 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:35
|
|
Yeah, it seems that Fox and Sky(the ones who were reporting 130 US dead) fixed their report and now the numbers are somewhere in the very low dozens.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Actually, if it had not been a political decision by the Bush Administration to substantially lower the amount of patrols in Iraq this might never have happened. Bush was worried that if the soldiers went beyond basepoint they might get shot at, and subsequently the casualty figures would be further stacked against him.
I also recall that the US army contingent was actually withdrawn from Baghdad a few months ago, and placed in camps around the city. This explains how Bagdhad has now effectively reverted to Iraqi control. And all the other cities too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Felch
|
 |
Germantown, Maryland
Sep 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
Not to diminish what I've never experienced, but in historical terms 31 dead is hardly a catastrophe. To me this situation seems to stem from the failure of the United States to adequately brutalize the hostile population.
Folks have this ludicrous notion that Muslims have a death wish. They don't. If they did, they wouldn't surrender. They're human beings, and even the most fanatical human beings enjoy living. If that weren't true we wouldn't have Gitmo chock full of Al Qaeda and Taliban, and we wouldn't have so many Iraqi P.O.W.s and the Israelis wouldn't have any Palestinian prisoners to exchange.
So what you do is you go to the mosque that this Al-Sadr guy is hiding at and you warn them to exit peacefully or else, and if they don't you blow it to hell. And if other people want to try to flex nuts elsewhere, you do the same thing.
I don't think it's okay to kill people indiscriminately, but we're in the situation where we have to. This is why war is wrong. But since we're in a war, we may as well do the best job of it we can.
Oh, and anybody who thinks that murdering civilians leads to problems down the line is welcome to show me how many American troops have been killed by Germans and Japanese angered by Dresden and Hiroshima. It doesn't. It's morally wrong, but it's effective.
Also I agree with MtG on the cockroaches coming out. This may be like the Tet offensive, where American forces were finally able to bring their power to bear in an effective way against the VC.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Well, if you are planning to pull out completely in a few months, shouldn't you gradually begin reducing control? |
The US never had the plan of pulling out completely. they were to reduce the numbers from 125.000 to 100.000. These were supposed to stay for another 2 years.
But it seems that the military is now planning to put more troops into Iraq. At least they will have an excuse for doing so, if the US takes a substantial pounding. The political climate will allow escalation. This whole incedent has probably been carefully orchestrated.
Also the US will still have its largest Embassy in the world placed in Bagdhad. A fortress containing office space for 3000 employees.
The handing over of power is largely symbolic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Felch
Oh, and anybody who thinks that murdering civilians leads to problems down the line is welcome to show me how many American troops have been killed by Germans and Japanese angered by Dresden and Hiroshima. It doesn't. It's morally wrong, but it's effective. |
Maybe, but then the aim was not to liberate the Germans and Japanese. Also they were more concerned with the Russians, than with the Americans who they knew they could handle politically and economically later on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Felch
Why not? It was a fantastic victory in tactical terms. The only problem was that people who didn't know a damn thing about it were freaking out.
If you have the most advanced military in the world, especially one geared towards big pitched battles with tanks and artillery and that sort of thing, a Tet Offensive is far more welcome than IEDs and convoy ambushes. |
As far as I understand the Tet offensive, specifically the Battle of Hue City, was largely won due to significant artillery support by the navy. I doubt that the US will start lobbing cruise missiles into Iraqi cities, just now.
Without heavy artillery support the American forces have mostly suffered a 1 to 1 casualty ratio. Now of course the Americans are better protected and have acces to better healthcare. But in a tactical sense that might not be an advantage, since a wounded soldier on the battlefield is more of an immediate reliability than a dead one.
The reports of Iraqi combat losses are very probably exaggerated.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Felch
The American aims in WWII were the unconditional surrenders of Germany and Japan - essentially we wanted regime change, what we got in Iraq. There wasn't any desire for a negotiated peace sixty years ago, any more than there was last year.
And while it's true that there aren't any other great powers anymore, I don't see how that matters in the least. My point was that sufficient brutality will crush people's will to resist, and it certainly does. |
Well it could be argued that there was no regime change in Japan. As far as Germany is concerned I think that people often forget that German Fascism was not that far away from Democracy. I would argue that a substantial amount of Germans did support Hitler who actually ruled through emergency decrees. And Germany was a genuine democracy before Hitler came to power.
In both countires the major corporations, and Zaibatsu were not dismantled. And the business elites of America, Germany and Japan soon found common ground. Indeed these elites were in negotiation with eachother during the war, and American businessmen often intervened to save this or that German or Japanese manufacturing plant. Also the population was relatively well off in terms of skills and education. The destruction of property was largely concentrated on communication, workers quarters and certain warproducing facilities. Different with Berlin of course, which the Russians more or less razed, of no fault of theirs I might add.
Iraq is largely a community of tribes, with an economy based on agriculture.
Then I would say, that there was indeed plenty of room for negotiations with Saddam Hussein, who in retrospect did not breach enough, if any, UN imposed sanctions to warrant war.
Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, said in a recent interview that he believed that the Iraqis were better off under Hussein than now.
Regarding the effects of brutalizing the population, I would say that the SS was not very succesful in Russia, nor the Japanese in China. Nor the Americans in Vietnam. Of course, you can get so brutal, that you commit genocide.
Maybe when Bush talked of liberating the Iraqi people he meant liberating them from this earth.
Last edited by Tripledoc on 07-04-2004 at 04:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:35
|
|
Let's look a little closer at Germany and Japan.
Japan was able to keep the Emperor and therefore a large part of it's national identity. The Emperor, at least verbally, lent his support to the occupation government.
Germany was divided. There was the French, American, and English zones that led to the formation of West Germany. Each of these zones led to heightened security, containment of the population, and limited movement.
The US in Iraq is trying to subdue an entire nation that has hostile (to the US) boarders on three sides (Syria, Iran, and yes...Saudi). To accomplish its goals (and the goals of the Europeans as well), the US should enlist the aid of at least two of the following: France, Germany, Russia, China. Iraq should be partitioned into its three natural zones with a particular country administering each zone. There should be an agreed framework for political reunification within 3-5 years. UNSC would take over oversight of the plan but would leave individual zone control to the assigned country.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-04-2004 02:30
If Sunnis, Shiities, and Kurds were fighting it out it would be a civil war, but since Shiites are fighting the coalition it's more of a rebellion than a civil war.
|