Unnatural Disaster : Iraq

quote:

---

Come on holmes, you know we don't look at a target and say, "Hey, there's a bunch of civilians, lets bomb em!"

---

And what specific effect do they get when they blow up kids waiting in line to go to school? Remember these guys are like water. They take the path or least resistance and carry out operation against the easiest target. How is Afghanistan nowadays anyway? But it has also worked. You'll note that over 75% of Al Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured and there hasn't been a terrorist attack on American soil since 911.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Here is an interesting CNN article on the latest beheading incident as well as the bombing of a wedding.In this article you will see an explanation of why certain things happen. That is to say what the underlying reason is for each action. In the case of the beheadings it was to scare away Iraqis from working on projects that aid American forces or companies. In the case of the bombing the suggested reason would be ethnic differences (again showing that your "they" is to diverse to lump into one reason or methodology).As far as your example of blowing up kids waiting in line, it is to show that the US cannot protect the Iraqi people (thus creating a negative image of America as their protector), as well as to extort the Iraqi people into not going along with US policy.Honestly, if the best US intelligence, or military intelligence has for why these guys are doing what they are doing is "They have a skewed world view and want to simply kill people" then we are in trouble, serious trouble. They have a purpose, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.I suppose there may be a few renegade nutjobs just taking advantage of the situation or breaking up under pressure and launching totally purposeless attacks, but then we have Abu Ghraib and things like that.We all may deplore their methodology, I personally deplore their methodology, but that is different than playing dumb and pretending it has no reason except they are "evil". It has the same reason we supported such actions all over the world in the past. It works to undercut confidence in and raise the costs for the major occupying force of a nation.Please tell me your commanders are up on this. Nice glib response. I can always tell when you are beaten. Glib response. How about actually dealing with the point being made as it might actually help you?The Russians were beaten in Afghanistan in part by the methods being employed against us now in Iraq. Those methods are being used because we taught the crowd to do the things we are seeing turned against us. That makes us culpable for what we are seeing.Unlike Russia we do not have as many economic and political problems and so can weather the current storm better than them, as long as the populace of both Iraq and the US remain behind our efforts.But let us answer your question of how Afghanistan is these days. The original group which threw the Soviet forces out turned against us and initiated the first successful mainland attack on our nation, using the tricks we gave them. We then went after them and (as we did in the past) used forces on site rather than our own forces to go after our enemies. With their help we managed to kill many many innocent Afghanis who happened to be enemies of the people we enlisted for help, rather than our enemies (AQ and the Taliban).We then forgot about Aghanistan (as we did in the past) and moved on to Iraq for no real reason regarding 9-11, or imminent threat to the US. Aghanistan has a new national gov't with slim control over the entire nation. I sincerely hope they get a handle on domestic affairs (bringing the warlords into the gov't) so that they can continue the war on remaining Taliban and AQ elements (since we are not currently doing much there).So yes, what was your point about Afghanistan? That the current methods being used against us in Iraq actually did work against the Soviets in Afghanistan? Or that Taliban and AQ elements remain in Afghanistan because we have left it up to warlords in order to pursue the "freedom domino theory" in Iraq? How on earth does this prove that "it worked"?First of all your 75% figure is complete BS, and has been roundly discredited in intelligence circles for some time. It sure was a great soundbyte though, wasn't it?The fact that we have not had an attack on US soil does not mean anything about our foreign policy, but rather about internal mechanisms for defense. Perhaps you have not read or heard anything Rumsfeld said before 9-11 on the nature of asymmetric warfare.We are in a new world and it is of asymmetric warfare. There are no such things as "fronts" and despite claims, invading Iraq did nothing to drain AQ resources. Indeed our invading Afghanistan and toppling the Taliban did not prevent attacks within the US.The only thing that matters is going after the covert organizational structure, which unfortunately is quite complex and covert. I do believe our efforts against AQ leadership in Afghanistan and parts of Indonesia/Phillipines were initially worthwhile and prevented coherent future planning (and funding) from a central system. That is clearly no longer the case or we would not have tapes of UBL and his right hand man.We lost allies to go to war in Iraq, and at the same time are losing allies against AQ by dismissing their intelligence and suggestions of how to fight them. Let's talk about your common sense test.European nations have been under the threat of AQ attacks for as long as we have and have managed to foil some pretty big ones. We failed to stop the first WTC bombing, and then failed to prevent 9-11. How does that make us the experts to turn to?The same European nations which foiled such attacks also discussed a different path regarding Iraq. They were proven right. Yet again, they need to follow us?Does thet really pass your common sense test?To my mind it is time for the US to get on board with the rest of the world and figure out what they did right, rather than telling the world that 9-11 made us geniuses at counter-terrorism.By the way Clinton bombed AQ a number of years ago. There were no attacks in the intervening years between that bombing and 9-11. Was it safe for him to claim that no attacks proved he had stopped them and his methods were effective?If/when an attack occurs, will you then believe that the US methodology was wrong, or will you rely on the true believer scheme of saying but it must have caught so much more?Frankly, as far as AQ is concerned I wouldn't bother making an attack on US soil. Strategically it would be better to simply reform cells within our borders while draining our resources abroad.Iraq is Bush's tarbaby, and AQ's briar patch.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

The link doesn't work. Is there a strategic goal for them commiting these acts? Yes. They get a media victory. Yes, that is evil in every sense of the word IMO. So how is Afghanistan doing? You could just answer the question, which supports my stance that Iraq will "work," instead of just telling me I'm beaten. I thought you would bridge the logic.This message has been edited by Tal, 01-24-2005 02:16 AM

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Here's a second try:
CNN.com - Video apparently shows public beheadings - Jan 22, 2005 You just skipped over my answer. I want to know, is that really the intelligence assessment you people in Iraq are working with? They are scoring points for a media victory, rather than creating an environment which works against our forces and goals and thereby drains our support, manpower, and money?Please tell me it is the latter strategic goal which is being assumed.By the way, nice consistency. At this point the goal of invading Iraq is one of scoring a media victory, remember? We killed all of those innocent people to topple a regime and replace it with a democracy so that all those in the region will see how great a democracy is and then switch over (supposedly in some peaceful, nonchaos inducing movement). I guess that makes us evil. Strike two. I answered your question. This makes it your second glib dodge. Let me repeat it for you (sans the history of Afghanistan to make it clearer).Afghanistan currently has a national gov't. This gov't does not have much power beyond the capital and certain sections of the countryside. This puts it in only slightly better shape than the Taliban, even if is infinitely better as a form of gov't (from what I know I really like Karzai).There are still warlords in power and defying the national gov't.Is that your portrait of a permanent success? I mean I do hope it can be made into one, but right now it is way too early to tell, especially with Taliban elements still within the country (on top of the many different warlords).It is also not free of AQ elements which was supposed to be our goal. Again, what is your criteria of success? Have you been chasing the red herring? Remember 9-11? The real bad guys were AQ and that would be or prime goal, not necessarily just nation building.It's great that we keep hearing look at Germany and look at Japan to see what we have done and can do. Yeah that's great. You know what we did first? We went after and defeated the people who attacked us. That came first.And as for comparing Afghanistan and Iraq, those are apples and oranges.Afghanistan was a fragile nation at best, with the Taliban still fighting a civil war against most of the rest of the nation. There was some organized groups and semi recognized leaders within the nation itself. That was a nation ready for a change in government and needing the help to oust the Taliban.While there were opposition groups inside and outside of Iraq, with the exception of self-proclaimed leaders (like Chalabi) there was no common support for them nor was there an idea of what would replace the current regime. That does not mean a new government is impossible, just that it is not the same thing as Afghanistan.It is my belief that in time almost anything can be healed, especially nations with lack of governments. Thus it is unimpressive for me to hear someone say, let's bomb them and kill them and you'll see they'll have a gov't one day. It is even less impressive to hear that same person build a strawman for my position that they cannot or will not have a functioning gov't at some point.If you remember, my real problem is not whether Iraq will have a gov't of some kind. The problem is the cost to put it in place, versus the actual benefits that the new gov't will provide (specifically with regard to our current campaign against terrorist organizations).You have yet to explain how a democracy will end extremist views and terrorism from existing in Iraq. That goes double if it is a real democracy, and not one controlled by the US.End note... People in debates, as in poker, have "tells". After a bit I have noticed that when an important point or counterpoint has been made which demands an answer, if you have one you give one, otherwise you do not admit failure, you simply disappear or leave with a glib answer. That appears to be your "tell" for holding a bad hand.Thus I state again, I can tell that you are beaten, if all you have for my actual points are glib retorts that don't address anything.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"Don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Really well, its back on top as the world's No.1 producer of heroin.TTFN,WK

You beat me to it you Bas**rd! I was going to do that one but put the coffee pot on instead......Yah ! Cheap smack for all!

Although this would be offtopic, I really have a question whether we should be worrying if they are producing heroin, and how much they are producing.Again, the main problem we are facing is AQ and Islamic extremists. That is totally separate from whether we ourselves have a drug problem and how to go about treating it.I think it is odd to expect farmers in an impoverished nation not to produce the most profitable crops.And let's say their nation gets together and decides recreational drugs of one kind are no different than recreational drugs of another kind and so should not be illegal in their nation at all... thus fully legalizing poppies as they would hops/barley or tobacco or marijuana.Would we then say that they are wrong? Can we say that they are wrong? It would be their nation and they should be able to make such decisions on their own.Personally I could care less how many poppies they produce. If they can make money, good on them. They need money. If we don't like it why don't we stop buying it. It would seem to be our problem, not theirs. Unless we want to go 100% hypocritical.This message has been edited by holmes, 01-24-2005 06:19 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Why posit such a hypothetical, it has absolutely no relevance to the actual circumstances. Certainly if that was the situation then I don't see that any intervenion would be warranted.My personal view is that if someone wants to big up the 'Nation building' skills of American foreign policy then Afghanistan is a poor choice, unless they are hoping that Iraq could become the worlds No.1 supplier of crack cocaine.TTFN,WK

Why is this a hypothetical? Most farmers there want to grow the most profitable crops. It is the world which is saying that their choice of crop is wrong and imposing that upon them. First it did so using the Taliban, and now it is doing so using the current gov't.I saw an interesting interview with Karzai on this very subject. While he is on the side of the international community (in hating drugs) he was pointing out that for drug growth to be reduced, other crops were going to have to be made more profitable. It was a simple economic issue and for those growing poppies there really wasn't a moral difference.Simply burning fields and using our normal interdiction efforts (as we do in Central and South America) was not going to work as it would just pit us against ordinary Afghanis. I think Afghanistan needs to be helped. I believed that before 9-11. When we abandoned it after the Soviets left, a terrible tragedy began to unravel. Their production of poppies is the least of their problems... and our problems from them.A good question... and this is on topic regarding the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan... is what we should focus on in helping both these nations move out of the terrible fiscal situation they are currently in. I would argue discussing punishment for, or criticizing, what they grow is not the right angle.Discussing what we can use and they can make greater profits on is much more useful.By the way, as far as I know, they don't grow crack cocaine, neither do they make and distribute it. They grow poppies. Its derivatives are used all over the place, and usually concentrated in more "civilized" nations.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Ummm, because you said "Lets suppose..." and then proposed a hypothetical scenario?Your hypothetical was proposing an entirely different question to the one of whether we have any right to limit the Afghani farmers from producing the most profitable crops they can to get by regardless of any legal issues. This seems naive coming from you, it is much more likely that the reason is that it would pit us against influential warlords whose good graces we rely on to still be able to claim that there is some sort of centralised government in Afghanistan and to operate in the country at wide. I haven't said anything about punishing people. I certainly don't feel any qualms in criticising however, and I would certainly suggest that subsidising and helping to develop viable alternative cash crops would be a better way to go than simply turning a blind eye to the wholescale production of drugs which are going to turn up on the streets. As far as I know Iraq isn't a significant producer of any illegal drug. You don't seem to have understood the context of my statement. Tal was suggesting we look at Afghanistan, presumably to see what a wonderful success that was, and I was suggesting that there have been significant drawbacks for western countries from the aftermath of Afghanistan, related to drugs trafficking. Crack cocaine was simply used as an alternative example of a drug.TTFN,WK

We may just be talking past each other. I guess I should have been more clear. I meant why was it such a hypothetical that it has no relevance to the current situation (which is what you originally said). I understood it was a hypothetical in that it was not the case, but I disagree that it is so far removed from reality that it is irrelevant.Indeed given the nature of the warlord's control of certain regions, one can almost well say that certain regions have already declared it a legal product. Heheheh... well let me remind you that I am taking much of my analysis from what Karzai and regional agricultural directors (from ngos) have said. I suppose I could be naive in believing what they say, but it sounded pretty convincing. I do not dispute this at all. Indeed it supports the relevance of my original hypothetical, just making it regional govt's which have legalized the growth and sale of poppies/heroin.There is an added point though, that even without the warlords, the actual farmers would still have an incentive to take up the crops. I should add that the interview I saw on this subject included farmers (though I suppose their comments could have been influenced by the warlords, unlike Karzai and the ngo specialists). Agreed, though frankly I think we are doing more damage with our drug war than simply treating drug addicts. Yeah, I got that and I prefaced everything with a statement that I was probably shifting off topic. Okay, my fault then and I apologize for derailing the point.For TAL, WK's point stands and you should address it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

quote:

---

But only if they meet all 4 conditions. They only meet 1.

---

Completely wrong. Those 4 creria only apply to ADDITIONAL groups such they can ALSO be parties to the conflict. These "insurgents" ARE party to the conflict because you are attacking them. Therefore, the Geneva rules apply in full force.

quote:

---

Post your source for this information please.

---

Sure:Article 45.-Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.Database Error

The U.S. and the western powers are aware that there is a coalition of nations opposed to our monopoly on power--in alliance with the house of Saud.
They want to govern their nations their way.
We want the people to decide...(and quite naturally decide to become Capitalists) I cannot fault our country for fighting---we will have to fight sooner or later anyway if we want to keep what we have.
This world will never be at peace because nobody wants to give up what they have. Getting rid of Saddam was like taking out a tumor and having it burst. We now have the same problem metastisizing into 50 leaders who in the future will be as much of a thorn as Saddam was.To Contracycle: Communism/socialism will never be allowed by the Western democracies. You know that wars will continue.To Tal: You are better off sticking true to your Christian beliefs and not trying to defend America. It may be our country and it may well be the best place to live, but I suspect that Jesus would dissapprove of how we conduct foreign policy.And as for you, Mr. Jack--- Have a g'day!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-24-2005 10:45 AM

I thought that was a pretty solid answer, but then I read the preceding section... The insurgents, and many of the AQ combatants in Afghanistan, clearly do not get to be POWs under these rules. The section you quoted came after this and was part of defining how people are treated in general.Insurgents would actually be better described under later points... So it seems that Tal would be right that they fail to meet requirements as POWs, though you would be right to say that they still get full coverage that POWs receive, and perhaps if they request POW status, can be given that status by a tribunal.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

I just saw a news report today. Seems that the new government forces are kidnapping and abusing people, just like the last regime.This is further support of my stance that even if Iraq "works", it may still be plagued by problems which went on under the previous regime. Democracies, despite Bush's unilateral declaration, do not remove corruption and war. That is BS which shouldn't pass your common sense test.Same as it ever was same as it ever was. We have not learned from the past, and we are repeating it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)