 |
| |
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
How does wishing the death of war criminals make me a hypocrite? I don't criticise Bush for not caring about the soldier's lives. I let other people do that and enjoy the resulting political gains. Frankly, I care more for Iraqi civilians than for an American soldier. They did not chose to start this war. American soldiers may not have chosen this either, but they share the guilt by following orders. |
a) do you care about the lives of Iraqi citizens who would die under Saddam's rule?
b) you "enjoy the resulting political games". Thus the entire thing is politics. Not a single shred of honesty, nor an ounce of morality. Just a perverse desire for death.
quote:
But I am right, you clearly have not read/understood my sig |
Read was correct, but I don't understand it either (considering it's in a language I don't know... I think I am to be excused  )
HOWEVER, if you are right, it doesn't mean you should be HAPPY about it if it means more people die. If I thought that dozens of nuclear warheads were going to land in the US in the next several minutes, I would rather be wrong than right. This doesn't mean I won't claim that I'm right. You need to understand the difference between believing a thing to be true and wanting a thing to be true.
quote:
Until the democratic party grows a spine, this is the best chance to be rid of Bush. |
Again, pure politics.
quote:
Idle talk doesn't ammount to conspiracy, except in a police state. |
No, it doesn't, but it's still treasonous.
Please explain...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Victor Galis
|
 |
in exile
Jul 1999
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
a) do you care about the lives of Iraqi citizens who would die under Saddam's rule? |
Yes, but they are not worth the precedent that has been set and the destabilization caused. Furthermore, the US has yet to provide better conditions for Iraqis. At this point, not being clarevoyant, I can't really comment on what will happen in 2 years.
quote:
b) you "enjoy the resulting political games". Thus the entire thing is politics. Not a single shred of honesty, nor an ounce of morality. Just a perverse desire for death. |
I enjoy the results, not the games. I want Bush, Ashcroft, and their cronies gone.
quote:
HOWEVER, if you are right, it doesn't mean you should be HAPPY about it if it means more people die. If I thought that dozens of nuclear warheads were going to land in the US in the next several minutes, I would rather be wrong than right. This doesn't mean I won't claim that I'm right. You need to understand the difference between believing a thing to be true and wanting a thing to be true. |
No, I am happy about deaths only as long as they further a good end (regime change in the US) and they are not innocent. No good can come of nuclear warheads, just as no good came of 9-11.
Are you asking me to explain why punishing thought crime is bad?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
|
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Are you asking me to explain why punishing thought crime is bad? |
No, I'm asking you to explain why punishing people WANTING US DEAD is bad.
quote:
No, I am happy about deaths only as long as they further a good end (regime change in the US) and they are not innocent. No good can come of nuclear warheads, just as no good came of 9-11. |
YOU SHOULDN'T BE HAPPY ABOUT THE DEATHS. You may be happy about the results they achieve, but the deaths themselves are a bad thing. Do you see conservatives all happy about the deaths of Iraqi soldiers? Yes, we are glad they were defeated, but we don't take any particular pleasure in their deaths. We mostly take pleasure in the relative lack of American deaths.
quote:
Yes, but they are not worth the precedent that has been set and the destabilization caused. Furthermore, the US has yet to provide better conditions for Iraqis. |
You mean besides not being persecuted and killed for your beloved thought crimes?
quote:
At this point, not being clarevoyant, I can't really comment on what will happen in 2 years. |
Wait a second... isn't that what this whole thread was about? Gotcha.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Victor Galis
|
|
in exile
Jul 1999
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
quote:
There's a difference between wanting an outcome and expecting it. Example: I want to win the lottery, but I don't expect it to happen. |
Actually, this thread was about predictions... |
 Gasp! An off-topic thread drifted slightly from its original topic, Hell must be freezing over... oh, wait no, it's still 68F in Atlanta
quote:
"World peace" is not an end in and of itself. There SHOULDN'T be world peace if it prolongs injustice. |
I see that you and I disagree here. Such a setback in progress towards world peace is certainly no justification for what the US has done. They have yet to replace the Iraqi government with something better, and if Afghanistan is anything to go by, this will not happen for a good long time.
quote:
You are still missing the point. It's fine to be glad if you win, but to be happy about someone else being defeated (by someone other than you!) is still wrong. You are wishing bad stuff on someone else. |
Generalissimo Bush said, "you are either with us or against us." I'm certainly not with him and I'm certainly not with any muslim terrorists. That doesn't really leave me with much, eh? The only possible personal interest I have in this conflict is to see my enemy defeated (though not being involved, not to bring that about myself). I view Bush as my enemy and Saddam as some random bad man out there about whom I am personally indifferent. Sure it's nice that he's gone, but that doesn't matter that much to me personally.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MOBIUS
|
 |
Prifysgol Caerdydd
Dec 1999
time: 15:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
That's nice. I read the transcript and unfortunately for you, Franks didn't say that. But then again, what's reality or honesty when you can gently paraphrase and spin what someone says to get the result you'd like to work with? |
As usual MtG, you are absolutely right, Tommy didn't actually say that the US were f*cking up their handling of Iraq - though he should have... 
All he actually said was that US forces may have to stay in Iraq for 2-4 years, which we all know is politico speak for at least twice as long...
How long did the US expect to be in Vietnam again in '65? Not that I am directly comparing this to there...
I merely decided to extrapolate known figures such as the fact that about one US soldier is dying a day on average in Iraq and the recent report that occupying Iraq was costing the US $3.9bn a month. I even decided to be reasonable and estimate this over three years as opposed to the four that Franks had mentioned as a possibility...
Assuming things stay the same and don't get worse, the figures in the title approximate the result.
Geez Mike, I always though of you as a lateral thinker able to understand a cluster of information and draw a sensible conclusion...
quote:
(a) He took the numbers and forces he was given, and knocked over Afghanistan while you whiners were talking out your arses about the Soviets, Vietnam, and how Afghanistan was going to swallow the US whole. |
Don't include me on that list - I was broadly in favour of taking out Afghanistan...
quote:
(b) He took the numbers and forces he was given, and knocked over main resistance in Iraq in a month, while the leftist whiners were talking months to years of heavy fighting and half a million civilian dead. |
I agree that it did look like it was going to take a few months and involve vicious fighting in Baghdad - but only because Iraq resistance didn't crumble overnight as the right-wing tub thumpers were claiming it would. So we can call that a draw...
quote:
So looks like Franks isn't the useless waste of space - the leftist whiners seem do be. |
Actually I've just realised I meant Jay Garner - Oops... 
Now, tell me he's not a waste of space...
quote:
The current "bleed rate" and the rate of funds being spent will both go down, not up, with transition to an Iraqi provisional government and Iraqi primary security. Franks addressed nothing more than an ongoing role for US occupying forces, not the extent or monthly cost of that role, let alone the suggestion that US losses, expenditures and activities would be conveniently static. |
Just like stocks and shares, these figures are more than capable of fluctuating up as well as down...
quote:
But don't let little details like reality and actual quotes get in the way. |
Well I called it a scenario after all - you know a hypothetical situation based on current figures...
quote:
There has been little to no increase in either the sophistication or success level of those attacks that have been successful. |
Initial attacks involved nothing more than opportunistic and often suicidal attacks with RPGs and automatic weapons - recent attacks have involved remote controlled bombs, mortar attacks, misdirection etc.
quote:
In fact, the more the Iraqis try to coordinate and organize, the more screwed they are - where they (and all guerilla forces) are most easily successful is in relatively spontaneous, opportunistic attacks with no planning or coordination, by individuals to two-three man teams. |
Actually, by organising they have lessened the type of attacks where they are also killed. A lot of the attacks now are being carried out by attackers who are able to melt away and strike again, becoming more experienced and deadly in the process...
True their comms etc could be intercepted, but that will prove to be an expensive and time consuming job in itself - and we all know how useless US intel is at finding WMD...
Thanks
quote:
This troll isn't at the level of Laurel and Hardy. |
Troll? The figures are out there, US troops are dying at an average of one a day and current costs have been reported at $3.9bn a month - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to extrapolate those figures over three years...
Personally I think attacks against US forces will get worse at least in the short term. I called it a 'nightmare scenario' if things maintain their status quo - but really the nightmare is if things get worse...
Face it, you and people like DanS don't have any easy answers as so try and avoid answering difficult questions by trying to dismiss them...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Vandal-1
|
 |
Gilette WY USA
Sep 2001
time: 22:29
|
|
Contextualizing the Nightmare
If we see a evolving resistence centered around an area {the Triangle} then that area may be sectered out and its inhabititants forcefully relocated,and thus secure sections will be created around key infrastructure ,and access to weapons caches will be terminated.(examples of this counter-insugency tactic used by the US in Greece 47 and Columbia early90s)
Secoundly having created base zones the conflict will become less positional in nature the rest of the country
can rot , we won't even leave a outhouse standing.
Thirdly We will improve assets in the Kurdish area they can be the example of prosperity. while attempting to raise Arab paramilitary forces and inteligence personel.Other forces will most likely be solicited for ..whose scources might include former Soviet
countries such as Tajikistan, Kazak and Uzebekistan.They have an interest in building and maintaining security in central asia with out US/ UK interference.
Conclusions: The current "bleed rate" and "Colateral Kill rate" has not yet peaked since fullscale counter-insurgency is not yet under way One can speculate that the Bush administration is hestitant to begin this military phase becuase it will inevitably lead to more bad press,while he already has enough ...whatever.
During operatioins to clear areas causualties usually increase I will look for some stats on these type of actions,but if they are successful then casualties decrease.
The net ablity of the resistence to recruit has not yet grown to its fruition if such measures are employed.
and the size as well as the frequency of the attacks are likely to increase in the short run.
In the context of our present methodology I accept your figures ,but when I apply known doctrine the picture changes.How many Iraqi males of Sunni, Bedoin,
.ect are there ,What % can we expect to Kill or capture ,displace?What is the weapons potential in a given area and what is the mechanism of supply?
Based on these factors I would say it isnot valid to extrapolate from the current situation over a 36 mnth period. Thank you
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Uncle Sparky
|
 |
Winnipeg
Jan 1970
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Victor Galis
I fail to see how this is a nightmare scenario. |
I agree. America wanted a war to save the oil. If it costs several thousand US soldiers, its well worth it !
Think of the employment its creating and think of the return for shareholders of companies like Stevedores, a Seattle based company that is running Basra and Haliburton, Cheney's company which has several "subcontracts". (recap - The word got out after about a week of fighting that Haliburton had been awarded major contracts in the parts of Iraq the US tenuously held at the time. This was denied, confirmed then clarified.)
Funny how in Afghanistan, which has no significant oil, the US installed a government immediately upon Kabul falling.
Funny too, with all the press coverage, I seemed to miss the Iraqi capitulation ceremony. You'd think the US media would have covered that. If Iraq hasn't surrendered, then the war is still on. Expect casualties. The US, UK & Poland are the occupying powers, on par with the Germans in France in WW II.
Btw - Did anyone else take note that the US is manning Iraqi foreign consulates & embassies with Saddam appointees ?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-07-2003 10:44
how do you invade India and Pakistan without starting a WWIII? 
|