User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 632
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 5 May 2024 - 11:00 to 16:30
Quick Links
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
Enemies of the Legitimate Iraqi Government. The new buzzword.
All the VC wanted was to unify Vietnam, they joined with the NV because that was useful to them.
Initially they weren't widesly supported in the south - but their influence grew at a rapid pace, to such a point that Diem had to institute his fortified village farming program.
Which was massively unpopular
I think the case against any war in the Middle East is founded on the premise that they inherently benefit western interests. Whether that assertion is true or not can only come from a full and transparent understanding on the mechanics of oil production, trade and consumption and the positions and actions of the parties involved (various oil companies and governments). One cannot suppose they work in tandem so any consensus concerning what to do about oil should be reached openly in public. Whatever the situation is, a public understanding of those issues would erode the theorising of anti-war lobbies but would also inject some openness into the political processes that lead to war and allow us to state our views with integrity. Presently I do not feel this is the case, viz. Tony Blair's attachment to Iraqi WMD. I feel, as it happens, that there were indeed WMD in Iraq, but that it was disingenuous to pin the entire war on that without elaborating in detail. The public is assumed to be dum[size=12]b[/size], and that is the way to misinformation.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
I think you're missing the point that Iraq is not like Europe.
Culture is actually matters in this place.
Like that US journalist who the Badr killed came to realise most Iraqis are not "liberal" in western terms.
I don't think you understand the situation there. A situation where the shi'ites start uprising would be disasterous. I'm suprised that you're able to talk about it in such nihilistic terms considering you're not involved in the fighting at all.
Salaf, What is nihilistic about it? And how am I failing to account for cultural rigidities?
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
perhaps but lets not forget who your VP is (don't make me bring whitehouse.org into this.)
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
How can you say that the war has to be won by any means necessary when it isn't even defensive.
Or that if the shi'ites start uprising its not such a big deal.
Do you want a situation where British troops are sudenly surrounded by the enemy. According to that Tim Collins guy if that happens the whole thing is over.
lol right...
but it doesn't take away from the fact we haven't touched any - or maybe we have and I just dunno it.
Oil... yea... touchy subject there.
*COUGH*
Hey look!! Something shiny and distractive!!!
[img]http://www.hero.com/~bennett/scifilovestory/art/scifilovestoryHome_04.gi...
[i]Shiny[/i]
Nor did I suggest, "that if the shi'ites start uprising its not such a big deal".
And your last point also makes no sense to me in the context of this conversation. You have read a lot of your own assumptions into my remarks. I have never suggested it would be beneficial to be outgunned. Only an idiot would say that. Do you take me for an idiot?
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
Exactly my point.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
You're talking about the need to overwhelming defeat the enemy with overwhelming force. The enemy includes according to you Iranian elements.
That sounds like an "any means necessary" policy to me. Tell me how it isn't.
He was talking referring to what I said earlier about the need for overwhelming troop force strength to prevent and control insurgencies.
The idea is that the troops will act as a colossal police force - rather than a military.
Policing is always better than military action because it doesn't disrupt daily life as much.
The idea is the more people you have - the less you need "any means necessary" tactics that imperialists used effectively to quell insurgencies with minimal troop strength.
Thank you.
'Any means necessary' does not mean 'overwhelming force', it means limitless application of available force. I would not support that. As a pointless sidenote, to be pedantic, maybe the phrase could be used with a number of caveats concerning the wellbeing and ultimate stability of the country.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
Numbers are not relevant when you're talking about fighting a guerilla enemy unless the coalition plans to stay there forever which financially isn't tenable.
And what is the logic behind that assertion?
If Iraqis primarily support the plan for a democracy and outnumber those guerillas in force, the occupying forces can come home, surely. It remains an issue to bring external parties to heel.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
Large parts of the army are linked to groups who are supported by Iran.
You're still pushing this line that its only the "jihadists" who are doing things or want to things that are detrimental to the occupation.
I'm not, especially. I've made pretty clear there are external parties involved. If you know anything about the organisation of the 'insurgency' I'm sure you can inform us.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
You're still saying it's external parties. Do you think the current Prime minister is an external party?
Do you think the interior ministry who've been liquidating sunnis is an external party?
Iran is an external party. Your points are unclear, but I'm sure you could make the analysis much more useful if you were not bent on demonstrating there's something I'm getting wrong.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
What I'm trying to say is that you can't just blame the problems that Iraq is facing and will face on "jihadists" and foreign countries.
Iraq shouldn't be a country.
Splitting it in three and withdrawing might actually be the coalition's best bet.
Interesting. Do you have some links I can use to look into that proposal?
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
But the Sunnis wouldn't like that.
The oil is in the north and the south.
Sunnis being left with just the barren central Iraq won't go down too well.
It'll just make the 'ELIGs' more determined and also allow them to take on the mantle of Iraqi unifiers.
The sunnis don't like the situation now.
They'll get more hacked off (excuse the pun).
This thread might be helpful in understanding some Iraqis attitudes to the structure of their country.
http://www.aliraqi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=53133
Slightly.
[size=9]Whatever you do, know that I will always love you. Or else.[/size]
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4497604.stm]BBC[/url]
Whatever Iyad... :roll:
Why not?
A lot of people don't like him.
He did used to be a baathist after all.
He got pelted with tomatoes and shoes, that's all.
By saying that someone tried to kill him, he's making himself out to be more important than he is.
'Look at this, I'm putting my life on the line for the betterment of Iraq
.
PS Vote for me!
'
Najaf is Badr's territory anyway.
What does he think he's going to achieve.
Maybe he's trying to cloak himself in religion to get the Shia who are unsure about voting for a secularist.
Or maybe he is put out there to split the Shia vote.
Maybe he went there knowing he'd get harassed and then say that they tried to kill him.
Pages