SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: unclewest who wrote (116343)10/7/2003 7:35:45 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi unclewest; Re: "Yet the present situation confronting our soldiers does not seem to be of Iraqi origin. The current fight in Iraq (according to my sources) does not include but a few Iraqis. The rest are imported foreigners."

This is an excuse that should have died with Vietnam. The simple truth is that plenty of the fighters are Iraqis, and if the Iraqis really didn't want foreigners fighting with them in Iraq, they'd turn them in to coalition authorities and the problem would end.

Re: "Yesterday's demonstrators were members of the former intelligence service."

Maybe true, but today's demonstrations were by Shiites, who very likely were not associated with the Baathists:

Large sections of Baghdad were in turmoil. There was an explosion inside the Foreign Ministry compound about a half mile from the confrontation outside the U.S.-led occupation headquarters.

Across the city, U.S. solders were met with a demonstration by Shiite Muslims after closing a mosque and allegedly arresting the imam. Late in the afternoon, U.S. troops fired concussion grenades and shots in the air to disperse the crowd, which grew by the hour.

foxnews.com

The simple truth is that we have essentially no friends in Iraq. This is quite distinct from the Vietnam condition, where we had the assistance of the Catholic minority (who welcomed the assistance of a foreign Christian power) and only had to deal with pacifying the Buddhists.

In Iraq, by contrast, there are no Christians to side with us. And instead of having to fight peaceful Buddhists more inclined to self-immolate than to kill, we have to deal with a people that is famous for their love of weapons and proud of an ancient tradition of warfare.

I mean Jesus Weeps! Who would you rather have hunting you down? A platoon of Baathists? Or a company of Buddhists?

-- Carl



To: unclewest who wrote (116343)10/7/2003 7:36:23 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
<Liberating the oppressed.>

Bullying the weak. Are you if favor of liberating any oppressed people who don't happen to live on top of oil fields?

<All significant change is painful.>

An excuse for causing pain.

<The current fight in Iraq (according to my sources) does not include but a few Iraqis...The rest are imported foreigners.>

Every guerrilla war, in every country, at all times, is always caused by "outside agitators". This is what those fighting the guerrillas always say. Standard propaganda, to hide the fact that the "liberators" are being attacked and killed, on a daily basis, by those they are supposedly liberating.



To: unclewest who wrote (116343)4/9/2004 6:51:31 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi unclewest; About those danged Iraqis. I'm wondering if your views on them have been changed by the recent uptick in the war. Here's some stuff I'd like to hear you clarify:

unclewest, October 6, 2003
I do not understand why a few hundred local demonstrators are worthy of non-stop international news coverage. Demonstrations occur in America every day. Yet very few receive more than a cursory glance by local press. And since when is a successful American effort to prevent violence costly to our goodwill?
#reply-19376915

So is our effort to prevent violence still successful?

unclewest, October 7, 2003
Yet the present situation confronting our soldiers does not seem to be of Iraqi origin. The current fight in Iraq (according to my sources) does not include but a few Iraqis. The rest are imported foreigners.
#reply-19379919

By the way, this earlier (silly) claims that our problems in Iraq were not of Iraqi origin is logically incompatible with the neocon claim that other countries were cowed by us going into Iraq.

-- Carl

P.S. I am reminded of our exchange from well before the war:

Bilow, May 28, 2002
...
Unconditional surrender is a simple policy objective. "Limited war" as in Vietnam, is a much more difficult thing, particularly when the objective is to make the other guy quit fighting. Here is an example of what the loser says when the fighting really is over:

I am tired of fighting. Our chiefs are killed. Looking Glass is dead. Toohoolhoolzote is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say, "Yes" or "No." He who led the young men [Olikut] is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets.
...
Getting the other guy to say something like this should be the objective of offensive (i.e. going into another guys territory and breaking things) military action. Anything less is to throw away the lives of our men, and to uselessly take the lives of those on the other side. Weak action only deepens the anger of the other side and makes him believe that he can outlast you.
#reply-17521454

unclewest, in reply
Carl, I could not agree more. But nowadays that is a hard sell. Most do not seem ready to accept the history lesson that to end a war you must apply maximum violence. #reply-17521715

Here it is 1 year after the Iraq invasion and the thing is collapsing for the usual reason. The basic problem is that the American public, or at least that part of the American public that makes up the swing vote, just isn't interested in applying maximum violence.

And so, here we are. Stuck in the same trap as with Vietnam. Too stupid to fish, and too stubborn to cut bait.

I say that we will eventually cut bait. We will eventually return to a situation where we drop bombs on them from high altitude, and they shake their fists at us.