 |
| |
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
The bolding is mine, folks, because I just wanted to show you all how G*DD*MN DUMB Agathon proved himself to be with this general assertion in regards to how I view others in the world.
Get lost, you f*ck*ng newbie.
Unpleasantly yours,
Gatekeeper |
Oooohhhh, I'm so intimidated by your great intellect and sharp grasp of logic - not. 
Is that the best you can do? What a load of old rubbish. Ooooooohhhh, it's possible that this could happen. Let's all panic!!! Well it is possible that you might pull your head out of your backside - but I wouldn't bet my life on it.
And to quote William Blake, who might well have met Gatekeeper in one of his many visions:
"listen to the fool's reproach, it is a kingly title."
Anyway, you obviously didn't bother to read the article I linked to, which is what I consider to be a serious response to the question of deterrence.
peace be upon you.
Last edited by Agathon on 29-01-2003 at 09:02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Oooohhhh, I'm so intimidated by your great intellect and sharp grasp of logic - not.
|
PARDON ME, IS THIS 1993 AND ARE WE WEARING A NEON PINK WHITNEY HOUSTON CAP WHICH FAILS TO CONCEAL A FAG-TAG MULLET???
I can't believe someone just used the old "NOT!"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
You have valid points, Ramo. Of course, that's assuming that Saddam is still being rational about things; from what I've heard and read, he's a power-mad individual who's quite paranoid about threats to him ... which begs the question: Does he view al-Qaida as less of a threat to him *now* than the thousands of U.S. troops sitting near the Iraqi border? If so, and if he assumes he's going to lose no matter what, I'd bet he'd be willing to deal with the Devil, i.e. al-Qaida, just to spite the Americans. |
If Saddam is such an irrational nutcase, why didn't he use chemical weapons on us during Gulf War I?
But let's assume for the moment that what you're saying is correct. That he's trigger-happy when his power is the least bit threatened. Then isn't war precisely the LAST thing we should be doing? I mean, wouldn't this trigger an orgy of death where Saddam uses chemical and biological weapons on us without restraint?
quote:
if the sanctions are lifted and no invasion takes place, Saddam and his ilk across the world can rightly say that the U.N. has no teeth, that all it takes is patience and perseverance to eventually win the sympathy of the world ... |
I don't think anyone should die over a pissing contest.
quote:
This is how I view the whole thing; there's no clear-cut winning strategy. It sucks. And, unfortunately, it's REALITY. It must be a "fun" time to be a national leader with today's state of world affairs. |
My view is fairly simple. We have no responsible plan after Gulf War II, so we have no business whatsoever threatening war. It's clear that the Turkish alliance is more important to Shrub et al. than the welfare of the Iraqi Kurds; that's been demonstrated by our attitude towards Iraqi Kurds over the past decade and Turkish Kurds over the past two decades. It's also clear that Shrub et al. don't want to upset the balance of power in favor of Iran what with Iraq being a primarily Shia country. All this means we'll have a situation after the war worse than the status quo, even if the impact on Iraqi lives and property will be minimal in this upcoming war. Thus war is not justified. Period. At least not until we make definite promises that spell out the obligations we have in post-war Iraq, and until these promises and obligations are adequate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kramerman
Thats unlikely, most of whom the soldiers went up against in Mogadishu were locals who were just looking for 'fun', and just picked up the AK-47 the man next to him dropped as he fell to US fire. Most of these locals were high on drugs, most notablely khat, some local hit they have there which does impair judgement, motor skills, and such. |
Sorry, but it ain't so. Khat is a moderate stimulent which heightens aggression and happens to reduce fear, sensation of pain, and fatigue - all nice things to have for expendible urban fighters.
Aidid's headquarters were located where they were for a reason - in the middle of the largest arms and other smuggled goods bazaar in the whole country, where a lot of Habr Gidr and allied fighters (including mercenaries) were there continuously to provide "security" for all the cash and merchandise, when they weren't out there stealing aid from the UN convoys, massacring members of enemy clans, or other such stuff. These were the people who greased 20-odd Pakistanis, who intermittently but repeatedly closed down the port of Mogadishu with mortar and recoilless rifle fire (really makes merchant ships decide to stay away).
For weaponry, they had what they needed for the job at hand, and except for the US weapons (a good number of M2 HB's, at least one Mark 19 AGL, and a few other things), their armament is pretty much standard to what the average Iraqi infantryman has.
As far as their fighting abilities go, these bastards downed five US helos, not the two commonly remembered. Two (Super61 and Super64) went down catastrophically in enemy held areas, three limped out and went down in safe areas out of the fight, but they downed five - that's pretty good for fighters without AA weapons at all.
The bit about locals picking up weapons from the man that dropped is a bunch of crap, as well - Kalashnikovs could be bought for the equivalent of $20 US, almost everybody (at least the teen males on up) had access to weaponry in the areas where the fight occured (along Hawalwadig down to K4 was all badass Indian country - very few "normal" residents there at all, because if you didn't belong to a favored clan or have the protection of one of the groups of technicals, they'd steal everything you had, and kill you without hesitation if you had anything to say. So the "normal" folk pretty much left, and those there were fighters, their families, and their allied clans.
When weapons did get picked up from casualties, it was a consistent part of Somali warrior style - a man would use his wives and kids as human sandbags, and if he got popped, one of them would assume the firing position. Same thing with multiple fighters - if you were low on ammo, rather than change clips, just grab up another weapon if more convenient - but the Somalis did a very efficient job of policing the field and recovering usable weapons, so it wasn't ad hoc fun and games by untrained locals.
In terms of combat experience, fearlessness, aggression, willingness to incur casualties to inflict casualties, and willingness to move under fire to get superior firing positions, the skinnies are fifty times the fighters compared to the Iraqi conscript army. The IRG is a more disciplined nut to crack, but even then, their conventional training doesn't suit them for determined, aggressive defense in urban terrain - they're pretty dependent on top down C&C, and if you look at what happened with Medina and Hammurabi the first time around, put massive pressure on them, and they squeal like *****es in short order.
The skinnies just back off, circle around, and try to hit you back from somewhere else - the sort of individual and small unit initiative that the Iraqis will only very rarely display, because they're conscripts with very limited rote training, they're not warriors.
For an example of aggression and willingness to incur casualties, at intersections, the skinnies would fire from all sides of all four streets at American vehicles, even though by definition, their own fighters were downrange. They just figured that they'd get more firepower on target more quickly from more angles, and they were stoked on khat, so screw any sense of caution or any concern about tactical deployment - just get in, and get it on. That sort of approach is far more effective for urban combat with low rent expendible forces than anything the Iraqis do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Sorry, but it ain't so. Khat is a moderate stimulent which heightens aggression and happens to reduce fear, sensation of pain, and fatigue - all nice things to have for expendible urban fighters. |
IIRC, this is true. but from what remember I read somethn that said that around noon time they started coming down off the ruch into a very drowsy and depressed state of slower reaction times and stuff. Regardless, being more agressive and having a reductioin of fear only made them extremely reckless, as illustrated by the somali fighters who would pop out from an alley way, comletely exposing himself, fire off very poorly aimed bursts, and then get taken down by the US soldiers....
quote:
The bit about locals picking up weapons from the man that dropped is a bunch of crap, as well - Kalashnikovs could be bought for the equivalent of $20 US, almost everybody (at least the teen males on up) had access to weaponry in the areas where the fight occured (along Hawalwadig down to K4 was all badass Indian country - very few "normal" residents there at all, because if you didn't belong to a favored clan or have the protection of one of the groups of technicals, they'd steal everything you had, and kill you without hesitation if you had anything to say. So the "normal" folk pretty much left, and those there were fighters, their families, and their allied clans. |
Yes most everyone could easily obtain AKs, this is not disputed. However, men did pick up weapons to use to fight the americans, and women and children picked them up as well in order to collect them adn redistribute them (as well as ammo). This is not crap at all, unles you are saying Mark Bowden is full of crap.
quote:
When weapons did get picked up from casualties, it was a consistent part of Somali warrior style - a man would use his wives and kids as human sandbags, and if he got popped, one of them would assume the firing position. Same thing with multiple fighters - if you were low on ammo, rather than change clips, just grab up another weapon if more convenient - but the Somalis did a very efficient job of policing the field and recovering usable weapons, so it wasn't ad hoc fun and games by untrained locals. |
First part is very sad and true. The second part is very disputable. The only 'efficient' fighters were the trained militiamen (they were the ones trained by Al Quieda to take down helicopters using RPGs). The rest were just people who had little idea of what they were doing. They used very rudimentary tactics at best, if not adverse tactics.
quote:
In terms of combat experience, fearlessness, aggression, willingness to incur casualties to inflict casualties, and willingness to move under fire to get superior firing positions, the skinnies are fifty times the fighters compared to the Iraqi conscript army. The IRG is a more disciplined nut to crack, but even then, their conventional training doesn't suit them for determined, aggressive defense in urban terrain - they're pretty dependent on top down C&C, and if you look at what happened with Medina and Hammurabi the first time around, put massive pressure on them, and they squeal like *****es in short order. |
hmm... i think this is why we differ. You see better fighters as those willing to take hits in order to inflict them. I dont entirely agree. The iraqi conscripts, if able to be kept to fight for saddam in urban combat, would be much more organized than the mob that the US forces encountered in Somalia, and therefore more likely to be able to inflict damage on us without taking a rediculous amount against themselves, like the Somali fighters did.
Kman
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Oooohhhh, I'm so intimidated by your great intellect and sharp grasp of logic - not. |
May I ask what you're talking about? I was reacting to your one-dimensional stereotyping of me — wait, I suppose I wasn't supposed to get angry with stuff like this:
"But I guess you just think a towel head is a towel head, right?"
So therefore I must not be smart, in your book because, God forbid, I got upset with your gross mischaracterization of my worldview, huh? I bet that a majority of people, regardless of their intelligence level, would react rather negatively to such one-liners as the one you posted about me above.
And I did respond in a civil fashion to your points *preceding* your one-liner regarding my world view. You, OTOH, have yet to address my points, other than to write *another* short snarky post (the one in the quote box above).
quote:
Well it is possible that you might pull your head out of your backside - but I wouldn't bet my life on it. |
There you go again with the insults. That's two for two now in this thread alone.
quote:
And to quote William Blake, who might well have met Gatekeeper in one of his many visions:
"listen to the fool's reproach, it is a kingly title."
Anyway, you obviously didn't bother to read the article I linked to, which is what I consider to be a serious response to the question of deterrence. |
Stand on your own two feet when making arguments, instead of relying on a link and someone else's eloquent words to stand in your place. I have more respect for a person who may argue ineffectively (or effectively) in the end using their own words and thoughts than for a person who merely links to something else or quotes something all the time and rarely adds anything else of substance to the argument.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
|
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
If Saddam is such an irrational nutcase, why didn't he use chemical weapons on us during Gulf War I? |
More than likely, it was due to the fact that the objective of the 1991 Gulf War was the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and nothing more. Add to that mix the implicit threat from Bush Sr. and other U.S. officials that we would respond in kind to any WoMD attack, and that's probably why Saddam didn't use them.
quote:
But let's assume for the moment that what you're saying is correct. That he's trigger-happy when his power is the least bit threatened. Then isn't war precisely the LAST thing we should be doing? I mean, wouldn't this trigger an orgy of death where Saddam uses chemical and biological weapons on us without restraint? |
I honestly don't know, but off the top of my head, I'd say, "Yes, he likely would use WoMD."
But that's not what I debate so much. What I debate is the timeline of things, and that's what I tried to illustrate to you in our previous conversation. I think it's a given that Saddam will use any WoMD that he gets his hands on — it's just a matter of when, not if. DinoDoc, however, did post a rather enlightening article in another thread that made some very good points about containment and the old MAD doctrine. Perhaps such a long-term approach would work, but that's assuming Saddam stays rational and doesn't pull a North Korea (where they're now saying that sanctions would lead to war). Then we also have to live with the fact that the Iraqi people likely will not know true freedom for years, maybe decades, to come. And, mark my words, some folks will yowl about that and how the U.S. "abdicated" its responsibilty in that arena by choosing containment over ouster. Hell, the sanctions were originally intended to be a peaceful and non-violent means of getting rid of Saddam, but it hasn't worked and now you have a good deal of the original sanactions proponents screaming about how "U.S. sanctions" are killing millions of innocent Iraqis. Sheesh! It's a no-win situation at times, it seems.
quote:
I don't think anyone should die over a pissing contest. |
Then the U.N. and other nations have to live up to the promises they make in order to avoid said pissing contests, which would most likely not occur if the offending party knew the offended party carried a big club to back up his or her soft words.
This is just an example out of the blue, but look at who now heads the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Libya! They're hardly a democratic nation, and yet look at the sheer number of *abstentions* that came in (32, I believe) when the votes were tallied. I don't know ... maybe it was the African continent's turn to head that particular U.N. office and there was no way to avoid that part of it ... but surely Africa, in that case, could've selected a more appropriate candidate nation, like South Africa (I bet you wouldn't have heard that one 20 years ago). Where were nations' spines for that one? In the chiropractor's office?
quote:
My view is fairly simple. We have no responsible plan after Gulf War II, so we have no business whatsoever threatening war. |
If you're refering to the post-war occupation of Iraq, I have my reservations as well. Yet we are still in Afghanistan, more than a year later, trying to help maintain order there and gradually rebuild its infrastructure w/the aid of our allies. Perhaps the same will happen w/Iraq, albeit on a faster scale (Iraq hasn't been utterly devastated for 24 years, so any rebuilding process should go faster, I'd imagine).
quote:
It's clear that the Turkish alliance is more important to Shrub et al. than the welfare of the Iraqi Kurds; that's been demonstrated by our attitude towards Iraqi Kurds over the past decade and Turkish Kurds over the past two decades. |
I imagine the Turkish thing hinges on more than just the Kurds; for starters, they're the only Muslim-majority member of NATO; secondly, they're pretty much a *secular democratic* Muslim nation, which is a rarity, IMHO; thirdly, Turkey is seeking membership in the European Union. Those are three strong reasons to keep ties w/Turkey amiable (in addition to realpolitik concerns regarding using Turkish territory as a launching pad for an invasion of Iraq).
As for the Kurds, those who reside under the protection of the northern no-fly zone in Iraq seem to be doing quite well from what I've read.
When did they first rebel against Saddam's rule? I know they did and we *didn't* exactly fly in air support and ground troops to back them then, and I think the guilt from that lack of action led to the establishment of the no-fly zones.
quote:
It's also clear that Shrub et al. don't want to upset the balance of power in favor of Iran what with Iraq being a primarily Shia country. All this means we'll have a situation after the war worse than the status quo, even if the impact on Iraqi lives and property will be minimal in this upcoming war. |
My understanding of the Shi'ite (Shia?) population in Iraq is that they're quite secular and even joined Iraq's war against Iran in the 1980s (in terms of serving as willing soldiers). They wouldn't, IMHO, automatically gravitate towards the mullahs in Iran should Saddam fall; even if they did, I'd be more inclined to lay the blame for that at the feet of Saddam, et al., and "rabble-rousers" who came in from Iran to exhort their Iraqi cousins against Saddam's regime and, of course, the Western world.
quote:
Thus war is not justified. Period. At least not until we make definite promises that spell out the obligations we have in post-war Iraq, and until these promises and obligations are adequate. |
Well, hey, you're talking to the guy here who thinks there should be a Marshall Plan II for Afghanistan ... so we likely agree on that statement above.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Which treaties have we broken? |
One that comes to mind quickly: Consular protection. On a regular basis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
If you're refering to the post-war occupation of Iraq, I have my reservations as well. Yet we are still in Afghanistan, more than a year later, trying to help maintain order there and gradually rebuild its infrastructure w/the aid of our allies. Perhaps the same will happen w/Iraq, albeit on a faster scale (Iraq hasn't been utterly devastated for 24 years, so any rebuilding process should go faster, I'd imagine). |
A bit I reckon, but not by much. Iraq was the best developed country in the region before Gulf War, in which large parts of the country was destroyed by bombing. The ensuing decade of embargo killed Iraq's economy, that its dollar devalued by over 90% (compared to before the war).
Another thing is - will the US be able to establish a stable government that controls all of the country, or will some warlords arise to fragment it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
More than likely, it was due to the fact that the objective of the 1991 Gulf War was the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait and nothing more. Add to that mix the implicit threat from Bush Sr. and other U.S. officials that we would respond in kind to any WoMD attack, and that's probably why Saddam didn't use them. |
But you think Saddam is not rational, right? Why would any of this matter?
quote:
Then the U.N. and other nations have to live up to the promises they make in order to avoid said pissing contests, which would most likely not occur if the offending party knew the offended party carried a big club to back up his or her soft words. |
Hmmm I'm not sure what you're getting at...
quote:
If you're refering to the post-war occupation of Iraq, I have my reservations as well. Yet we are still in Afghanistan, more than a year later, trying to help maintain order there and gradually rebuild its infrastructure w/the aid of our allies. Perhaps the same will happen w/Iraq, albeit on a faster scale (Iraq hasn't been utterly devastated for 24 years, so any rebuilding process should go faster, I'd imagine). |
We've left Afghanistan in the hands of warlords who "hunt terrorists" by day and rape and pillage by night. Even sharia is making a come-back under their territories. The government in Kabul is totally powerless to stop them. We haven't acted responsibly, in the least.
quote:
I imagine the Turkish thing hinges on more than just the Kurds |
Ummm no. I'm saying that our gov't has been ****ing over the Kurds in favor of the Turkish alliance (which has been important to them for the reasons you mentioned).
quote:
As for the Kurds, those who reside under the protection of the northern no-fly zone in Iraq seem to be doing quite well from what I've read. |
Exactly. They live in relative prosperity without being subject from the tyranny of Baghdad or Ankara (besides the occasional bombing etc. in response to "Kurdish terror").
However, once Saddam is gone, what do you think will happen? If the new regime is democratic, Kurdistan will declare independence, and Turkey will invade, leading more "ethnic cleansing" from them. If the new regime is autocratic, the Kurds will be once more be subject to the authority of Baghdad, and there'll be an invasion and likely some ethnic cleansing to bring them under heel. It's a lose-lose situation for them.
quote:
When did they first rebel against Saddam's rule? |
Do you mean, after the start fo the Gulf War?
quote:
My understanding of the Shi'ite (Shia?) |
Shia = Shi'ite.
[qutoe]population in Iraq is that they're quite secular and even joined Iraq's war against Iran in the 1980s (in terms of serving as willing soldiers). They wouldn't, IMHO, automatically gravitate towards the mullahs in Iran should Saddam fall; even if they did, I'd be more inclined to lay the blame for that at the feet of Saddam, et al., and "rabble-rousers" who came in from Iran to exhort their Iraqi cousins against Saddam's regime and, of course, the Western world.[/quote]
I agree. I also don't think Iran'll try to pull off a coup to bring Iraq under their influence. However, I don't know if Shrub sees it that way. He's been acting paranoidly idiotic with respect to Iran ever since he undermined what little authority Khatami had over the Mullahs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ramo
However, once Saddam is gone, what do you think will happen? If the new regime is democratic, Kurdistan will declare independence, and Turkey will invade, leading more "ethnic cleansing" from them. If the new regime is autocratic, the Kurds will be once more be subject to the authority of Baghdad, and there'll be an invasion and likely some ethnic cleansing to bring them under heel. It's a lose-lose situation for them.
|
RAMO, if the Kurds declared independence against the wishes of both the government of Iraq and of Turkey, they might both invade. This why I thinks they will initially join the new Iraqi government. Thereafter, they may seek autonomy or seek to become an integral part of the larger Iraq. Time will tell. But at this point, I don't believe they will unilaterally declare independence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:25
|
|
Abbreviated reply to MtG:
Inaccuracy of scuds: Well, ok, scuds are crappy conventional missiles. That means they'd be little better for chemical weapons.
Delay of cleanup time: You don't have to proceed with the assumption that everything is contaminated, you could just take a chance. Furthermore, a chemical attack would not always paralyse a unit's function, it could have only a small effect. I'm just an ignorant armchair general, but what effect would gas have on, say, an anti-aircraft missile battery (assuming that the operator has suited up)?
Gas mask deployment time: If there's gas about, I'm assuming that each soldier has a gas mask personally available, and that he's had time to practise putting it on. It surely can't take too long to put one on, even if they've been put to ground.
Combat capability: Ok, so gas can cause anxiety and render things ineffective. So can plenty of conventional weapons. Not really mass destruction is it?
VX injections: Hmm. I was under the impression that the VX antidote could be administered to a body part where it would quickly reach the heart, i.e the thigh.
Secondary gas effects: Fair enough, although, again, it's hardly mass destruction.
Disabling base: Point taken about wanting to capture it later, although it can still be partially effective even when doused with gas.
VX versus HE: Fine.
Anthax infested buildings: Well, anthax is common enough in the soil, and it takes thousands of spores to infect a human. Still, that is actually not a bad application (amorally speaking).
Nitpicking aside, you've not really demonstrated the mass destructiveness of chemical weapons, sure, they're useful in certain situations, but does that really put them on a par with nukes?
Not to mention that certain aspects of 'banned' weapons are shared by the aspects of legal weapons, i.e. napalm, pressure bombs (don't know the technical name) and landmines.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
This is stuipd. No one can answer my question!!!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-01-2003 08:55
|