We would also send a few more carrier battlegroups (I believe we have twelve active), which include the aformentioned Tomahawk missiles and conventional and nuclear warheads launched by Submarine.

Furthermore, the US would certainly not be going it alone. Add to this the reserve air power of the Brits, French, Germans and perhaps even Russians, and NK will not stand a chance. And if Kim is so insane and stupid as to use one of his coveted nuclear toys, then despite the horror I think most of us can predict that the US would not hesitate to respond with a force 1000 times greater.

Again, I'm not talking about the horror war here. I am simply saying that the US can fight two wars at once, and win them both.

Also, don't forget the fact that the South Koreans do have a rather large and well equipped army that probably wouldn't just let the DPRK in for some tea and kimchee.

Hopefully it won't come to that :|

SDW2001

02-14-2005, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by ShawnJ
The Horror. The Horror. :lol:

You're being ridiculous now.

groverat

02-14-2005, 01:40 PM

I'm disappointed with that comment.

One would think a thinking person would be more disappointed with a system that dismisses the slaughter of innocents.

It's oddly semantic of you. Yes, the US has targeted "civilian areas", but only when there is a military purpose. For example, we might bomb a house that has a terrorist in it. And yes, sometimes bystanders are killed. But, we do not "target innocent civilians." That is what true terrorists do. They target people going about their daily lives for the purpose of effecting change.

The only semantic game being played here is trying to deny responsibility for the murder of thousands of innocents with "a terrorist was in there".

Here's a question you won't answer:
Do you think God accepts "oops" as a response when He asks "Why did you kill this innocent person?"?

SDW2001

02-14-2005, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by groverat
One would think a thinking person would be more disappointed with a system that dismisses the slaughter of innocents.

The only semantic game being played here is trying to deny responsibility for the murder of thousands of innocents with "a terrorist was in there".

Here's a question you won't answer:
Do you think God accepts "oops" as a response when He asks "Why did you kill this innocent person?"?

Well, yes I think he does. You cannot equate US actions with terrorist actions. If you do, I cease taking you seriously.

jimmac

02-14-2005, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
You're not listening...or rather reading.

I am NOT speculating on what we'd do to hold territory. Not at all. That would be a serious problem with our active duty and reserve troop levels (at least right now). I am merely speculating on actualy combat with Iran.

As for "being caught with our pants down", that is not likely. If North Korea invades the South, the 37,000 military personnel in the area will be overrun quickly by the probably 1,000,000 North Korean troops that are sent. Should this happen, it will be the US technological advantage that wins the day. We will divert much our remaining airpower to the region, which can be done in less than 24 hours.

The air force alone has 2,000 aircraft or so including reserves. This does not account for another 1,000 aircraft that the Navy and Marines have. We would also send a few more carrier battlegroups (I believe we have twelve active), which include the aformentioned Tomahawk missiles and conventional and nuclear warheads launched by Submarine.

Furthermore, the US would certainly not be going it alone. Add to this the reserve air power of the Brits, French, Germans and perhaps even Russians, and NK will not stand a chance. And if Kim is so insane and stupid as to use one of his coveted nuclear toys, then despite the horror I think most of us can predict that the US would not hesitate to respond with a force 1000 times greater.

Again, I'm not talking about the horror war here. I am simply saying that the US can fight two wars at once, and win them both.

SDW........

Are you at it again? We couldn't attack N. Korea without serious consequences. You do know they have missles that can reach our shores for real! What do you think the other countries of the world would think if we responded a 1000 times greater? When will you learn we aren't the world's policeman. Also this is an expensive business. We've already bogged ourselves down in one country so your suggesting we try to throw our weight around again? Your right. Attacking Iran would probably be sucessful but at what cost? You're suggesting that the U.S. advocate using nuclear weapons? Something we haven't done for over 60 years with good reason. That's just NUTS with a capitol N! You've lost your grip on reality this time.:no:

groverat

02-14-2005, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, yes I think he does.

Interesting. So does everyone get this same protection?

You cannot equate US actions with terrorist actions. If you do, I cease taking you seriously.

Read: I don't want to talk about the US's actions as anything but 100% moral and just. And if you don't think that is true you love terrorists.

It is not a matter of comparison to other people, it is a matter at objectively looking at the facts. We were lied to and manipulated. As a result, a war was started based on lies that has cost tens of thousands of innocent lives.

How can this be anything but a moral abomination?

Gilsch

02-14-2005, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, yes I think he does. You cannot equate US actions with terrorist actions.

Shame on you Groverat. You should know by now that the "Almighty" has a direct line to the oval office and our "leader" is just following orders.

If you do, I cease taking you seriously. Just like most of us did with you a year or so ago? :D

sammi jo

02-15-2005, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Well, yes I think he does. You cannot equate US actions with terrorist actions. If you do, I cease taking you seriously.

Bury your head in the sand again! A quick search will reveal an endless list of actions, by the US and by proxy, which can only be described as terrorist in nature, for example numerous bombings and massacres throughout central America in the 1980s, funded by our taxpayer$$. Even one close friend of Bush Sr. Orlando Bosch got in on the act, bombing a Cuban airliner killing all 73 passengers and crew. The WHISC facility at Ft. Benning has been called a 'university of terrorism', for having trained dozens of some of the worst notorious central American terrorists. Perhaps you don't remember the Saddam-like thug regimes of Galtieri's Pinochet's Chile and Galtieri's Argentina...closely allied to the Nixon and Reagan admins respectively, and funded by the CIA and Pentagon in some of the worst state sponsored terrorism of the latter 20th century. Read about some of the incidents going on in Colombia... http://www.narconews.com/Issue35/article1153.html
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/colombia/2002/tomPaine031502.html FARC is not the only terrorist group operating there....the Bush administration, together with the rogue government of Uribe has the blood of thousands on its hands.

Sometimes, acts of planned terrorism get thwarted at the highest levels, for example the Pentagon's Operation Northwoods, nixed by JFK.
http://www.attackonamerica.net/operationnorthwoods.htm

Even the recent bombing in Beirut *might* be a suspect: This take http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8060.htm
looks a little more plausible than the standard drivel served up in our national media.

Anyone who ignores, or makes excuses for such conduct by US agencies is essentially guilty of siding with terrorists. And while we are at it, here's a question: which country funds (and has funded) the notorious Provisional IRA terrorists group which for some 30 years has caused the deaths of 2500+ civilians in the Uk mainland and Europe?

There's the tip of the ugly iceberg, SDW. Wakey wakey. The coffee sometimes tastes bitter.

SDW2001

02-15-2005, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by jimmac
SDW........

Are you at it again? We couldn't attack N. Korea without serious consequences. You do know they have missles that can reach our shores for real! What do you think the other countries of the world would think if we responded a 1000 times greater? When will you learn we aren't the world's policeman. Also this is an expensive business. We've already bogged ourselves down in one country so your suggesting we try to throw our weight around again? Your right. Attacking Iran would probably be sucessful but at what cost? You're suggesting that the U.S. advocate using nuclear weapons? Something we haven't done for over 60 years with good reason. That's just NUTS with a capitol N! You've lost your grip on reality this time.:no:

Lost my grip? That's interesting, given your hyperventilating post above.

I am not "advocating" anything. I am talking about 1) What happens if we DID go to war with Iran and 2) What happens if we DID go to war with North Korea. I am not saying we should or that we will. You, my friend, need to regain your "grip".

As for our response to a North Korean attack, you have again missed the point. If North Korea attacks someone with conventional weapons, we will respond in kind. However, if Kim jong uses a nuclear weapon, are you telling me that we shouldn't respond with one or several? You have to be kidding. The only path to peace in the region is if Kim Jong knows we will anhilate him if he attacks our allies, or the US itself with a nuclear weapon. If we are not willing to do that, then as Reagan once said "therein lies the road to war". It's not mutal assured destruction, it's North Korea's assured destruction. It's the old adage Peace through Strength...and it works.

As for being the world's policeman, that is another debate (and one I will be happy to have with you). For now, I am talking about a direct attack on the US or its allies.

SDW2001

02-15-2005, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by groverat
Interesting. So does everyone get this same protection?

Read: I don't want to talk about the US's actions as anything but 100% moral and just. And if you don't think that is true you love terrorists.

It is not a matter of comparison to other people, it is a matter at objectively looking at the facts. We were lied to and manipulated. As a result, a war was started based on lies that has cost tens of thousands of innocent lives.

How can this be anything but a moral abomination?

You mean the protection of accidentally killing civilians, and having that killing looked at in a different moral light? Then yes, I would say so.

As for your interpretation of my comments, I am further disappointed. I never said I think the US is 100% moral or that it never has done anything wrong. It's really a disingenuous straw man tactic you're employing there, whcih is really not like you.

I'm not going to be lured back into the Bush Lied debate. We've done that to death, and you know where I stand.

All that said, I again will state that you cannot compare US actions to terrorism. To do so is irresonsible in the extreme. The US does not delibrately target incconet civilans for the purpose of political change, and you know it.

SDW2001

02-15-2005, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by sammi jo
Bury your head in the sand again! A quick search will reveal an endless list of actions, by the US and by proxy, which can only be described as terrorist in nature, for example numerous bombings and massacres throughout central America in the 1980s, funded by our taxpayer$$. Even one close friend of Bush Sr. Orlando Bosch got in on the act, bombing a Cuban airliner killing all 73 passengers and crew. The WHISC facility at Ft. Benning has been called a 'university of terrorism', for having trained dozens of some of the worst notorious central American terrorists. Perhaps you don't remember the Saddam-like thug regimes of Galtieri's Pinochet's Chile and Galtieri's Argentina...closely allied to the Nixon and Reagan admins respectively, and funded by the CIA and Pentagon in some of the worst state sponsored terrorism of the latter 20th century. Read about some of the incidents going on in Colombia... http://www.narconews.com/Issue35/article1153.html
http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/colombia/2002/tomPaine031502.html FARC is not the only terrorist group operating there....the Bush administration, together with the rogue government of Uribe has the blood of thousands on its hands.

Sometimes, acts of planned terrorism get thwarted at the highest levels, for example the Pentagon's Operation Northwoods, nixed by JFK.
http://www.attackonamerica.net/operationnorthwoods.htm

Even the recent bombing in Beirut *might* be a suspect: This take http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8060.htm
looks a little more plausible than the standard drivel served up in our national media.

Anyone who ignores, or makes excuses for such conduct by US agencies is essentially guilty of siding with terrorists. And while we are at it, here's a question: which country funds (and has funded) the notorious Provisional IRA terrorists group which for some 30 years has caused the deaths of 2500+ civilians in the Uk mainland and Europe?

There's the tip of the ugly iceberg, SDW. Wakey wakey. The coffee sometimes tastes bitter.

Conspiracy theories, unsupported claims, inflated casualty numbers....it all points to a Samantha Joan Conspiracy post.

The US has supported people and governments it should not have. The US has not intervened when it should have. The US has done all sorts of despicable things. I agree with all of that. But do we target innocent civilians as a matter of policy? No.

You are perhaps the finest example of the morally decaying traitorous Left that I have ever encountered. When someone can no longer see the inherent moral difference between the US and the regimes of murderous dictators and ideological nutjob terrorists who are dedicated to our destruction, the debate ends automatically. Go ahead and keep spewing your anti-American hate speech all you want. I'm done listening.

groverat

02-15-2005, 11:30 AM

You mean the protection of accidentally killing civilians, and having that killing looked at in a different moral light? Then yes, I would say so.

Knowing that you are going to kill someone when you do something and then doing it anyway does not make those killings accidental. We did not kill them accidentally, we knowingly killed them. We kill them on purpose. Was our main goal to kill civilians? Probably not in all cases, but to write it off as an "accident" is flat-out false.

You can say the planned killing of civilians had a larger purpose ("there was a terrorist with them"), but that doesn't make it an accident. That makes it a cold murder with cause.

As for your interpretation of my comments, I am further disappointed. I never said I think the US is 100% moral or that it never has done anything wrong. It's really a disingenuous straw man tactic you're employing there, whcih is really not like you.

Irony, they name is SDW2001. You are the one who started that comparative line of reasoning, don't get all teary-eyed when it is turned back around on you.

All that said, I again will state that you cannot compare US actions to terrorism. To do so is irresonsible in the extreme. The US does not delibrately target incconet civilans for the purpose of political change, and you know it.

We absolutely target innocent civilians ("deliberately target" is redundant). Absolutely. What do you think that first strike against Hussein was? It was in a residential neighborhood. Innocent deaths in that situation are not accidental by any real definition of the word.

If a cop needs to shoot a bad guy but a kid is in the way so the cop decides to put a few holes in the kid's head so he can get to the baddie that isn't an accident. This is no different.

If you think the slaughter of innocent civilians by the US military is justified then come out and say it, don't hide behind false rhetoric.

SDW2001

02-15-2005, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by groverat
Knowing that you are going to kill someone when you do something and then doing it anyway does not make those killings accidental. We did not kill them accidentally, we knowingly killed them. We kill them on purpose. Was our main goal to kill civilians? Probably not in all cases, but to write it off as an "accident" is flat-out false.

You can say the planned killing of civilians had a larger purpose ("there was a terrorist with them"), but that doesn't make it an accident. That makes it a cold murder with cause.

Irony, they name is SDW2001. You are the one who started that comparative line of reasoning, don't get all teary-eyed when it is turned back around on you.

We absolutely target innocent civilians ("deliberately target" is redundant). Absolutely. What do you think that first strike against Hussein was? It was in a residential neighborhood. Innocent deaths in that situation are not accidental by any real definition of the word.

If a cop needs to shoot a bad guy but a kid is in the way so the cop decides to put a few holes in the kid's head so he can get to the baddie that isn't an accident. This is no different.

If you think the slaughter of innocent civilians by the US military is justified then come out and say it, don't hide behind false rhetoric.

You're just grasping at straws here.

We have targeted terrorists and insurgents. Yes, they are often in civilian areas. Yes, innocent people die. But the goal is not to kill them. That is what I mean by accidental.

Yes, there is a degree of redundancy to "delibrately target". So what? Why even point that out? It's cheap. It's "jimmacian" tactic. If this is not semantics, I do not know what is. You understood my meaning.

As for Hussein---he was a military leader for Christ's sake!
Pardon me, but how the fuck can you even imply that he was not? He appeared uniformed in every public venue. Any civilian deaths that occurred were NOT intentional. Just becuase civilians die, that doesn't mean that we are "targeting" them.

Oh, and I love this part. Let me post it again:

If a cop needs to shoot a bad guy but a kid is in the way so the cop decides to put a few holes in the kid's head so he can get to the baddie that isn't an accident. This is no different

Really, you sound ridiculous. Stop. First, it's not a domestic law enforcement operation. The same standards do not apply. Secondly, the cop in your situation would be guilty of gross negligence, because he did not use reasonable caution. The military DOES USE reasonable caution and procedures to save civilian life. That's not a slaughter by stretch of the imagination.

Yevgeny

02-15-2005, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by groverat
If a cop needs to shoot a bad guy but a kid is in the way so the cop decides to put a few holes in the kid's head so he can get to the baddie that isn't an accident. This is no different.

FYI, my older brother is an airline pilot and is currently obtaining his license to carry a firearm on his plane (no prob, he went through army boot camp so he knows how to handle weapons and his aim is a s good as mine).

So pilot firearm training consists of two things: firearm safety/handling and role playing.

Roleplaying consists of putting pilots in a model airplane cabin and running scenarios.

In each scenario, a terrorist runs at the pilot and the pilot is to shoot the terrorist.

In each scenario, the terrorist holds a human shield. Human shields are either stewardesses or children (because they are usually smaller and joe terrorist can hold one and run with them).

In EACH scenario, the pilot is instructed to fire DIRECTLY at the hostage because that is the surest way to kill the terrorist. You don't try any fancy shooting, just shoot both people to be sure you kill the terrorist.

A .40 hollow point round would enter the hostage, exit leaving a hole the size of a grapefruit and then enter the terrorist's body killing them. No, this wouldn't be pretty.

You see, sometimes, you kill innocent people because you have to kill someone worse. Yes, it sucks to be the innocent person, but sometimes the world winds up in a state from which all available options suck.

Oh, and remember that if a terrorist takes you hostage on a plane, that you have nothing to loose. Pretend he is GWB and beat him up ;)

Yevgeny

02-15-2005, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by groverat
We absolutely target innocent civilians ("deliberately target" is redundant). Absolutely. What do you think that first strike against Hussein was? It was in a residential neighborhood. Innocent deaths in that situation are not accidental by any real definition of the word.

If we were targeting civilians, we would have used the right ordinance to kill them. We used a bunker buster which penetrates underground and explodes, doing massive underground damage, but not doing as much above ground damage.

If we had wanted to kill civilians, we could have dropped a 2000 pound bomb and had it explode 200 feet above the ground. This would have killed everone within a good 500 feet of the explosion and probably crippled most people within 800 or so feet (burst eardrums).

Heck, if we really wanted to target civilians, we could drop a Daisycutter (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/response_14.html) or MOAB (http://www.stripes.com/mideast/graphics/moab.html)

But no, we drop a boring bunker buster. There is a difference between targeting civilians and targeting someone else who is around civilians. This is what targeting and killing tens of thousand of civilians really looks like in wartime (http://www.valourandhorror.com/BC/Raids/Firebomb2.htm)

groverat

02-15-2005, 03:14 PM

SDW:

We have targeted terrorists and insurgents. Yes, they are often in civilian areas. Yes, innocent people die. But the goal is not to kill them. That is what I mean by accidental.

So you just make up completely off-base definitions for words instead of thinking of a good way to phrase it? Pardon me for not understanding what you say when you deliberately use the wrong words.

Yes, there is a degree of redundancy to "delibrately target". So what? Why even point that out? It's cheap. It's "jimmacian" tactic. If this is not semantics, I do not know what is. You understood my meaning.

I don't know if you understand your own meaning, to be quite honest. You call the deliberate attack of civilians "accidental".

We knew they were there and we attacked. That is about as accidental as me putting trash in the trash can.

This isn't just semantic quibbling, it is forcing loyalists to come to grips with the fact that we are slaughtering innocent people by the thousands. If they think it is worth it, fine, that's a whole other issue, but do not pretend this is not the slaughter of innocents because that is exactly what it is. If you want to push the pragmatist line don't be so damned coy when owning up to what you advocate.

As for Hussein---he was a military leader for Christ's sake!
Pardon me, but how the fuck can you even imply that he was not?

I implied he wasn't? (Answer: No.)

Just becuase civilians die, that doesn't mean that we are "targeting" them.

So what do you call their deaths if (1) they weren't accidental and (2) we didn't target them.

What do you call it? You call it "accidental" even though that word doesn't fit in any way.

Yevegny:

You see, sometimes, you kill innocent people because you have to kill someone worse. Yes, it sucks to be the innocent person, but sometimes the world winds up in a state from which all available options suck.

I understand that, just don't call it "making candy" when it is really "killing an innocent person to get at someone else".

Don't serve me a plate of feces and tell me it's a t-bone steak.

Anders

02-15-2005, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Yevgeny
FYI, my older brother is an airline pilot and ...

Its not quite relevant to compare 1) actions towards an imminent threat to a plane, all its passengers and people on the ground and 2) an offensive war where you have the military might.

Yevgeny

02-15-2005, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by groverat
I don't know if you understand your own meaning, to be quite honest. You call the deliberate attack of civilians "accidental".

We knew they were there and we attacked. That is about as accidental as me putting trash in the trash can.

I think that he means "incidental" in that the deaths are occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation to cause those specific deaths. Usage would be "Civilian deaths are incidental to our goal of killing Hussein".

Originally posted by groverat
This isn't just semantic quibbling, it is forcing loyalists to come to grips with the fact that we are slaughtering innocent people by the thousands. If they think it is worth it, fine, that's a whole other issue, but do not pretend this is not the slaughter of innocents because that is exactly what it is. If you want to push the pragmatist line don't be so damned coy when owning up to what you advocate.

"Slaughtering" by the thousands is a bit severe, don't you think? When I think of slaughtering, I think of Rwanda or of Hussein did to the Shia, or what the coalition did to Iraq's army in Kuwait in the first gulf war, e.g.
the highway to hell (http://www.psywarrior.com/leaf60.html) (note that the small black marks are all destroyed cars. If America is slaughtering the Iraqis, then we are doing a really poor job as we aren't using our airpower (how frequently do we drop bomb on Iraq right now?).

I'm not coy about what is going on there. People are dying because American bombs kill insurgents and innocent people have the unfortunate luck to be on the streets next to these people. Insurgent Sunni suicide bombers kill police officers and politicians. Tribesman extort travelers. Ex Baathists kill their countrymen because they want to return to the old days when they were in control. So we kill them or they kill us and the locals. If we kill them, then some people who are unrelated to all of this will inevitably die.

On the other hand, before the war we had mass graves and mass murder and real slaughter of people groups by Saddam. The middle east is a messy messy place and despite the chaos of the present, probably fewer people are dying than when Saddam's secret police were keeping a lid on the Shia.

Originally posted by groverat
I understand that, just don't call it "making candy" when it is really "killing an innocent person to get at someone else".

Don't serve me a plate of feces and tell me it's a t-bone steak.

I agree. It is the regrettable killing of an innocent person to get at someone who is not innocent. It is profoundly regrettable and yet necessary because the person who is not innocent won't play by the rules of civilized society. Terrorists break the rules in all sorts of ways because it is advantageous to them. They won't wear uniforms (breaking the Geneva convention), so we have to treat all civilians as though they may be a terrorist.

However, the killing isn't intentional in that we do not intend to kill people who happen to be next to someone who is planting an IED and about to be hit by a hellfire missile. We intend to kill the terrorist (who will blow up his IED and kill any civilians who are in the area as well as any troops). We kill but did not intend to kill any civilians who are around him.

This isn't a plate of t-bone steak. It is a plate of feces and a glass of urine. Sometimes you have to decide if you drink one and not eat the other. Sometimes this is the world you get, for example when the Marxists start a bloody rebellion in your nation and the rightists want to prevent them from taking over. Sometimes the world hands you an unplesant choice and you have to choose between two difficult choices. I don't pretend that it is otherwise, but I do understand that a choice needs to be made. It is my hope that out of many difficult choices that a nation will be delivered from opression. In the end, I guess that I am an idealist.

Yevgeny

02-15-2005, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Anders
Its not quite relevant to compare 1) actions towards an imminent threat to a plane, all its passengers and people on the ground and 2) an offensive war where you have the military might.

Why not? We're training our pilots to aim for the hostages, to intentionally kill the innocent to save innocent lives.

Terrorists are imminent threats to both Americans and Iraqis. Terrorists kill more Iraqis than Americans, in particular police, poll workers, and politicians.

So Pilots kill an innocent to save innocents and predators firing hellfire missiles kill innocents to save innocents.

Oh and pilots have military might in the cockpit. They have guns, terrorists don't.

Anders

02-15-2005, 04:58 PM

Wasn´t we talking about war in in iraq, not the occupation?

1) Hijacking of an airplane is a very special situation after 911 AND if the pilot doesn´t kill the hostage in the situation you describe the hostage will be killed sooner or later if its 911 type hijackers. Thats why the pilot gets the training as he does. A 300 foot controllable fire bomb with 2-300 civilians is a very special situation not comparable to anything on the ground in Iraq.

2) The pilot is to use the hand gun to gain supremacy and to become the offensive part. The military in the war in Iraq have the supremacy and doesn´t have to shoot civilians in a strategic move to gain the upper hand.

3) The coalition is almost twice as dangerous to the civilians as the bad guys as it is now. So the "shoot civilians to protect them" argument doesn´t really hold

Yevgeny

02-15-2005, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Anders
Wasn´t we talking about war in in iraq, not the occupation?

1) Hijacking of an airplane is a very special situation after 911 AND if the pilot doesn´t kill the hostage in the situation you describe the hostage will be killed sooner or later if its 911 type hijackers. Thats why the pilot gets the training as he does. A 300 foot controllable fire bomb with 2-300 civilians is a very special situation not comparable to anything on the ground in Iraq.

If we don't kill terrorists while they are setting up IEDs, then sooner or later they will blow it up when something intersting drives by, killing civilians.

Originally posted by Anders
2) The pilot is to use the hand gun to gain supremacy and to become the offensive part. The military in the war in Iraq have the supremacy and doesn´t have to shoot civilians in a strategic move to gain the upper hand.

I agree that the military doesn't need to shoot civilians. The Army does not train soldiers to shoot civilians. Sometimes civilians are casualties in combat, but this is different than a couple of rangers opening up on a crowd with a SAW. Yes, people die either way, but there is a differnece between "ununiformed terrorists are shooting at us from inside that crowd" and "lets go kill some civilians". One is the byproduct of your opponent not following the rules of war and the other is a war crime.

Originally posted by Anders
3) The coalition is almost twice as dangerous to the civilians as the bad guys as it is now. So the "shoot civilians to protect them" argument doesn´t really hold

Well, if the bad insurgents win then Iraq will be a civil war for the next ten years. Where'd you get the twice as dangerous figure?

Anyhow this conversation is just rehashing 2003, so I move that we drop it.

sammi jo

02-15-2005, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Conspiracy theories, unsupported claims, inflated casualty numbers....it all points to a Samantha Joan Conspiracy post.

Conspiracy theories...dear oh dear. Can't you come up with something relevant, or at least some argument refuting the points I mentioned? Or are you just lashing out because you can't handle the (plain) fact that U.S. administrations of "both" (!?) political persuasions have indulged in behavior characteristic of the rogue nations we superficially rail against? Don't you feel that the United States should be setting a good example?
One more thing: In all my posts on this kind of topic, I have never said anything which can be called "anti-American". If the notion of "America is as good as its people, as opposed to its government", then you must have a pretty poor opinion of your country.

Inflated casualties figures.
The study by the Lancet/John Hopkins University is the only Iraqi casualty count with a scientific backing. 100,000 is a lot of innocent people, in a very short time.
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3352814
If you want the Pentagon's estimate, don't bother. "We don't do body counts" (Tommy Franks).

The US has supported people and governments it should not have. The US has not intervened when it should have. The US has done all sorts of despicable things.

Doesn't that sadden you, as a citizen of a nation to which the world should be looking for example..as opposed to fearing and even hating, because of a few immoral, powerful, paranoid, sick and twisted individuals who are wholly unfit to serve in a position of authority?

I agree with all of that. But do we target innocent civilians as a matter of policy? No.

I wish I could believe you. Unfortunately all the facts point elsewhere, but our media are not telling us anything.

You are perhaps the finest example of the morally decaying traitorous Left that I have ever encountered. When someone can no longer see the inherent moral difference between the US and the regimes of murderous dictators and ideological nutjob terrorists who are dedicated to our destruction, the debate ends automatically. Go ahead and keep spewing your anti-American hate speech all you want. I'm done listening. [/B]

I am sure that the US does not actually do the dirty deeds physically. We don't need to. The heads of mafia families pay others to do their killings. The heads of brutal regimes don't (as a rule) get down and dirty with guns and devices of torture, personally; they have paid lackeys do it for them. Similarly, in all our involvement with brutal regimes throughout the world since the end of WW2, all we have had to do is provide the funding, and then sit back and watch the chaos, as our military-industrial complex reaps the profits (of weapons sales etc etc) and culture of war and conflict is maintained. Where there is money to be made, and a marketplace to make it within, human nature dictates that someone will step in and provide the goods and services, and parties of all persuasions (from the ethically sound to the serially criminal) will feed at the trough. It's a penalty we have to pay for allowing ourselves the privilege of capitalism.

A great documentary that you should watch is "Why we Fight" by Eugene Jarecki. It just won an award at the Sundance Film Festival. Maybe you're view will become a little more balanced: I haven't given up quite yet :)

SDW2001

02-15-2005, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by groverat
SDW:

So you just make up completely off-base definitions for words instead of thinking of a good way to phrase it? Pardon me for not understanding what you say when you deliberately use the wrong words.

I don't know if you understand your own meaning, to be quite honest. You call the deliberate attack of civilians "accidental".

We knew they were there and we attacked. That is about as accidental as me putting trash in the trash can.

This isn't just semantic quibbling, it is forcing loyalists to come to grips with the fact that we are slaughtering innocent people by the thousands. If they think it is worth it, fine, that's a whole other issue, but do not pretend this is not the slaughter of innocents because that is exactly what it is. If you want to push the pragmatist line don't be so damned coy when owning up to what you advocate.

I implied he wasn't? (Answer: No.)

So what do you call their deaths if (1) they weren't accidental and (2) we didn't target them.

What do you call it? You call it "accidental" even though that word doesn't fit in any way.

Yevegny:

I understand that, just don't call it "making candy" when it is really "killing an innocent person to get at someone else".

Don't serve me a plate of feces and tell me it's a t-bone steak.

I don't understand why you are being so thick about this (sorry for the insult, but I don't). As I have said this is not like you. You CANNOT say that we target inncocent civilians just because we "knew they were there." That does not mean we are/were targeting them! We attempt to kill the "bad guys" and yes, some of the "good guys" get killed and we know they will be killed. That's called war. Targeting means our GOAL is to kill innocents and you DAMN WELL know that's not true.

Now, in the case of WWII (examples: Dresden and Hamurg bombings, that latter of which Yevegny posted above), we really DID target civilians. We were out to destroy EVERYTHING. Surely you can see the distinction.

sammi jo

02-15-2005, 09:57 PM

SDW....its even hitting the mainstream media:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6947745/

Here we have U.S. security company personnel, employed by the Pentagon, getting into the terrorist act. But I guess you would prefer to classify the shooting of civilians, the deliberate crushing of kids by pickup trucks and similar horrific incidents as "our boys letting off steam". Or, they can't possibly be "terrorists" because (a) they aren't Muslim, and (b) they don't have brown skin.

Or is this an MSNBC conspiracy theory?

groverat

02-15-2005, 10:01 PM

You CANNOT say that we target inncocent civilians just because we "knew they were there." That does not mean we are/were targeting them! We attempt to kill the "bad guys" and yes, some of the "good guys" get killed and we know they will be killed. That's called war. Targeting means our GOAL is to kill innocents and you DAMN WELL know that's not true.

It isn't a goal, per se, but it is isn't exactly something we concern ourselves with a great deal.

The extent to which we care about saving human life in our wars of choice and lies goes about as deep as the research pocketbook. We point to more efficient ways of killing to show how kind-hearted we are. Do we stop to think that maybe our wars are unnecessary?

You say "that's war" like that means something. It's a meaningless statement. What is war? And past that, what meaning does it have in our conversation. You said the deaths were accidental, that's a lie. We targetted civilian areas. We killed civilians knowingly. We ordered the slaughter of innocents. Perhaps you can salve that wound with the knowledge that maybe we killed some people who were going to hurt us but that is a damned lie as well.

Iraq was not a threat to us. It never was. It was a fiction. It was a lie. You cannot remove that from the equation. So we kill civilians... for what? To kill terrorists. What does that mean? Who are the terrorists and why do they exist? Further, why do we care what they do? Even further, how much responsibility do we hold for what they do?

Now, in the case of WWII (examples: Dresden and Hamurg bombings, that latter of which Yevegny posted above), we really DID target civilians. We were out to destroy EVERYTHING. Surely you can see the distinction.

Absolutely, but it should be a pretty clear indication to you that the US military is meant to do one thing: Kill people. That's it. That's what it does. It kills people. And there are no constraints on the military's goal aside from what they can get away with. If our eyes are turned away (which you are tacitly arguing we should do with this "that's war!" talk) our military is no better than any other military force; full of angry young men with deadly weapons.

War is wrong. War is the coward's way.

jimmac

02-16-2005, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Lost my grip? That's interesting, given your hyperventilating post above.

I am not "advocating" anything. I am talking about 1) What happens if we DID go to war with Iran and 2) What happens if we DID go to war with North Korea. I am not saying we should or that we will. You, my friend, need to regain your "grip".

As for our response to a North Korean attack, you have again missed the point. If North Korea attacks someone with conventional weapons, we will respond in kind. However, if Kim jong uses a nuclear weapon, are you telling me that we shouldn't respond with one or several? You have to be kidding. The only path to peace in the region is if Kim Jong knows we will anhilate him if he attacks our allies, or the US itself with a nuclear weapon. If we are not willing to do that, then as Reagan once said "therein lies the road to war". It's not mutal assured destruction, it's North Korea's assured destruction. It's the old adage Peace through Strength...and it works.

As for being the world's policeman, that is another debate (and one I will be happy to have with you). For now, I am talking about a direct attack on the US or its allies.

I notice you didn't go into the outcome of such actions.....like usual........

Nothing with a nuclear exchange works SDW.

SDW2001

02-16-2005, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by groverat
It isn't a goal, per se, but it is isn't exactly something we concern ourselves with a great deal.

The extent to which we care about saving human life in our wars of choice and lies goes about as deep as the research pocketbook. We point to more efficient ways of killing to show how kind-hearted we are. Do we stop to think that maybe our wars are unnecessary?

You say "that's war" like that means something. It's a meaningless statement. What is war? And past that, what meaning does it have in our conversation. You said the deaths were accidental, that's a lie. We targetted civilian areas. We killed civilians knowingly. We ordered the slaughter of innocents. Perhaps you can salve that wound with the knowledge that maybe we killed some people who were going to hurt us but that is a damned lie as well.

Iraq was not a threat to us. It never was. It was a fiction. It was a lie. You cannot remove that from the equation. So we kill civilians... for what? To kill terrorists. What does that mean? Who are the terrorists and why do they exist? Further, why do we care what they do? Even further, how much responsibility do we hold for what they do?

Absolutely, but it should be a pretty clear indication to you that the US military is meant to do one thing: Kill people. That's it. That's what it does. It kills people. And there are no constraints on the military's goal aside from what they can get away with. If our eyes are turned away (which you are tacitly arguing we should do with this "that's war!" talk) our military is no better than any other military force; full of angry young men with deadly weapons.

War is wrong. War is the coward's way.

This is where the liberal in you really comes out. You are so entwined in 30 different arguments that you cannot make ONE effectively. While discussing civilian deaths in combat, you get yourself "twisted up" in your own arguments, from "What is War?" to "Why is War" to "Is War Justitfied?".

I am not debating jusitification for war with you. It's a totally different topic. Oh sure, it's all related, but everything in this world is related in some form or another.

We can certainly have the above debates another time. I welcome them. In the meantime, war exists. That's a fact. Another fact is that I entered this thread talking about IRAN, and you and others twisted it into Iraq. You simply won't let it go.

In any case, we're not going to agree. I think your position is totally absurd. The US military does not target innocents and there is no reasonable person that would say it does. If you want to talk about whether we should be there in the first place, that's fine...but as they say, "that's so 2003" and I'm not rehashing it with you.

groverat

02-16-2005, 09:08 AM

While discussing civilian deaths in combat, you get yourself "twisted up" in your own arguments, from "What is War?" to "Why is War" to "Is War Justitfied?".

Those questions are essential to understanding the nature of our military, which is the outfit killing the civilians.

I am not debating jusitification for war with you. It's a totally different topic. Oh sure, it's all related, but everything in this world is related in some form or another.

So it is both related and totally different?

No, they are closely related. The justification for an action means a great deal with regard to the moral weight of an action. You cannot deny that, it is a central tenet of law and Christian ethics.

We can certainly have the above debates another time. I welcome them. In the meantime, war exists. That's a fact. Another fact is that I entered this thread talking about IRAN, and you and others twisted it into Iraq. You simply won't let it go.

Because Iraq speaks to what we might do if we attack Iran. We do not have moral high ground. That is gone. It was destroyed. Any attack against Iran is the act of a rogue nation, a bully flexing its muscle and spouting hypocrisy.

The US military does not target innocents and there is no reasonable person that would say it does.

What do you call it?

Do you notice how I deal with the subject at hand and you spend your time psychoanalyzing me instead of addressing arguments? You should notice and think about why that happens.

SDW2001

02-16-2005, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by jimmac
I notice you didn't go into the outcome of such actions.....like usual........

Nothing with a nuclear exchange works SDW.

I didn't go into it because that was not the argument, jimmac. I will happy to discuss that with you if you like.
I was merely posting respons eto this who seemed to imply that we couldn't win in Iran and that if NK attack at the same time, we'd be screwed. I was disagreeing with that position from a combat perspective, not a political one or even one of the terrible consequences.

But, since you brought it up, it is a good debate to have. Let us say that North Korea launches a nuclear missle that (it built with technology given to it by the Clinton administration) and strikes the South. It holds 5 more missiles in reserve and then invades the South with 1.5 million troops. The 37,000 US personnel and South Korean Army are overrun in less than 12 hours, with 10,000 GIs dead, and 1,000,000 south Koreans. Oh, and did I mention the 100,000 American citizens that died in the blast too?

Kim then says if the US responds he will launch his remaining five missles on Tokyo and then the Western United States. What do we do? I am curious.

This is why I say that Kim must know that if he uses a nuclear weapon, the US and allies will completely wipe him out. That is the only way to prevent him from doing something like the above. Otherwise, we sit back and he blackmails us, just like he did to the Clinton administration.

groverat

02-16-2005, 09:10 AM

Iran and Syria teaming up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4270859.stm).

Boy... we are masters of foreign policy.

SDW2001

02-16-2005, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by groverat
Those questions are essential to understanding the nature of our military, which is the outfit killing the civilians.

So it is both related and totally different?

No, they are closely related. The justification for an action means a great deal with regard to the moral weight of an action. You cannot deny that, it is a central tenet of law and Christian ethics.

Because Iraq speaks to what we might do if we attack Iran. We do not have moral high ground. That is gone. It was destroyed. Any attack against Iran is the act of a rogue nation, a bully flexing its muscle and spouting hypocrisy.

What do you call it?

Do you notice how I deal with the subject at hand and you spend your time psychoanalyzing me instead of addressing arguments? You should notice and think about why that happens.

There isn't much point in going back and forth with you on this. I say we don't target civilians. You disagree, and think we do. I don't think most people (even here) would agree with you. They might express outrage at accidental civilian death, but they wouldn't agree with you. That's as far as I'm going to take it.

SDW2001

02-16-2005, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by groverat
Iran and Syria teaming up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4270859.stm).

Boy... we are masters of foreign policy.

You know, this post reminds of this quote from above:

Any attack against Iran is the act of a rogue nation, a bully flexing its muscle and spouting hypocrisy.

This is a lack of moral clarity in rare form. Iran and Syria are rogue nations defying the world. But to you, we're the problem. We're always the problem.

sammi jo

02-16-2005, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
But to you, we're the problem. We're always the problem. [/B]

America is not the problem. It never has been, and never will be. The problem are rogue or criminal elements within the US government, who are intent on hijacking realistic and workable foreign policy, forcing an agenda that is geared towards the interest of certain special, mostly private, and sometimes even foreign rather than American, interests. For a clue as to the rogue elements within our government, look at the Project for a New American Century website http://www.newamericancentury.org

Nightcrawler

02-17-2005, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001
You know, this post reminds of this quote from above:

This is a lack of moral clarity in rare form. Iran and Syria are rogue nations defying the world. But to you, we're the problem. We're always the problem.

Yes, the US-governments since ww2 are indeed the problem, and it has a lot to do with the Pentagon and the military-industrial-complex and the consequences of which your very president Eisenhower warned the americans so often, mainly that the military-industrial-complex would highjack US-foreign-policy in the future, if not strictly controlled.

And let me bring you the news: The highjacking has already happened many years ago. You do not know much about what happened in the last century since ww2, because most of the US-actions were conducted secretly. Vietnam and Corea were publically known because those required full US-forces in action and because they could easily be sold to the US-public as necessary to help and protect allies against agressive communists, but who remembers the secret air-bombing-campaing by the US against Cambodia, which killed more than 600,000 civilians and led to the empowering of Pol Pot, whose regime killed millions?

Some of the secret actions of the US were revealed later on, like the actions in Cuba and other countries in central- and southamerica and the Iran-Contra-affaire as well as the recruiting, training and equipping of militant Islamists from the whole arabic world for fighting in Afghanistan is also known, but alot of other secret acts, like assassinations, instilling hatred and provoking rebellions and other forms of destabilising third-world-governments are not widely known.

All the while the military-industrial-complex made serious business as more conflicts means also more groups needing weapons, and the US is and was definetly the biggest international weapon-saler, often even equipping two and more sides in the same conflict.

The justification in the White House was always, that it was the cold-war and US-terrorism, secret bombing-campaigns, weapon-sales to rebels etc... were necessary in order to stop communism from taking over the world.

Maybe the US-politicians even believed that was the case, but for the military-industrial-complex and the Pentagon, it was and is a big business and the "enemy-symbols" are exchangeable and just a mean to another end:
While the military-industrial-complex is just interested in making the most money possible and therefore working towards a policy that creates conflicts in the world and keeping them alive, the Pentagon and parts of the White-House are dreaming of a worldwide US-empire that alone controls important ressources.

During the coldwar, the US-empire was already expanded and encircled the Soviet-Union-empire, military outposts were created all over Europe, military-fleets, part of them equipped with nukes were controlling the important sea-routes, strategic places like Japan, South-Corea and Israel are reserved, so that a landing of US-infantry is possible for eventual crisis'...

everything in order to win the coldwar.

The coldwar was eventually won, the Soviet-Union-empire collapsed, communism was disproved and capitalism was the shining winner, so logically the US-military-presence around the world should have been cut back, shouldn't it? Yes, but it hasn't been done, instead the military-industrial-complex and the Pentagon found itself in an awkward situation with no real enemy left and no justification for the international military presence of the US, and the solution they came up with was to create new enemies:

The US (yeah, I know it was an international army by many countries, even arabic countries, and the US was even able to end that war with a netto-win in terms of money, but don't let us be deceived, it was a US-planned conspiracy) attacked Iraq, a country that had just invaded Kuwait, after the US gave green signal for it through its ambassador. The US attacked Iraq and occupied Saudi-Arabia, on the surface it was like a strategy to save Kuwait from Iraq, and to gain military presence in Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia, the country with the biggest oil-reserves in the world.

But there is more to it, actually it was also a strategy to stir up hatred of militant Islamism towards the US and to provoke what CIA-officials call "blowbacks". Sure, thanks to US-support for Israel, and thanks to US-support for oppressive arabic regimes, the islamists already hated the US, but it wasn't enough to actually provoke attacks on US-interests abroad or even on US-soil..

But with US-military-presence in Saudi-Arabia the level of hatred that was necessary was achieved and coupled with the training of militant islamists during the Afghan-war against the Soviet-Union, it was only a question of time, when those militants would directly attack US-interests...

Nightcrawler

SDW2001

02-17-2005, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by sammi jo
America is not the problem. It never has been, and never will be. The problem are rogue or criminal elements within the US government, who are intent on hijacking realistic and workable foreign policy, forcing an agenda that is geared towards the interest of certain special, mostly private, and sometimes even foreign rather than American, interests. For a clue as to the rogue elements within our government, look at the Project for a New American Century website http://www.newamericancentury.org

I'm sorry, but I have stopped responding to you. This will be the last time I do so.

kneelbeforezod

02-17-2005, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm sorry, but I have stopped responding to you. This will be the last time I do so. Ah, fingers in the ears time.

SDW2001

02-17-2005, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Ah, fingers in the ears time.

No. There are simply some people that are not worth arguing with.

SDW2001

02-17-2005, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Yes, the US-governments since ww2 are indeed the problem, and it has a lot to do with the Pentagon and the military-industrial-complex and the consequences of which your very president Eisenhower warned the americans so often, mainly that the military-industrial-complex would highjack US-foreign-policy in the future, if not strictly controlled.

And let me bring you the news: The highjacking has already happened many years ago. You do not know much about what happened in the last century since ww2, because most of the US-actions were conducted secretly. Vietnam and Corea were publically known because those required full US-forces in action and because they could easily be sold to the US-public as necessary to help and protect allies against agressive communists, but who remembers the secret air-bombing-campaing by the US against Cambodia, which killed more than 600,000 civilians and led to the empowering of Pol Pot, whose regime killed millions?

Some of the secret actions of the US were revealed later on, like the actions in Cuba and other countries in central- and southamerica and the Iran-Contra-affaire as well as the recruiting, training and equipping of militant Islamists from the whole arabic world for fighting in Afghanistan is also known, but alot of other secret acts, like assassinations, instilling hatred and provoking rebellions and other forms of destabilising third-world-governments are not widely known.

All the while the military-industrial-complex made serious business as more conflicts means also more groups needing weapons, and the US is and was definetly the biggest international weapon-saler, often even equipping two and more sides in the same conflict.

The justification in the White House was always, that it was the cold-war and US-terrorism, secret bombing-campaigns, weapon-sales to rebels etc... were necessary in order to stop communism from taking over the world.

Maybe the US-politicians even believed that was the case, but for the military-industrial-complex and the Pentagon, it was and is a big business and the "enemy-symbols" are exchangeable and just a mean to another end:
While the military-industrial-complex is just interested in making the most money possible and therefore working towards a policy that creates conflicts in the world and keeping them alive, the Pentagon and parts of the White-House are dreaming of a worldwide US-empire that alone controls important ressources.

During the coldwar, the US-empire was already expanded and encircled the Soviet-Union-empire, military outposts were created all over Europe, military-fleets, part of them equipped with nukes were controlling the important sea-routes, strategic places like Japan, South-Corea and Israel are reserved, so that a landing of US-infantry is possible for eventual crisis'...

everything in order to win the coldwar.

The coldwar was eventually won, the Soviet-Union-empire collapsed, communism was disproved and capitalism was the shining winner, so logically the US-military-presence around the world should have been cut back, shouldn't it? Yes, but it hasn't been done, instead the military-industrial-complex and the Pentagon found itself in an awkward situation with no real enemy left and no justification for the international military presence of the US, and the solution they came up with was to create new enemies:

The US (yeah, I know it was an international army by many countries, even arabic countries, and the US was even able to end that war with a netto-win in terms of money, but don't let us be deceived, it was a US-planned conspiracy) attacked Iraq, a country that had just invaded Kuwait, after the US gave green signal for it through its ambassador. The US attacked Iraq and occupied Saudi-Arabia, on the surface it was like a strategy to save Kuwait from Iraq, and to gain military presence in Kuwait and Saudi-Arabia, the country with the biggest oil-reserves in the world.

But there is more to it, actually it was also a strategy to stir up hatred of militant Islamism towards the US and to provoke what CIA-officials call "blowbacks". Sure, thanks to US-support for Israel, and thanks to US-support for oppressive arabic regimes, the islamists already hated the US, but it wasn't enough to actually provoke attacks on US-interests abroad or even on US-soil..

But with US-military-presence in Saudi-Arabia the level of hatred that was necessary was achieved and coupled with the training of militant islamists during the Afghan-war against the Soviet-Union, it was only a question of time, when those militants would directly attack US-interests...

Nightcrawler

You know I kinda stopped reading after you spelled Korea with a "C"