Iraq by the Numbers - or how to be dumb.
"Mission Accomplished" was a mistake for longer than the US was in World War II. George Jr even admits that on 10 Jan 2007. Suddenly a president gets smart? Bull. "Mission Accomplished" must be ongoing after 2008 - George Jr's legacy then is protected while the death rate of American troops increases. Generals say dead soldiers per month will be higher in 2007 to accomplish this George Jr plan.
Intelligent people, instead, do the numbers. New York City - a population of 8 million - has a police force of 37,000. That's one cop for every 220 people in a town that is peaceful. Baghdad population is 7 million. That means 32,000 soldiers if the city was peaceful. But Baghdad is not peaceful. Military numbers are well defined. 40,000 soldiers for every one million people. That means 280,000 soldiers just for Baghdad. Look at that number: 280K required just for Baghdad. No wonder no General wanted Central Command - so they had to find an Admiral.
George Jr will *surge* a solution by putting 30,000 soldiers in Baghdad. He does this because even in the Cellar, nobody did the numbers. The numbers are that damning.
More numbers. Military experts say that we should see results in 18 month to two years from now. What is more important? American lives? Wealth of the nation? The troops? NO. Legacy of George Jr is only important.
Even New York City has better protection - a city not at war has more police!
Ok. Iraqi army that has been in training since 2004 and that cannot field a single independent battalion 3 years later will miraculously take control of 'liberated' regions? He believes you are that stupid; will not do simple arithmetic. Iraq is in civil war. Ethnic cleansing is ongoing. The Iraqi army is so ethnically structured that even every other battalion cannot be deployed outside their home town areas. Even the Iraqi army does not stop the violence.
An aggressive and only possible solution to Iraq is the Iraq Study Group. Problems in Iraq are numerous; more than street security. But again George Jr knows you are that dumb. Where does George Jr even discuss those other 'Iraq Study Group' defined problems? He does not. He must keep you ignorant and speechless.
George Jr knows the dumb do not do numbers. 40,000 soldiers per one million people means Baghdad needs 280,000 soldiers. But a trivial 30,000 means "Mission Accomplished" keeps going - to be lost by another president.
Those numbers are damning. Those numbers say the war will not be lost by the scumbag president - who knows you are so dumb as to not do those numbers. Do you support that mental midget by ignoring the numbers? Or do you talk about those numbers every day?
Simple. George Jr knows you will be dumb: ignore those numbers. Legacy of George Jr is more important.
People will assume that it is enough. If they did bring 300,000 troops the entire country would be outraged and say that they overkilling the situation.
To keep it fair, did you count the Iraqi police numbers tw?
Though I support you both on the stance you take against Bush & the war in Iraq, your figures reflect only the American excperience. Most European cities do with far less than that civilian to police ratio, and your assumptions re the army to populace ratio is also flawed in that it is based on forcible subjugation of a hostile population (though, tbh, the US tactics are indeed creating a hostile population) rather than the force and intelligence needed to weed out the hostile portions of the population.
...your assumptions re the army to populace ratio is also flawed in that it is based on forcible subjugation of a hostile population (though, tbh, the US tactics are indeed creating a hostile population) rather than the force and intelligence needed to weed out the hostile portions of the population.
40,000 soldiers per one million people are military numbers for Baghdad. That is what the military says was necessary. That was also numbers necessary in Bosnia. 40,000 soldiers per one million population are what the military said was necessary when George Jr (acutally Rumsfeld) refused to provide sufficient troops.
Provide too few troops and of course it will take 18 to 24 months to see results. Objective? Don't lose "Mission Accomplished" under George Jr's watch - which is exactly what Nixon also did.
"That is what the military says was necessary"
to do what?
I'm not sure the iraqi police can be counted, piercehawkeye45, cause we have no way to know (and therefore quantify) which are loyal cops and which are more loyal to their 'side' in the civil wa... er, i mean, sectarian violence.
"That is what the military says was necessary"
to do what?
To cause the destruction of America. What do you think they were saying? Come on Jay.
Don't act dumb like George Jr needs all Americans to be. Why do you think the military says they need and needed 40,000 soldiers per one million people in Iraq? So they can enrich Halliburton?
sorry, the irony escapes me.......
TW, I agree with your overall stance though your words do confuse me from time to time.
sorry, the irony escapes me.......
What irony? Those simple numbers - arithmetic - are ironic? Ballpark numbers were even provided last Aug 2006 in the Holbrook / Kristol interview on Charlie Rose at
Bush links Hezbollah to Ali-Q.
George Jr has Americans believe 30,000 troops in a surge will do what the military says needs hundreds of thousands. Even the NYC police department puts more armed officiers on the streets.
The mental midget hopes each Americans is so dumb to not do simple arithmetic. George Jr's legacy is at stake.
Tw's annoyingly right again, a troop surge IS what is needed to win, but not what Bush is sending. The solution is either outrage the country further, send hundreds of thousands, and piss EVERYONE off, or pull out and only piss a few off.
Tw's annoyingly right again, a troop surge IS what is needed to win, but not what Bush is sending.
No adult should ever care what is and is not annoying. Only the facts are important. Facts are in those numbers. The president believes us to be so dumb as to not do the numbers. Even the New York City police force is about 37,000. But only 30,000 troops (in a city where even 1/3rd of the police are believed to be insurgents) will somehow bring security to Baghdad? It is an annoying reality. He does not care about American soldier’s lives. A statement of fact from the Generals. This strategy means even higher American fatalities. But since it will take 18 month to two years, then the legacy of a mental midget president is safe. He actually believes you are that dumb. Based upon responses, both here and on the streets; George Jr apparently is correct. Americans will not even do simple arithmetic.
How much contempt does the American public really have for the troops? He can waste soldier’s lives - and so many are silent? Who really is annoying? The one who lies to even kill American soldiers - or the one who has been identifying the mental midget, bluntly, for years?
I am appalled that a scumbag president thinks nothing of killing Americans soldiers only to protect his legacy.
a troop surge ... but not what Bush is sending.
No kidding. We're "surging" to what troop levels were a couple of years ago.
quick, tw, fix your spelling of appalled before UG sees! remember, bad spelling makes you a commie!
But since it will take 18 month to two years, then the legacy of a mental midget president is safe. He actually believes you are that dumb. I am appalled that a scumbag president thinks nothing of killing Americans soldiers only to protect his legacy.
Uh, not to ruin your party or anything, because much of what you say has merit, but it is a very different world today than it was during the Nixon administration and every American will know instantly that this situation, for good or bad, lies with George W. and his legacy. Especially with people like you keeping it in our face everyday. You are not the only one tw. To your credit, there are many like you who constantly expound on your beliefs and rationals. You constantly put the information you have out there.
The Cellar is far from the "general public", yesman. I find the number of people that don't have a clue, astounding. And the number that know they don't know, and don't care, appalling.:(
The Cellar is far from the "general public", yesman. I find the number of people that don't have a clue, astounding. And the number that know they don't know, and don't care, appalling.:(
You found the group that Rumsfeld didn't mention (but relied on)! The uncared known unknowns!
I think Jon Stewart summed this up the best.
"It's like, Bush has this big ol', BIG ol' pot of SHIT. And he looks at it and says... 'Needs a pinch of salt.'"
The Cellar is far from the "general public", yesman.
didn't say they were - more of a generalized statement than anything else - sorry if you took it as a negative, it wasn't meant to be.
I find the number of people that don't have a clue, astounding. And the number that know they don't know, and don't care, appalling.:(
Unfortunate, but true. This laissez faire attitude causes many problems or better put
allows many to happen.
Naw, I didn't take it as a negative. I took it as a misplaced faith in the savy of the general public. :D
Tw's fundamental error is assuming the American population thinks as he does. But tw notwithstanding, what the American population really wants is to win the War on Terror, which is exactly the thing tw won't admit aloud that he doesn't want -- yet his desires bleed through all his posts on the subject.
You will note that the America-must-lose faction speaks of Iraq as some kind of separate war, rather than the real view of matters, which is that Iraq and Afghanistan are campaigns within the wider war.
The cut and run withdrawal means, in due course, coming back in there for a much larger and far more ruinous war, should the anti-Western fanatics not be discredited by defeat. This would be a strategy so poor as to amount to treason.
Tw's incapacity with written English makes him a dullard, not a communist, Ibram. His communist America delenda est views are quite independent of his bad English, though of course they don't help him do anything except maintain his fellational relationship with the shades of Lenin and Stalin. They certainly don't help him promulgate a strategy for winning that's an improvement over the "Republican Plan," which it looks as if the Democrats will try to take over, and then promply fumble. That's why I don't like the Democratic Party: they aren't in America's corner.
Former Republican President Richard M. Nixon was viewed by many as a domestic crook; but, was regarded as a foreign policy genius in some circles (he opened relations with China). In order to avoid another quagmire like Vietnam, he established 3 criteria that would have to be met before the US would again use military intervention abroad:
1.) The indigenous people must want our help.
2.) They must be willing to fight for themselves.
3.) They must be able to sustain our accomplishments after the US withdraws.
ALL THREE conditions would have to be met before the US would use military intervention to depose another government. Oh, the US could still go to war with another country; but, it would be to conquer nation (i.e. a people) - not just a government - (e.g. Japan during WWII; though, not necessarily using WMD).
This became doctrine and was actually taught in the military. Even when George Sr. blew the opportunity to invade Iraq (its invasion of Kuwait being the best rationale we ever had), he at least restricted our military action to containment of their military rather than trying to depose the government when he was unwilling to conquer their people at that time.
Jorge Dubya, OTOH, abandoned the lessons of Vietnam, for whatever reasons you wish to attribute his actions, and invaded Iraq to just depose the government when:
1.) [COLOR="Red"]The indigenous people wanted their government out, they didn't want the US in.[/COLOR]
2.) [COLOR="Green"]They were willing to fight for themselves.[/COLOR]
3.) [COLOR="Red"]They could not reasonably be expected to sustain our accomplishments due to sectarianism.[/COLOR]
Now Jeorge Dubya, in order to correct a failed strategy, has decided to increase troop strength. He is NOT doing so to conquer a people; thus, right the wrong in his policy. He is doing so to conquer only a city (Baghdad). He expects the new government he has installed to conquer the people, the same people it derives its powers from, while maintaining some semblance of a democracy.
There is no reasonable expectation that Jorge Dubya has implemented anything more than a delaying tactic to get him through his final term. Americans think in terms of "the next 4 years." Middle Easterners think in terms of the next few decades or generations. Dubya is obsolete.
NoBoxes, so you are saying what? That what he did was wrong but for the right reason? He was doing it incorrectly & #3 being rectified to correct that? Or are we Americans all just too short sighted and selfish to care or have enough forethought? I'm dense I know, sorry.
is UG's viewpoint (that Iraq is part of the war on terror (wart?)) widespread in the US? If so, then I must congratulate dubya on the efficency of his propaganda machine.
And to noboxes & yesman, I've always surmised that he did to 'finish daddy's job' and thus get one up on him.
what the American population really wants is to win the War on Terror
I've just decided that I don't like the
name of the War on Terror. It's too open ended. The terrorists are people who don't like our government and lack the political power to fight us in any other way. In order to win the War on Terror, we would have to make everybody like us. We would have to enrich everyone to the extent that they have something to lose by opposing us. To ensure that we have allies, we would have to always take the higher moral ground. We would have to outlaw visceral horror films. I don't think we can do that.
We can't win these wars because they're ill-defined. Couldn't we just call it "Operation Destroy Al-Qaeda", then destroy Al-Qaeda, and be done with it?
And UG, they are two entirely separate wars. We went to war with Afghanistan to destroy the state regime which harbored Al-Qaeda. We went to war with Iraq because they had WMDs, or to spread democracy in the Middle East, or something or another. It's always been a little hazy why exactly we went to war with Iraq.
the problem with the war on terror is, like you said, that we have to make everybody like us. The problem comes when we try to do that with bombs and guns.
Former Republican President Richard M. Nixon was viewed by many as a domestic crook; but, was regarded as a foreign policy genius in some circles (he opened relations with China).
Nixon and Kissinger regarded Vietnam as a proxy war with China. Nixon was desperate to get out of Vietnam without a defeat on his legacy. Nixon saw his trip to China as separating China from Vietnam. But Nixon did not understand the historical animosity between Chinese and Vietnamese. Nixon was doing anything to get out of Vietnam - to save his legacy.
Nixon even negotiated a thorn that plagues us today. Nixon essentially negotiated away Taiwan. Taiwan remains an only serious reason why US and China may end up in military conflict - because of that Nixon blunder. But then Nixon was doing anything he could to save his legacy.
This became doctrine and was actually taught in the military. Even when George Sr. blew the opportunity to invade Iraq (its invasion of Kuwait being the best rationale we ever had), he at least restricted our military action to containment of their military rather than trying to depose the government when ...
The US did not have to go to Baghdad to remove Saddam. It simply required Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, etc to understand basic military science 101. What is the purpose of war? The settlement at a peace table. Where were those conditions? When Schwarzkopf asked Washington for those conditions (that should have been defined immediately after 1 Aug 1990), instead, Cheney, et al were too busy drinking champaign.
Schwarzkopf had to make up conditions for surrender ad hoc. But what is worse, Schwarzkopf was told to end the war before it was over - by those same fools in Washington. Schwarzkopf begged for just one more day to get the 101st Airborne in position. Those fools in Washington ignored Schwarzkopf. And they did not do their job: define conditions for surrender.
Well Saddam was left fully in power with American blessing. As the US Army watched from 5 miles away, Saddam may have massacred 20,000 Iraqis in Basra. Had these idiots done their job, then Saddam would have been removed by a unity of other religious groups. We let Saddam massacre his own people after we told them to rise up against him. Notice who that is directly traceable to.
Well, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc hope their legacy did not last - so that you would ignore their failures in 1992. "Mission Accomplished" needed any excuse to fix their mistake. No, we did not have to go to Baghdad in 1992. Had Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc done their job, then Saddam would have been removed by Iraqis. They stopped Schwarzkopf before he was ready. They did not plan for the peace.
So what did those same fools not do in "Mission Accomplished"? Again, they made the exact same mistake. Again, they did not "plan for the peace". A Frontline documentary makes this woefully obvious:
The Lost Year
This is military science 101 stuff. Notice where failure keep arising every time. No planning for the peace. People who still don't understand military science 101 principles - planning for the peace.
The Iraq Study Group has a comprehensive plan for ending "Mission Accomplished". The fact that so much MUST be done demosntrated how "Stay the Course" or "Way forward" is clearly a lie from the same mental midget administration. They did not even plan for the peace - a military science 101 blunder.
tw, do you work in the department of redundancy department?
Originally Posted by yesman065
NoBoxes, so you are saying what? That what he did was wrong but for the right reason? He was doing it incorrectly & #3 being rectified to correct that?
My personal opinion (others are welcome to disagree as it doesn't paint a pretty picture) is that George W. was saddled with a country that was ill prepared for terrorism and he acted out of desperation to move hostilities off American soil.
He needed a diversionary tactic. He attacked the terrorists proper in Afghanistan; however, US presence in that country alone was insufficient to draw terrorist interest away from attacking the American heartland. By subsequently invading Iraq, George W. was able to complete the diversionary tactic to buy time for building up US security capability at home. He piggybacked both a personal agenda (picking up where his father left off) and special interests (oil, reconstruction, and armed forces buildup ... etc.) on the plan for Iraq. In other words, US troops were to be offered as targets abroad to avoid civilians being targeted at home. From that the policy of preemptive strike was introduced, based upon the allegation of WMD, to make the whole situation palatable both here and abroad. That's why there was little attention paid to the aftermath of the initial invasion: the welfare of the Iraqi civilian population was not the foremost consideration at the time.
Later, the WMD cover story was discredited; so, the rationale for having invaded Iraq became Iraqi freedom. Then the US administration had to jump through hoops to establish a functioning free Iraq as an afterthought. Neither the appropriate strategy nor adequate forces were in place to accomplish that. Now, George W. is doing what he does best, creating another diversionary tactic by increasing troop strength in Iraq (Baghdad) to extend the status quo for Iraqi civilians beyond his term of office. The final disposition of the US occupation in Iraq will become the next President's problem.
is UG's viewpoint (that Iraq is part of the war on terror (wart?)) widespread in the US? If so, then I must congratulate dubya on the efficency of his propaganda machine.
There are basically two kinds of people: the decent and the indecent. Congratulate us instead on wanting a decent world, and moving to get it -- our foes are antidemocrat scum, our skeptics... cheerleaders for scum. Phooey. Where's the spirit that fought Hitler's Germany? I'd like to see some. Has the PM got the entire UK supply??
And to noboxes & yesman, I've always surmised that he did to 'finish daddy's job' and thus get one up on him.
If that isn't conspiracy theory, it's the next thing to it. It also quite forgets the events of Tuesday, September the eleventh. This seems insupportable in view of the London bus bombings, and the foiled transatlantic airline plot.
What's it going to take to get the lion fully awake?
No, we did not have to go to Baghdad in 1992. Had Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc done their job, then Saddam would have been removed by Iraqis. They stopped Schwarzkopf before he was ready.
This
is a surprise: tw adopting essentially the same position as the unabashedly patriotic magazine
Soldier of Fortune.
If that isn't conspiracy theory, it's the next thing to it. It also quite forgets the events of Tuesday, September the eleventh. This seems insupportable in view of the London bus bombings, and the foiled transatlantic airline plot.
Please explain what that had to do with Iraq?
Refusal to understand that it's the same war is refusal to even try to win it, Ibram. Wars have theaters of action; this one has two or more.
We're involved, whether we like it or not. Israel's involved, whether they like it or not. Europe is at least in some measure involved, and may get raped by al-Quaeda or other bigot nasties into deeper involvement, whether Europe likes it or not. It's all one war, sprinkled over quite a bit of the planet's circumference especially thanks to modern travel.
I'm waiting for an answer...
Please explain to me a SINGLE way that saddam hussein had anything to do with 9/11, besides the fact that he was "a damn dirty A-rab" or "Gas is expensive now!" (oh wait, that's not related to 9/11 either...)
I just did a quick Google search and found this link.
"A translation of the document shows the al-Qaida terrorist Saddam's government had identified was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who emerged as one of the leading terrorists in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
The document, dated Aug. 17, 2002, identifies the al-Qaida member as Ahmed Fadil Nizal Al Khalaylah, the real name of Zarqawi, and includes a series of photos.
A memo within the document shows that as early Aug. 8, 2002, Zarqawi was identified as a member of "Tanzeem al-Qaida," or the "Al-Qaida Organization”.
"This document provides startling documentation that
at the very least that Saddam Hussein's government knew that al-Qaida was active and functioning in Iraq," Mansfield said.
She pointed out that although the document goes on to outline activities of the group,
there is no indication the Iraqi government took any steps to stop al-Qaida from operating within Iraq, in clear defiance of international law.
[SIZE="1"]
"The U.S. Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."[/SIZE]
http:Newly released document
links Saddam to al-QaidaHere's another one
Al Qaeda and the Iranian connection
One particularly interesting quote: "I visited Iraq twice after the fall of Saddam Hussein and in April this year I was sure that pro-Iran Shia militants and Al Qaeda fighters were collaborating against the US in Iraq."
I'm waiting for an answer...
You have received the correct answer -- not the answer you
wanted to hear.
The better you suck it up, the realer you can be.:cool:
Here's another one
Al Qaeda and the Iranian connection
One particularly interesting quote: "I visited Iraq twice after the fall of Saddam Hussein and in April this year I was sure that pro-Iran Shia militants and Al Qaeda fighters were collaborating against the US in Iraq."
Hussein tried to get rid of al-Qaeda; problem was that they were based in the Kurdistan area--a no-fly zone. So in a way, the US bought al-Qaeda into Iraq.
Hussein tried to get rid of al-Qaeda; problem was that they were based in the Kurdistan area--a no-fly zone. So in a way, the US inadvertently nurtured al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Hussein tried to get rid of al-Qaeda; problem was that they were based in the Kurdistan area--a no-fly zone. So in a way, the US bought al-Qaeda into Iraq.
Exactly how did you come up with that conclusion?
You have received the correct answer -- not the answer you wanted to hear.
The better you suck it up, the realer you can be.:cool:
No matter how pedantic you are, still no answer to what al-Qaeda had to do with Iraq. Unless you're even more sucked up to the White House spinmeisters than I expected you to be.
A memo within the document shows that as early Aug. 8, 2002, Zarqawi was identified as a member of "Tanzeem al-Qaida," or the "Al-Qaida Organization”.
"This document provides startling documentation that at the very least that Saddam Hussein's government knew that al-Qaida was active and functioning in Iraq," Mansfield said.
Another victim of the WH spinmeisters. al-Zarqawi settled in the North of Iraq with the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against the Kurds, outside the influence of Saddam, nicely protected by the Anglo-American enforced no-fly zone. a-Z was a small time little known terrorist until the US made him important, Bush's man for all seasons.
OFGS, Hippikos. Wasn't al-Zarquawi's hospital stay in Baghdad enough evidence of the connection? Is it not so that the troubles in the world are largely going to come from the failed states, most of which are to be found in a contiguous belt straight through Araby and central Africa? Is it not so that the failed states easily pup out antidemocracy activists -- id est, terrorists? Was Ba'athist Iraq anything but a typical example of a failing/failed, despotic state?
I see the connections -- regardless of how obtuse you may care to be. As you know, no conspiracy theory makes it with me, either -- and here you are, trying unscrupulously and uncritically (at best) to purvey one. You do not persuade, sir.
Here's another one
Al Qaeda and the Iranian connection
One particularly interesting quote: "I visited Iraq twice after the fall of Saddam Hussein and in April this year I was sure that pro-Iran Shia militants and Al Qaeda fighters were collaborating against the US in Iraq."
Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization. Their propaganda says that Shi'ites are heretics, and they have a history of bombing Shi'a festivals.
Sunni Iran supported the US against the Taliban back in 2001. I'm dubious about a connection between Al Qaeda and Iran. If Al Qaeda were working with Shi'ites, it would probably be
to promote sectarian strife.OFGS, Hippikos. Wasn't al-Zarquawi's hospital stay in Baghdad enough evidence of the connection? Is it not so that the troubles in the world are largely going to come from the failed states, most of which are to be found in a contiguous belt straight through Araby and central Africa? Is it not so that the failed states easily pup out antidemocracy activists -- id est, terrorists? Was Ba'athist Iraq anything but a typical example of a failing/failed, despotic state?
I see the connections -- regardless of how obtuse you may care to be. As you know, no conspiracy theory makes it with me, either -- and here you are, trying unscrupulously and uncritically (at best) to purvey one. You do not persuade, sir.
Yep, that's what Cheney said and of course you think whatever the VP says is true, right? Cause you suck up all the WH is excreting about Iraq. I'm sure you fully believed the WMD stories and Powell's bogus speech in the UN.
Also Cheney still was claiming, even after the story already proved to be a hoax, that Iraq secret agents were meeting with Atta in Prague. When will you realise that all US intelligence about Iraq were bogus and misused in order to convince gullible people like you? Who's making conspiracies here? Cheney or me?
Truth is more straight forward. US intelligence thought that Zarqawi had lost a leg in Afghanistan in 2002. But then, in May 2003, they concluded that he still had both legs. Cheney's "evidence" of an al-Qaeda-Saddam link via Zarqawi may be an intercepted phone call by Zarqawi from a Baghdad hospital in 2002, while his leg was being attended to. But then "Zarqawi" shows up in a video with both legs in the 2004 beheading of hostage Nick Berg.
Then again, you're entirely free to suck up everything Bush and Cheney are saying.
Hippikos, I'd say the gullibility is all inside your head -- hell, you've glommed my share, and welcome to it. I think you're talking through your hat.
And where's the point of your discussion about whether al-Z lost a leg or didn't? It certainly doesn't make your point, whatever it was. Is it not to be understood, even from what you put out, that al-Z was in danger of losing his leg to his injuries, but good medical treatment and maybe good luck saved the limb? Would it be the first time ever that the initial word on something was muddled? Hardly.
Nor, frankly, am I persuaded that the Atta meeting was a hoax. Iffy? -- possibly. Understand something: earlier in my life, I was an intelligence professional and I have considerable experience with how hedged and qualified intelligence info is. It is never the complete story in real time -- that only comes, if ever, some time well after the fact, from the piecing-together done by historians.
I remind you, since you evidently need reminding, that Republicans don't swear a blood oath to tell lies before each meal and before bed as a condition of joining the Republican Party. Your kind of thinking is exactly what keeps right-wingers believing they are smarter than left-wingers. Certainly I'm confirmed in this view, reading the guff I see here.
Hippikos, I'd say the gullibility is all inside your head -- hell, you've glommed my share, and welcome to it. I think you're talking through your hat.
I believe in facts, you believe in Cheney. Now who's gullible here?
And where's the point of your discussion about whether al-Z lost a leg or didn't? It certainly doesn't make your point, whatever it was. Is it not to be understood, even from what you put out, that al-Z was in danger of losing his leg to his injuries, but good medical treatment and maybe good luck saved the limb? Would it be the first time ever that the initial word on something was muddled? Hardly.
It makes all the difference, and it was you who dragged in this highly questionable intelligence fact, which in fact is more a rumor. The fact that it does not confirm your theory does not make it irrelevant.
Nor, frankly, am I persuaded that the Atta meeting was a hoax. Iffy? -- possibly. Understand something: earlier in my life, I was an intelligence professional and I have considerable experience with how hedged and qualified intelligence info is. It is never the complete story in real time -- that only comes, if ever, some time well after the fact, from the piecing-together done by historians.
Looking at what you write here I hardly believe that, but in the very unlikely event that it is true that you were an intelligence professional other than working on the post room, than you certainly would remember rule numero uno in intelligence: only rely on multiple and corroborated sources.
I remind you, since you evidently need reminding, that Republicans don't swear a blood oath to tell lies before each meal and before bed as a condition of joining the Republican Party. Your kind of thinking is exactly what keeps right-wingers believing they are smarter than left-wingers. Certainly I'm confirmed in this view, reading the guff I see here.
I don't see the relevance of this argument in this discussion, unless, as usual a feeble attempt to distract from the real issue.
I see you know nothing of intelligence work. My case rests. Assume I've been doing some unlikely things from time to time -- I'll just say SIGINT most resembles radio astronomy: you're using the electromagnetic spectrum to tease out information that is not necessarily meant for you.
I'm not here to steer you wrong, Hippikos, nor am I particularly interested in scoring points.
Now tell me: do you want America to win this? If not, who would you prefer to win?
I see you know nothing of intelligence work.
Nothing a quick trip to Wikipedia can't fix.
Click on a few "External References" links for
bonus points!
...nor am I particularly interested in scoring points.
Oh... . . . nevemind.
To say that AQ was/is active in Iraq may be a fact. To say that AQ was/is active in America, Canada, Australia, Great Britain, Belgium, Denmark et al may also be a fact. In fact, it's evident that AQ most assuredly is and was active in all these countries along with just about every other country in the world.
Why didn't the US invade Denmark to find AQ, or Australia, or any other country such as Indonesia?
I think that's the point. Perhaps it was legitimate to invade Iraq under the guise of finding AQ members however, it would have been just as justifiable to invade any of the above mentioned countries if you accept that as the reason for invading Iraq. If you do accept that, then why Iraq and not 'anywhere else in the world'?
Yes, that's a fact.
So, one side believes Iraq was the only place to go to find AQ. The other side believes Iraq was invaded for oil.
Oh yeah, and to bring democracy to the arabs.
Democracy is what human beings in the full flower of adulthood will do -- unless bludgeoned, armtwisted, and browbeaten into putting up with something else.
Whatever else you may say to it, PNAC has one transcendant idea: a democracy will prosper best in the company of other democracies. The events of the twentieth century and the latter nineteenth demonstrate precisely that.
I'd call this the best single political idea of this and the previous centuries. I'd call Marxism -- the undemocracy -- the worst.
Oh yeah, and to bring democracy to the arabs.
You cannot "bring" a democracy to a nation, like implementing a new OS to a computer. It has to grow from inside and takes a long time to establish itself throughout all levels of a nation.
The PNAC is a typical neocon apostolic document, exclusively seen from the US point of view to dominate the world as "Pax Americana" It is a faulty idea, which has been proved the last 3 years.
Those who still think PNAC is/was a good idea, need to get a wake up call. All PNAC has brought is weakening the US strategic position and total loss of world respect, in fact it has been an utter disaster for the US for which the Bush administration will be held to account for the next decades. I firmly believe Bush will go into history as the worst president ever and will succeed Nixon for that. His last feeble SOTU was a perfect example of a lame duck waiting for his finish.
Originally Posted by Hippikos
... but in the very unlikely event that it is true that you were an intelligence professional other than working on the post room, than you certainly would remember rule numero uno in intelligence: only rely on multiple and corroborated sources.
Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla
I see you know nothing of intelligence work.
I concur with UG's assessment of Hippikos. UG states that his experience is in SIGINT (signal intelligence). My experience is in HUMINT (human intelligence).
Terrorist operations can be highly compartmentalized. There may be few sources, possibly only a single source, with useful information about specific activities. Sources are roughly rated using an alpha-numeric scale with A-G representing the reliability of the source (from totally reliable to completely unreliable; or, of unknown reliability due to lack of history) and 1-7 representing how well the source is known (from an open book to anonymous). A single source of high reliability may be more important than multiple sources of low reliability. A single well known source may be more important than multiple anonymous sources. All ratings are in the context of the relationship of the source(s) to the specific information gathering person/agency. While having
multiple / well known / reliable sources with information that can be
corroborated by other means is preferred, this doesn't always happen in the real world. The statement " ... rule numero uno in intelligence:
only rely on multiple and corroborated sources." [bold type mine] is blatently false and reflects either fantasy; or, adherence to the old adage "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."
Originally Posted by Flint
Nothing a quick trip to Wikipedia can't fix.
I
nonconcur with Flint's statement.
The Wikipedia and other open sources are not particularly good for learning
contemporary tradecraft.
A single well known source may be more important than multiple anonymous sources.
You mean someone like
Curveball?, considered to be a "single well know source".
The Prague meeting exploited by Cheney was from a "single well know scource" (9/11 report).
Be it SIGINT, IMINT or HUMINT, fact is that US intelligence in the ME is not exactly a succes story, more like "baffle 'em with bullshit".
No matter what fancy pancy intelligence abbreviations you both google, if you only look at what actually happen in reality than everybody knows I'm right. As an expert you should know that until not so long ago the head of the ME intelligence didn't even speak Arabic and the dependence on electronic instead of on the ground human intelligence is the weakness of the US intelligence, especially in the ME.
The reason that progressive societies will fail is that the modern citizen feels they have a right to be informed and empowered in the decisions of their government. Since the government cannot act effectively while showing all their cards on the table, they have to withhold their true motivations, thus causing the "well-informed" citizen to question WTF they are doing. It's a catch-22. The government needs public support for it's actions, but it can't offer an adequate explanation while simultaneously achieving its goals. I guess that's why only good liars can lead effectively.
Democracy is what human beings in the full flower of adulthood will do -- unless bludgeoned, armtwisted, and browbeaten into putting up with something else.
And that's why we have to bludgeon, armtwist, and browbeat them into accepting democracy!!
Torrere, kidding aside, you've got the wrong "them" in mind -- our whole purpose is to bludgeon the bludgeoners who oppose this improvement, leaving them too braindamaged or too dead to affect the progress towards democracy.
Not exactly a bad thing, I say. What's important is that the antidemocracy players be taken off the field. I attach very little importance to the circumstances of their departure, so long as it be permanent.
Nonconcur as a verb... now that does take me back. I'll add that really about the only way to know intelligence work is to do intelligence work and for some period of time.
Quite bluntly, no western power's intel effort has been remarkably successful in the closed regimes of the Middle East, which I attribute to inadequate HUMINT effort. The Iraqi nuclear program had absolutely everyone fooled, apparently including Saddam Hussein. But he's taken whatever he knew or didn't know to the grave and the one statement I've heard of him making about it was opaque. I get the impression that it was mid-level Iraqi officialdom that originated the deceptions.
P.S.: Hippikos is silent on whether he wants America to win. Since I think I can show that America's cause is humanity's is Hippikos', this is curious.
Torrere, kidding aside, you've got the wrong "them" in mind -- our whole purpose is to bludgeon the bludgeoners who oppose this improvement, leaving them too braindamaged or too dead to affect the progress towards democracy.
Whether that is the purpose or not, it is impossible. We can only bludgeon in their general direction, hitting lots of innocents, and turning them into foes.
Which leads me to ask the largely unanswerable: just what is your strategy for removing the hostility of the bigots and the control of irreplaceable resources by unfriendlies, and how is it better than what is currently in train?
Is not death the most reliable cure for bigotry?
UG, did you mean to say, "How do you propose we go about getting control of the oil in the Middle East?"
... just what is your strategy for removing the hostility of the bigots and the control of irreplaceable resources by unfriendlies, ...
Simple. Massacre anyone with the name Urbane Guerrilla. It works everytime.
Pouty pouty pouty -- wotta bitch.
Aliantha, what kind of situation is it where all of your fuel is controlled by your enemy?
A really bad one? - just guessin
P.S.: Hippikos is silent on whether he wants America to win. Since I think I can show that America's cause is humanity's is Hippikos', this is curious.
I thought it was clear that such a simpleton question doesn´t really need an answer. The Iraq war is not a NBA game. War on Terror is a very complexed issue for which the US has only raised more questions than there are answers. It is not about the US, it´s the World who has to win. As it the situation is now, this US administration only makes it harder.
Humanity being the US cause is of course utter bollox. Pax Americana is the driving force, as you´ve showed with the PNAC and saying this: "Aliantha, what kind of situation is it where all of your fuel is controlled by your enemy?"
Is not death the most reliable cure for bigotry?
It is not. Bigotry is like the pink stain in "The Cat in the Hat comes Back", but there is no Little Cat Z. Killing splatters the bigotry all over. The more bigotry you physically attack, the more there is when you're done. The longer we're there, the more Inigo Montoyas will populate the country.
Aliantha, what kind of situation is it where all of your fuel is controlled by your enemy?
What kind of country makes enemies of those who control it's fuel?
Aliantha, what kind of situation is it where all of your fuel is controlled by your enemy?
You know UG, it's always been their oil, in their land and theirs to control as they see fit.
Maybe the billions of dollars spent trying to wrest the oil from the people who've had it since time immemorial would have been better spent exploring alternative fuel options.
Your argument isn't a good one UG. It's not 'your' oil in the first place, so you have no right to it other than to pay the market price, and if 'they' choose not to trade with 'you', then that's 'their' choice.
It is not. Bigotry is like the pink stain in "The Cat in the Hat comes Back", but there is no Little Cat Z. Killing splatters the bigotry all over. The more bigotry you physically attack, the more there is when you're done. The longer we're there, the more Inigo Montoyas will populate the country.
Hmmm...philosophy. "Cat In The Hat 101"?
Nonetheless, Ali, we'd dearly like a situation where they'd likely choose to deal, and smoothly, with us. It is likely in any case, as petroleum will for a long time be the salable commodity in the greater world economy. Combining this wealth generator with widely varied and distributed investment in all other economic sectors helps the oilpatch nations escape the risks of one-crop economies.
Well, Jay, the animosity is actually coming all from the other direction -- I live over here, and that is what I've seen. We Americans are not remarkably hostile to Araby in general nor Iraq in particular, even in spite of the abuses they've heaped on us. Our enemies, as I see it, are not only self declared, they are self made.
Is there a connection with Israel? That connection is in large measure one also made by our foes. What is not appreciated in the Arab nations -- for this is too Arab-official to be the Arab street, though the problem will only be solved in the Arab street -- is how deeply decent Christians were offended by the excesses that antisemitism evolved into during WW2. Clearly, Europe and America had to do the right thing by the Jews. Balfour went so far as to offer the Jews of Europe a choice of either the Judean parts of the post-Ottoman Palestinian Mandate, or else as big a slice of Uganda as they could handle, and got back a polite "No, thanks, about Uganda. We wouldn't care for it." Israel was it, and after a certain amount of bootless spluttering in the Palestinian Mandate, Israel it was, in 1948.
The Arabs and Druzes who made their peace with the Jewish influx are Israeli citizens today, and welcome. Those induced to turn refugee, and then turned away from settling in neighboring Arab countries as would be only natural, have been induced to be at feud with the Jews, and from there the infection has only spread. You can't tell me being at feud is ever going to produce righteousness, but the anti-Israel, "drive them into the sea" faction doesn't care about this -- therefore I care very little for them.
Neither we, nor the Israelis, are here to submit to somebody's vengeance fantasies. If they want vengeance, they'd better be prepared to have vengeance wrought on them. If they want prosperity they will find us very sympathetic.
HM, I propose to make bigotry extinct by its being the province of losers, of people who didn't survive long enough to breed their replacements. Nowadays, disposing of the bigots is solely a matter of bringing up enough bullets. We want Islam's idiots to dispose of themselves, either directly or by having us pull the triggers. This will leave room and political weight for the ones who aren't going to act like that or think like that. True, it will also take a real effort to undercut any concomitant resentment, and we will have to make that effort: the feuding mindset has to go away through being made ineffectual, useless, Hobbesian: that dead men see no grandchildren and make no money.
Something different to wonder at is why these onetime provinces of the Ottoman Empire have ended up so brutish of governance and so poor at peace.
HM, I propose to make bigotry extinct by its being the province of losers, of people who didn't survive long enough to breed their replacements. Nowadays, disposing of the bigots is solely a matter of bringing up enough bullets.
Breeding is just one way that it spreads. The other is when we yell "bigotry!", lob a missile into a country, and say "collateral damage can't be helped, here, have a repainted school and the world's largest embassy/military base in your capitol city."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16253.htm
This is why we can't win the war in Iraq and why the troop surge won't do anything.
The Arabs and Druzes who made their peace with the Jewish influx are Israeli citizens today, and welcome.
The Arab minority in Israel has never been recognized by the State of Israel as a national minority. The national, ethnic, and linguistic character of the Arab community has been consistently ignored and has often resulted in discrimination by the Israeli Government. They are often considered to be a Trojan Horse in Israel.
Nonetheless, Ali, we'd dearly like a situation where they'd likely choose to deal, and smoothly, with us. It is likely in any case, as petroleum will for a long time be the salable commodity in the greater world economy. Combining this wealth generator with widely varied and distributed investment in all other economic sectors helps the oilpatch nations escape the risks of one-crop economies.
What you say is true UG, however the fact remains that it's not the US's decision as to how oil in the middle east should be distributed. Or should I say, it shouldn't be.
The last two statements you've made to me have demonstrated nothing short of bully boy tactics in order to arrange things in such a way that it benefits the US and of course their allies.
HM, it seems to me you mistake their fault -- their eighteen-year effort to start a war with us, dating from Marine Barracks Beirut 1983 through 9/11 -- for our fault. I don't.
"...of course their allies" -- in a word, you, Ali.
Keep in mind our self-made, self-declared enemies are busy trying to bully us. We see no practical difference between this and the assaults against us that put us into World War Two. Still gonna mean fightin', and we understand that.
Fighting of this nature mostly quits once everybody is too fucking tired of it. But you have to wear everybody out first.
HM, it seems to me you mistake their fault -- their eighteen-year effort to start a war with us, dating from Marine Barracks Beirut 1983 through 9/11 -- for our fault. I don't.
Who are you talking about here?
Torrere, kidding aside, you've got the wrong "them" in mind -- our whole purpose is to bludgeon the bludgeoners who oppose this improvement, leaving them too braindamaged or too dead to affect the progress towards democracy.
...
The Iraqi nuclear program had absolutely everyone fooled, apparently including Saddam Hussein.
That line is total bullshit. I remember 2003. The international investigators led by Hans Blix were not fooled at all. The American people were not fooled by the Iraqi nuclear program, they were fooled by Colin Powell and the Bush administration.
On the other hand, you have an incredibly historicist take on democracy. It reminds me of the way that Marxists claimed that Communism was inevitable. They were so convinced that Communism was inevitable that they tried to accelerate the progression to communism by setting up dictatorships in Central Asia. Those dictatorships are now opposed only by radical Islam.
Democracy is great, but it doesn't seem like a historical inevitability any more than Communism was, and it doesn't seem like a cure-all either.
It Has Unraveled So Quickly
Iraq is a different country now.
The moderates are mostly gone. My phone includes at least a dozen entries for middle-class families who have given up and moved away. They were supposed to build democracy here. Instead they work odd jobs in Syria and Jordan. Even the moderate political leaders have left.
Hurray for bludgeoning!
"...of course their allies" -- in a word, you, Ali.
No shit sherlock! Glad you picked that part up UG
Keep in mind our self-made, self-declared enemies are busy trying to bully us. We see no practical difference between this and the assaults against us that put us into World War Two. Still gonna mean fightin', and we understand that.
The US didn't get involved in WW11 till the Japs bombed the shit out of you. I'm sure knee jerk was good then, and I'm sure it's got a lot to do with all these 'pre-emptive' strikes now.
Fighting of this nature mostly quits once everybody is too fucking tired of it. But you have to wear everybody out first.
Fighting of this nature doesn't stop till the citizens of one country or another stand up and say enough is enough (you dumb shits). Why did the war in Vietnam end? Do you remember?HM, it seems to me you mistake their fault -- their eighteen-year effort to start a war with us, dating from Marine Barracks Beirut 1983 through 9/11 -- for our fault. I don't.
Hmmm... so you're saying our problems with the Arab world began in '83 in Beirut? Do you think those Marines were there on vacation?
Happy Monkey, your reply shows doublethink, or maybe unthink, if you cannot follow my argument. Who, indeed. Doubleplusungood.
Griff, no, I'm not saying that; I'm saying the current phase of the problem, the going after us, really got going about then. Were they or were they not trying to either start a war with us, or win it then?
Aliantha, I remember it ended when the Communists won in 1975 -- and then kept the place buggered up, and the refugees streaming and rafting out of there, for the next ten years. One reason I'm ardently pro-human and anticommunist, remember?
Really, people: I'm far more sensible than you want me to be; deal with it better than you have, okay?
Your view on how and why the Vietnam 'occupation' ended is as warped as some of your other views UG.
I rather think it was because public pressure led to the government of the day deciding they'd bitten off more than they could chew and couldn't solve the problems of another nation any better than those of their own.
That we were getting our ass kicked due to our policies toward how we fought that "conflict" had nothing to do with it? Yeah, right.
those tricksy jungle folk did make life hard didn't they?
Maybe Bush thinks it'll be different this time cause there's no trees to hide behind?
Or maybe because there is no way to stop the Iraqi civil war.
Maybe you're right pierce.
Or maybe because there is no way to stop the Iraqi civil war.
Arm our side with Mr. Potato Head grenades! It will terrify the other side into submission!!!
Hmmm... so you're saying our problems with the Arab world began in '83 in Beirut? Do you think those Marines were there on vacation?
Griff, no, I'm not saying that; I'm saying the current phase of the problem, the going after us, really got going about then. Were they or were they not trying to either start a war with us, or win it then?
They were not. They were trying to get the US out of their yard..... and still are. :cool:
I put it to you that that is the same thing -- given our reasons for being there.
I suggest you don't try to usurp my yard with that silly non-logic. :lol:
Your view on how and why the Vietnam 'occupation' ended is as warped as some of your other views UG.
Which amounts to a confirmation that I'm really in pretty good shape, and arrow-straight.
I rather think it was because public pressure led to the government of the day deciding they'd bitten off more than they could chew and couldn't solve the problems of another nation any better than those of their own.
Which amounts to making an excuse for a most horrendous betrayal to the forces of oppression and injustice. Communism's class-war paradigm creates both, on an industrial scale, everywhere it's been. Remember that in 1954-55 the refugees ran from Communism from the North to the South. Were they wrong? History says they were absolutely right.
Thus, kill communists faster than they can be made, and injustice and one source of oppression is removed from our Earth. This is a good thing. Bloody way to get it, but human goodness and resistance to evil is worth any volume of blood. I've been there, examined it, and that's my conclusion.
You may of course think as you like -- but that doesn't mean your opinion would actually coincide with the reality. I endeavor to keep my opinions grounded in reality and in large measure I succeed.
North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam motivated by and in the name of communism -- nationalism was never more than a convenient cloak. In the end, the Vietnamese had to abandon communism in order to restore the nation to functionality. Marxism's approach to economics doesn't much coincide with how economics really works, and without a good economy, nothing works and life is terrible. Collectivism doesn't work and shouldn't be practiced. Shoot its practitioners before they get around to shooting you, which they will do if you have anything of mankind's true birthright in your mental makeup -- your liberty.
Remember that in 1954-55 the refugees ran from Communism from the North to the South.
Wow. I did not know that refugees were fleeing the north and south pole. Having learned that, even I can be arrow-straight.
Amazing how history is so easily understood once it is rewritten.
In the end, the Vietnamese had to abandon communism in order to restore the nation to functionality. Marxism's approach to economics doesn't much coincide with how economics really works, and without a good economy, nothing works and life is terrible. Collectivism doesn't work and shouldn't be practiced.
You got this much right but you fail at being an anti-totalitarian by placing too little faith in a free market to leverage those other freedoms.
Oh, I dunno. It's true I haven't said much about it. Dictatorship, however, is quite the opposite of free market -- even if it doesn't happen to be Marxist.
Tw, every time I think you couldn't possibly get more idiotic or more delusional you prove me wrong, you mighty misreader of posts. Interesting, but now I'm curious -- just how do you keep it together enough to pee in the pot -- or even draw breath? Surely even one of your mismade mind could see it was North and South Vietnam I had in mind.
Or were you trying to make a joke? There, I think that covers the possibilities.
I should have said market not free market. A dictator claiming complete control over the marketplace is a far different thing than maintaining control. A black market is very good for disolving respect for authority.
North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam motivated by and in the name of communism -- nationalism was never more than a convenient cloak. In the end, the Vietnamese had to abandon communism in order to restore the nation to functionality. Marxism's approach to economics doesn't much coincide with how economics really works, and without a good economy, nothing works and life is terrible. Collectivism doesn't work and shouldn't be practiced. Shoot its practitioners before they get around to shooting you, which they will do if you have anything of mankind's true birthright in your mental makeup -- your liberty.
So, Vietnam abandonned communism after all, even without the US. Isn't that a pity of the 2 Mio deaths (plus another 1,5 Mio in Laos and Cambodia) for trying to force it from the outside? Same what´s now happening in Iraq (1000 Iraqi's killed this week alone) and might be happening in Iran?
As usual the only thing the US is learning from history that it's not learning from history.
I don't think the US is the only country guilty of not learning from history Hip.
I don't think the US is the only country guilty of not learning from history Hip.
I was referring to Vietnam and Iraq, but you're right, it's a common problem.
I don't think it's a national thing either; I think it's a human thing. Robert Heinlein said it best in
Starship Troopers -- the book, not the maladroit movie of that name; jee-zusss was that a European misreading of an extremely American manner of thought:
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion [that violence never settles anything] is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."
Add to it that man is man's own natural enemy on this Earth -- absolutely no other organism capable of eating a human is anywhere nearly as lethal as a human. This is the sort of thing you pick up from what might conveniently be called The Heinlein Lecture.
Either you love Heinlein or you hate him. Seldom is anyone wishy-washy.He's fucking awful politically, most of the time, but a great writer nonetheless.
Well, lad, there's the most visible difference between thee and me. I read ST at thirteen and found it seminal. I've lived my life through an understanding of The Heinlein Lecture. The guy's thinking is libertarian, you know... check out Tramp Royale sometime for his views on visas, passports, and general ID paperwork and paper shuffling.
The other most visible difference between thee and me, were I to post a barechested pic like you did, is I've got more hair on my chest and less on my head -- unless you count the part around my jaws. :p
I read it at twelve (and thrice since then, and actually at this very moment reading it again) and thought it was a damn good read, but not a damn good political philosophy.
Mmm, this may be. It certainly hasn't been tried out in the form laid out in the book, but that's true of most social science fiction. The particular clue that it's a libertarian global societal setting is that line of Rico senior's: "Laws are few."
In ST Heinlein glorifies militarism in an almost apostolic way. Truth is that war is dirty and there's nothing apostolic about it. But then again it's (Science) Fiction, no real blood running, no dismembered bodies, no teared up skulls with scattered brains.
I can imagine that one loves the book at the age of 13, but with the years wisdom and reality should replace idealism and fantasy. I'm afraid you got stuck at that age.
South America, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Mogadishu, Iraq, Afghanistan show how reality is.
And I've said it before, the White House foreign politics have nothing to do with Starship Trooper mentality, but everything with influence and energy sources. So, dream on Professor, dream on...
So, Vietnam abandonned communism after all, even without the US. Isn't that a pity of the 2 Mio deaths (plus another 1,5 Mio in Laos and Cambodia) for trying to force it from the outside? Same what´s now happening in Iraq (1000 Iraqi's killed this week alone) and might be happening in Iran?
As usual the only thing the US is learning from history that it's not learning from history.
Where do you get those death figures?
Too lazy to find yourself? Like
here..Hip, you might need a better link than that one. Even Wiki has a warning on that one.
Hippikos, running through everything Heinlein wrote is what might be called The Heinlein Lecture, as evident in ST as in anything else. I respond to the wisdom in The Heinlein Lecture very well. If you can't... well, I can't help you. God couldn't help you.
Having both read Starship Troopers and served two hitches in the military, I find what Heinlein has to say about military service to be quite real, and quite wise -- they compare well. Yattering about "glorifying" the military is mere dronespeak, of nil value. People who've done military, thus committing a portion (or even the entirety) of their lives to the protection of their societies, do not speak as you do, Hippikos.
There are the people who get Heinlein, and there are the groundlings. All I can suggest is more exposure. You'll still be you, Hipp, and not become me -- you'll just be smarter or wiser, is all.
Too lazy to find yourself? Like here..
~2,000,000 to 4,000,000 Killed (The Vietnam's Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs released figures on April 3, 1995 claimed that nearly 2 million civilians in the north and 2 million in the south were killed between 1954 and 1975.
Yeah these people are well know for telling the truth....Haaaaaa....Haaaaa...
~2,000,000 to 4,000,000 Killed (The Vietnam's Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs released figures on April 3, 1995 claimed that nearly 2 million civilians in the north and 2 million in the south were killed between 1954 and 1975.
Yeah these people are well know for telling the truth....Haaaaaa....Haaaaa...
Yeah, and you believe McNamara, Kissinger, Nixon, Westmoreland?
Like in Iraq, the US knows exactly how many US soldiers died in Vietnam, but Vietnamese casualties never have been fully archived, 1,5, 2 or 4 Mio, who knows, who carez...
Yeah, and you believe McNamara, Kissinger, Nixon, Westmoreland?
Like in Iraq, the US knows exactly how many US soldiers died in Vietnam, but Vietnamese casualties never have been fully archived, 1,5, 2 or 4 Mio, who knows, who carez...
Yep...the North Vietnamese were always truthful...like keeping their bargains from the Paris Peace Talks?
Hey, in Vietnam the Communists committed many atrocities. In and out of the cities.
This is only news, or seems news, to certain people.
In Vietnam, America was actually fighting against someone instead of sitting in the middle...
Well, lad, there's the most visible difference between thee and me. I read ST at thirteen and found it seminal. I've lived my life through an understanding of The Heinlein Lecture. The guy's thinking is libertarian, you know... check out Tramp Royale sometime for his views on visas, passports, and general ID paperwork and paper shuffling.
The other most visible difference between thee and me, were I to post a barechested pic like you did, is I've got more hair on my chest and less on my head -- unless you count the part around my jaws. :p
I've read everything he published... it took me a very long time to find it all and read it. Changed me. ST is a great story, there are several more with a similar theme, some more poetic and subtle.
I too felt that places like Portugal have it right... two years compensatory service should be the way, end of story. Freedom is not free.
Don't want to kill? Conscientious objectors get to be in support jobs, there are plenty of them.
BTW, I tried to serve, arthritis kept me out.
I have also read all of Louis L'Amour's work. Another great American Storyteller.
Hey, in Vietnam the Communists committed many atrocities. In and out of the cities.
This is only news, or seems news, to certain people.
I visted Hue and saw were the NVA murdered thousand and threw them in mass graves during TET 68.
I visted Hue and saw were the NVA murdered thousand and threw them in mass graves during TET 68.
And I visited where George Washington slept. Ronald - by your own claim, you arrived in Nam one year after Tet. Did they also show you where Ho Chi Minh slept? Gee - that would make you an expert.
Of course, this assumes you don't post lies. Let's see. What was that lie you posted from the Iraq Study Group?
And I visited where George Washington slept. Ronald - by your own claim, you arrived in Nam one year after Tet. Did they also show you where Ho Chi Minh slept? Gee - that would make you an expert.
Of course, this assumes you don't post lies. Let's see. What was that lie you posted from the Iraq Study Group?
Sure I saw the
grave site...the South Vietnamese used it as a political focal point for sometime....do you claim it never existed or it didn`t happen?
Hippikos, running through everything Heinlein wrote is what might be called The Heinlein Lecture, as evident in ST as in anything else. I respond to the wisdom in The Heinlein Lecture very well. If you can't... well, I can't help you. God couldn't help you.
Having both read Starship Troopers and served two hitches in the military, I find what Heinlein has to say about military service to be quite real, and quite wise -- they compare well. Yattering about "glorifying" the military is mere dronespeak, of nil value. People who've done military, thus committing a portion (or even the entirety) of their lives to the protection of their societies, do not speak as you do, Hippikos.
There are the people who get Heinlein, and there are the groundlings. All I can suggest is more exposure. You'll still be you, Hipp, and not become me -- you'll just be smarter or wiser, is all.
I was drafted to military service when I was 18 for 1,5 years in the middle of the Cold War and have been stationed in Germany for some time. There was still a draft in my country when I was at that age. Believe it or not I was selected to become a Marine, but I declined because that meant 24 months of service instead of 18. As I was right at the start of a promising civilian career, had a good job with excellent prospects, you can imagine that I wasn't over-enthusiastic to start a military career instead. Despite having been in military service I still can't find any resemblance with a Star Trooper, unless you are gullible enough to spoon up everything politicians say. Because at the end of the line, it's the Politician who makes the decision to go to war, the military only obeys orders.
Iraq was supposed to be
a happy place by now, released documents reveal, pro-American and all.
Some of the planning by Gen. Tommy Franks and other top military officials before the 2003 invasion of Iraq envisioned that as few as 5,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq by December 2006, according to documents obtained by a private research organization.
"First, they assumed that a provisional government would be in place by 'D-Day', then that the Iraqis would stay in their garrisons and be reliable partners, and finally that the post-hostilities phase would be a matter of mere 'months'. All of these were delusions."
That's 5,000 troops
total.
Holy shit, those slides are more embarrassing than, not making plans.:eyebrow:
Since the conversation has got around to Vietnam, and various people's levels of expertise on that subject. Have any of you heard the tale told by the young woman who survived the mi lai (sp?) massacre? Very interesting. Gives a very different view of that conflict. My ex's dad wrote a play about her experience, having spent several hours interviewing her. "Bodycount" it's called.
People who've done military, thus committing a portion (or even the entirety) of their lives to the protection of their societies, do not speak as you do, Hippikos.
There are the people who get Heinlein, and there are the groundlings. All I can suggest is more exposure. You'll still be you, Hipp, and not become me -- you'll just be smarter or wiser, is all.
Reading and understanding Heinlein is not the sole preserve of those who have military experience. I have read everything Heinlein wrote. I was a huge fan from the age of 12. This is just like your assertion that I aught to read more history in order to come to the same conclusions you have reached. You have your analysis of Heinlein, as do many other people.
There are more ways to serve and protect your community than just military service, fine and noble though that is. I have known utterly selfless people who have dedicated their entire lives to serving their community who have never served in the military.
Your arrogance continues to astound me UG: your assumption that any opinion which runs contrary to yours is the result of a lack of knowledge, education or awareness. It is not. It is merely a difference of opinion, born of a different analysis, often of the same information.
Stick that one up your kilt UG! ;)
(well said Dana)
...said Don Quixote to the windmill. :rolleyes:
DanaC, I agree with your point about not absolutely needing military service to get Heinlein -- my point there, however, was that RAH knew whereof he wrote. My other, and really quite separate, point is that there are those who do grok Heinlein in his fullness, and then -- there are the others. Those others tend not to engage my admiring attention.
I've earned my arrogance, thank you, and I believe I'll continue to enjoy it. Would you like to take a guess at how often opinions contrary to mine are visibly the result of lack of knowledge, education, or awareness? I'd take a guess myself but I hardly know where to start. Don't forget intellectual dishonesty, either, whether from fringe politics, neurotic thinking, or perversities less categorizable.
It's not much admitted in print around here, but in much of what we talk about we're all amateurs -- and nearly all of us on reading it are moved to mutter that we're surrounded by morons.
Hippikos, thanks, that does clear things up a bit, and is fairly spoken. You'll recognize Heinlein was trying for what a perfect military might look like. In my service I had plenty of exposure to real-world imperfection too, which is why I only reenlisted once, finishing my last hitch a few years before the Cold War came to its quiet end, the Iron Curtain rusting through and falling down. However, military veterans are going to have an appreciation for ST that I think will go deeper and subtler than anything the purely civilian will know.
And I see tw's dived back into pro-Communist and anti-American slime again. What pointless jeering -- unless the whole point was to turn his naked back to my lash yet again. Not only a nithing, but spectacularly so. Either that, or he's not certain we understand how minimal his wisdom is in the sociopolitical field.
But then, he's never shown wisdom, not to me.
Occasional humor, yeah, since the beginning of this year of our Lord 2007. I encourage that, particularly coming from this otherwise notably humorless poster. It's an improvement.
Although Heinlein was a rather good SF writer, please remember he was only that. I'm pretty sure that he did not bet he could create a religion...... I guess he left that to his fans...... (hi, Ugh, how's it going... btw, just how do you reconcile the hard-right politics of say Farnhams Freehold with 'Stranger in a Strange Land')....
to the end of his years, he somewhat became the 'john wayne' of sci-fi, playing on nationalism and jingoism. For another view of that period, I suggest you read Peter van Greenaways' 'take the war to washington'
You'll recognize Heinlein was trying for what a perfect military might look like.
There's no "perfect" military. Probably that's why I prefer writers like Erich Maria Remarque and, to a certain extend, Konsalik. They describe how war really is: a very dirty business mostly ruled by dictators and politican.
