 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
Vietnamese had unlimited support from both Russians and Chinese. If they were fighting by themselves, they would have been crushed by the French in the 50s. Where do you think they get all their MiGs, SAMs, and heavy artilleries?
Iraqi insurgents don't have any superpowers supporting them, they don't even have a minor power supporting them. All they can do is to incite some murderous fools to kill people. You don't want to cave in to a few thousand gun-toting thugs, do you?
As a reminder: Since Israel has blown that mother****er Yassin to shreds a few weeks ago, it hasn't suffered a single attack.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Saying that the Coalitition should stay Iraq because they created the mess is like saying to a man that he should sink into the quicksand , because he was foolish enough to walk into it.
It was not the invasion which created the supposed animisity between Sunni' and Shi'a, so the Coalition cannot be held responsible for an eventual civil war between them.
I think it is very arrogant by Western politicians to think that it is only the presence of the Coalition which prevents Iraq from falling apart.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MOBIUS
|
 |
Prifysgol Caerdydd
Dec 1999
time: 15:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Sure, you just let them know that "Hey, you can turn that Mosque into a headquarters and shoot at us from it, and we'll let you, cuz we're the nice guys." 
No wonder the UK has declined from being a major world power to being the lapdog of one. |
Which is probably why the 'overwhelming firepower' has fanned the flames of the uprising and caused the deaths of 42 US soldiers, whereas as the UK's 'softly softly' approach has avoided confrontation and resulted in the deaths of 0 UK soldiers...
Funny, I thought overwhelming firepower meant less of your soldiers died in relation to your counterparts.
If you give them something to rebel against - they will!
quote:
Not a lot - certainly not more than we can also kill in short order. |
That's what they thought in Vietnam wasn't it? No, I'm not comparing Iraq to Vietnam directly.
Just the fact that certain posters on this forum appear to have forgotten that despite the US's massive kill ratio, they were basically defeated by a peasant army.
quote:
I'm glad one bomb near a mosque has given you so much to get excited over. |
Duh, what can we do to piss of the natives in two seconds flat...?
quote:
And in the hours it would take to accomplish this, the Iraqi insurgents would happily cooperate. And the Iraqi security troops would be in sufficient numbers and be sufficiently trained. |
So you've had a year to train them, oh but I forgot you sacked the entire army and can't trust them enough to equip them properly...
Point is, the US said it was going to take Falluja apart and guess what, it's more difficult than they thought because they have unnecessarily stirred up a hornet's nest by taking a hammer to crack a nut - oh look now they're losing lots of men, now they decide to negotiate by demanding the surrender of the insurgents, their arms and those that killed the contractors.
To which the heavily outnumbered and completely surrounded insurgents have called for the pilots responsible for the attack on the mosque and the generals in charge to be surrendered to them.
The mightiest army in the world forced to negotiate by a ragtag band of irate civilians...
The word 'Nuts' comes to mind, a month or so earlier and the 82nd airborne might've appreciated that particular irony...
quote:
Or they could have done nothing, because in your world, you ask people nicely and that's it. |
Well in Basra, Sadr's men occupied some govt offices and UK troops cordoned the area off but didn't attack. after negotiations between them, the Islamic parties and the governing council, the occupation ended...
Basra, currently has been relatively quiet - in fact the worst thing that has happened there lately was the protests when the Israelis killed Yassin.
Yep, not inciting the local populace by killing them and having none of your soldiers killed is definitely the wrong way to do things...
quote:
You've never seen the US go in for overkill or be particularly brutal. |
OK, I'll call it inappropriate use of force just for you...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MOBIUS
Oh come on, since destroying the authority in Iraq we have an obligation to stick around until a sufficiently strong new one is in place to take over - otherwise you are leaving a dangerous power vacuum and the ones with the guns will take over... Leaving is not an option!
|
The Coalition Provisional Authority destroyed the Ba'athist regime and set up a new government of collaborators, many of whom have now fled the country, or are now publicy denouncing the US. The public workers have now all gone on 'strike', and it seems that the Civil Defense forces are on the side of the warriors. That the Republic of Iraq was destroyed, the bureaucracy, the adminstrative routines, the power structure was destroyed is doubtful. The clerics have called for the ousting of the aggressors, and the young men have gone to battle. Pray tell me where the socalled power 'vacuum' is.
The United States of America is at war with the Republic of Iraq for all intents and purposes, and no legalist cover up can hide that basic fact.
A former US four star general has said that the supply for the American forces is in danger of being cut off. Wounded marines have stated that they did not have enough ammunition. For whatever reason on the ground commanders are refusing to give up casualty figures to Pentagon.
This is not about politics. It is about being realistic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
Once the decision is made it's better to support it and get behind it so the job is done right. Second guessing a drastic action in the middle of its execution does more harm than good for everybody involved. |
I disagree. Second guessing can in now way affect the resolve of the US in following whatever policy the neo-cons lay out. It can however help in establishing a case against them if it goes wrong, which it has now in oh so many ways, and create the political conditions for a purge - read: election.
The objective military conditions on the ground, will not be affected by "disgruntled" people on the homefront. This is a myth.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
I think one of the charges brought against the defendants of of the Nuremberg trials was 'conspiracy to wage aggresive war.'
Not that I think that Bush will ever face a trial.
quote:
THE "NUREMBERG PRINCIPLE"
1. The initiating and waging of aggressive war is a crime.
Aggressive war is illegal.
The political, and military leaders of a government, when they act in a political capacity, who initiate and wage an aggressive war, commit a crime against humanity for which they may be tried by a duly constituted international tribunal.
Those who initiate and wage aggressive war must answer for the killings and devastation resulting therefrom to the extent of their participation in the perpetration and prosecution of the war.
Such leaders may not exculpate themselves by a plea that such killings and devastation are the incidents of war.
Military leaders who participate in political decisions to wage such war forfeit their military immunity.
2. Conspiracy to wage war is a crime.
Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan to commit any act of aggressive war or crime against humanity are responsible for all acts performed by any person in execution of the plan.
The crime of conspiring to commit aggressive war, to be a separate crime, must be closely related to the actual outbreak of armed conflict.
|
Source
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-04-2004 04:59
interesting way of putting it
|