14-01-2005 10:43									#241
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by DanS For someone whose stock-in-trade is this sort of stuff, you've been quite wide of the mark in the past. See Afghanistan, f.e. I could scarcely be blamed for doubting your analysis without a clear explanation of why it is so.

Afghanistan has nothing to do with Iraq.

	14-01-2005 10:44									#242
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Bump

	14-01-2005 10:45									#243
	Put an end to popups!

As far as I know, he has much more experience with Afghanistan. Apparently, that didn't help him any.

Last edited by DanS on 14-01-2005 at 10:57

	14-01-2005 10:50									#244
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Doesn't matter.

He is making the right call here.

	14-01-2005 10:53									#245
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Alexander's Horse now has a yes man.

	14-01-2005 10:53									#246
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

DanS has no clothes.


We have a crtical situation going on and you're worried about buying a private jet.

So, laugh it up while you can.

I wish I had listened when people were saying there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

	14-01-2005 11:12									#247
	Inflate your Upload Space

Oh and our slag matches on Apolyton are helping solve this "critical situation."

	14-01-2005 11:13									#248
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Getting informed about the situation, yes.

	14-01-2005 11:23									#249
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker You would have no reason to be.

Let us know when you do, OK?

	14-01-2005 11:25									#250
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

There have been no informative posts in this thread. You must have been thinking of another thread.

This thread started out with an article based upon several layers of supposition. We have no idea about what is actually being discussed on the whole at the Pentagon, and even if we did catch a sliver of the deliberations, it's just a sliver of information from a particular point of view.

In Washington, the side that is losing an argument goes and blabs to the press to change the dynamics of the internal discussion. In the absence of better information, I'm forced to dismiss this article as entirely self-serving, even if some of the details are correct. For instance, we know that inclusioon of "sympathizers" in the target list changes the tenor of the public case entirely. Maybe this was contemplated and dismissed, but a special forces training package is being prepared that some of the Army administrators don't like. They throw "sympathizers" into the public discussion and voila.

Last edited by DanS on 14-01-2005 at 11:30

	14-01-2005 11:26									#251
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by DanS For someone whose stock-in-trade is this sort of stuff, you've been quite wide of the mark in the past. See Afghanistan, f.e. I could scarcely be blamed for doubting your analysis without a clear explanation of why it is so.

Ah yes Afghanistan - the sleeper. Had a look recently at who is controlling the Eastern provinces these days Dan?

	14-01-2005 11:34									#252
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Afghanistan, the sleeper? I'm curious about how you are going to spin this into a quagmire for the US.

	14-01-2005 11:35									#253
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Let us know when you do, OK?

I thought you said in the other thread that you found me physically attractive.

	14-01-2005 11:38									#254
	Remove this text

Dan makes a good point. We really don't know what the Pentagon is considering so the author is writing an article either upon his own guess or upon other peoles' guesses. This seems to be a storm which has outpassed reality.

	14-01-2005 11:38									#255
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DanS There have been no informative posts in this thread. You must have been thinking of another thread. This thread started out with an article based upon several layers of supposition. We have no idea about what is actually being discussed on the whole at the Pentagon, and even if we did catch a sliver of the deliberations, it's just a sliver of information from a particular point of view. In Washington, the side that is losing an argument goes and blabs to the press to change the dynamics of the internal discussion. In the absence of better information, I'm forced to dismiss this article as entirely self-serving, even if some of the details are correct. For instance, we know that inclusioon of "sympathizers" in the target list changes the tenor of the public case entirely. Maybe this was contemplated and dismissed, but a special forces training package is being prepared that some of the Army administrators don't like. They throw "sympathizers" into the public discussion and voila.

You are missing the point entirely.

We have ALREADY seen a precedent with what happens when you aren't very strict about the rules on the ground. The rules are going to be stretched on the ground so if you give leeway for bending them, they are just going to be pushed that much further.

The Geneva Conventions where thrown out, and that directly resulted in a situation that happened at Abu Gharib.

Let's not let the same thing happen again.

	14-01-2005 11:44									#256
	Suffering from ads?

No, I'm not missing the point, Ted. We don't know if there is going to be any leeway given. We don't even know if this Salvador option was discussed and immediately dismissed. The article is very vague on many scores.

Suffice it to say that the Iraqis will have to figure out a way to bring the minority to heel, or to break up the country trying. The process is already violent.

	14-01-2005 11:44									#257
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Dan makes a good point. We really don't know what the Pentagon is considering so the author is writing an article either upon his own guess or upon other peoles' guesses. This seems to be a storm which has outpassed reality.

If it really is just the Pentagon discussing this, from the bottom up, I give them the benefit of the doubt.

However, if this is being pushed down from Defense, I am extremley skeptical.

Nowadays I prefer to error on the side of caution.

	14-01-2005 11:46									#258
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin This seems to be a storm which has outpassed reality.

Ya think?

	14-01-2005 11:51									#259
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

This thread just serves to remind me of how truly sick I am of hyperbole. May it die soon...

	14-01-2005 11:53									#260
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by DanS Suffice it to say that the Iraqis will have to figure out a way to bring the minority to heel, or to break up the country trying. The process is already violent.

Even if you threw out the moral part of those death squads, there is not enough political capital available to do it anyway.

The very fact that even a discussion of it raises this kind of furor should be a hint of that.

	14-01-2005 12:01									#261
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten This thread just serves to remind me of how truly sick I am of hyperbole. May it die soon...

Me too.

Like claims of weapons of mass destruction.

	14-01-2005 12:11									#262
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: There have been no informative posts in this thread. You must have been thinking of another thread. This thread started out with an article based upon several layers of supposition. We have no idea about what is actually being discussed on the whole at the Pentagon, and even if we did catch a sliver of the deliberations, it's just a sliver of information from a particular point of view. In Washington, the side that is losing an argument goes and blabs to the press to change the dynamics of the internal discussion. In the absence of better information, I'm forced to dismiss this article as entirely self-serving, even if some of the details are correct. For instance, we know that inclusioon of "sympathizers" in the target list changes the tenor of the public case entirely. Maybe this was contemplated and dismissed, but a special forces training package is being prepared that some of the Army administrators don't like. They throw "sympathizers" into the public discussion and voila.

Once again, there is some corroboration in the article:

quote: Shahwani also said that the U.S. occupation has failed to crack the problem of broad support for the insurgency. The insurgents, he said, "are mostly in the Sunni areas where the population there, almost 200,000, is sympathetic to them." He said most Iraqi people do not actively support the insurgents or provide them with material or logistical help, but at the same time they won’t turn them in. One military source involved in the Pentagon debate agrees that this is the crux of the problem, and he suggests that new offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the insurgency. "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."

But anyway, please continue dismissing it out of hand, and insisting that this article is not "informative."

Incidentally, why do you think the Pentagon guys are calling this plan the "Salvador Option?"

	14-01-2005 12:25									#263
	Remove this text

We don't know the extent of the discussions, who was discussing what, the formality of the discussion, etc.

quote: ncidentally, why do you think the Pentagon guys are calling this plan the "Salvador Option?"

Parse the article carefully. It doesn't say who is calling it the Salvador Option.

	14-01-2005 12:33									#264
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

It'd be a little hard to get the story without anonymous sources.

The guy I quoted above for instance, appears to be an advocate of the policy. If he were a critic, one would expect him not, you know, trying to justify the policy.

	14-01-2005 12:43									#265
	Got spare money?

The alternative to the "Salvador Option" was to have been "free and fair" elections. Aljazeera's take: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...=1&idPageImage={0D1960E4-DE79-4356-A875-2183191478A2}

	14-01-2005 12:45									#266
	Put an end to popups!

No, you're assuming that he's advocating the harshest policy. The article does not state that he supports a so-called Salvador Option.

	14-01-2005 12:56									#267
	Inflate your Upload Space

He's clearly advocating collective punishment, which is part of the "Salvador Option" (specifically, what makes it so objectionable).

	14-01-2005 13:07									#268
	Put an end to popups!

It's a sad fact that giving the place back to Saddam to run would probably lead to less death and dismemberment than any other course of action.

	14-01-2005 13:09									#269
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by techumseh OK, I missed that one. Sorry. I still think mods who close threads should have the courtesy to respond to PM's.

I even posted a link to the first thread in my message.

	14-01-2005 13:46									#270
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Agathon The US needs an anti-fascist league. Even the Libertarians are starting to worry big time (you can tell, they've been quoting []The Nation[/i] with approval). How about the AUAF (Apolyton Union of Anti Fascists)?

Anti-fascists are just another kind of fascists. I really mean it. We have them here in Sweden, and they are as violent as the fascists they oppose.