soldiers in Iraq trading gory pics of dead Iraqis for porn der=0><

[Dondrei]

To my mind, one of the things that the administration did very poorly was stage management and PR. That issue, in particular, should have not been taken advantage of (it was unrelated to Shrub's visit, but his PR flacks seem to have thought it a great idea at the time and helped the Navy with it). The Pentagon has learned the trick of coping with a 5th-column media, and that is to forcibly co-opt them if the media wants to exploit the situation ("embedded" = in-bed-with). Most international media are cowardly little gob****es (word filter check ) who won't risk a combat zone to get a realistic view on the situation.

Agreed. (I feel dirty...)

As to the insurgency, yes, it is a problem. It is a bigger problem than it needs to be because of a couple of issues. One issue is that we dissolved the Iraqi military, which was incredibly ignorant. Another is that we aren't willing to "get tough" at the various Iraqi borders or with the three nations that are exporting their young terrorist wannabees.

Certainly dismantling the Iraqi military was a huge mistake. But it's a little ludicrous to talk about securing the borders when Coalition control hardly extends beyond Baghdad.

"a) I can still support the troops and think the military sucks" Nonsensical (surprise, surprise)

Not at all. I think by "support the troops" you actually mean "worship the ground that they walk on, never question a thing that they or those in charge of them do, never hear a word said against their mission or their organisation". Saying that the American military has a long history of pathetic failure has nothing to do with whether you support the troops or not.

"b) I don't support the troops" At least you admit it - but do you support your own? The same issues apply.

I think you'd better define "support the troops" before I answer that question.

"c) Why don't you ask my why I hate America as long as we're talking in rally cries?" No need - hazarding a guess, I think you're a European Socialist. I could be way off-base, but I'm probably close with your political views.

I'm afraid you are. I don't want to get into pages of "what Dondrei believes", so let's just say that I'm not really on either the left or the right. I make my decisions on a case by case basis. But for the record, I hate socialism.

You go to war with the plan & forces you have.

Yeah, but deciding on that plan and those forces is called stra-te-gy. It's kind of an important part of war. You might even say the most important. If it's poor, then you have a poor military.

I think there was insufficient planning, by all accounts - though I disagree with the invalidity of "shock & awe". I suspect we still were using the original playbook involving decapitation, and didn't plan sufficiently for Saddam's going to ground. The original plan was based on our overly hopeful projections that Saddam would be assassinated, and we likely just tried to spin from that.

Shock and awe's wholesale destruction and intimidation of the surrounding populace make it disasterous against a country you intend to occupy. It makes the civilians hate you and ruins vital infrastructure. It certainly conflicts with decapitation. I don't think Saddam mattered a bit to the war, that was a purely political victory.

I don't know if you've got your history correct here, either, since occupied Germany was trusted less than Saddam was from the onset. In fact, some Europeans still looked adversely at the reunification - but how can you possibly make your argument regarding <East> Germany? I don't believe this view holds any water, since substantial portions of Iraq are very cooperative, and you forget things associated with the USSR's occupation of Germany that worked against the allies (like the Berlin Airlift).

You didn't occupy East Berlin, I was obviously referring to West Berlin. There were no "insurgencies" against American occupation. Nor even a resistance to speak of. I don't see how you can compare this with Iraq.

A male bullock... We get BBC-America and watch Father Ted, you know.

I love Father Ted. Arse, drink, girls, feck!

Plus I think the original diabloii.net was hosted from the U.K. or some such.

How come it doesn't object to "arse" then?

[Dondrei]

So no one would want us to remove ourselves when a war is going well? What if the goal is something no one cares about? I think we can be winning a war just fine, and the people back home can still want us out. It's not a matter of whether or not our military is doing a good job, it's a matter of whether or not people see the war as necessary.

That's true, but my point was that the fact that the war never had decisive victories - or even clear demonstrations of progress - was a big factor in peoples' dissatisfaction with it. My wording was not the best. Both the war's goals and its lack of progress were important failures.

[SaroDarksbane]

That's true, but my point was that the fact that the war never had decisive victories - or even clear demonstrations of progress - was a big factor in peoples' dissatisfaction with it. My wording was not the best. Both the war's goals and its lack of progress were important failures.

I guess I just don't think it's a valid jump from there to "Your military sucks. Get Over it."

[jmervyn]

Firstly - my suport for the troops is hoping they come home alive.

Again, you can't call hoping for someone's downfall, as long as they are alive, support.

As to the rest - so this IS a war against Islam then?

And somehow we hope to win the hearts and minds...

Unfortunately, yes, this conflict is being promoted as a war against Islam by our enemy. Perhaps you've missed all the "Crusader" jargon? And furthermore, we're doing a worse than terrible job of psyops & PR to counter it. Keep in mind that I grew up with USIS and Voice of America, and that those were casualties of the "Peace Dividend". I've expressed my unhappiness at length, and don't intend to do so again here. That's one reason why things like this gore for pr0n issue will get replay in the Arab world; we don't have a contrary view to present (the best we might have is the BBC) and the current efforts of State in that vein are laughable (Hi! magazine).

But then, what do you expect? We've been passively promoting education in and support of this sort of hatred for decades (and I don't mean by supporting Israel). Nobody should be surprised at the results. As long as moderate (supposedly mainstream) Islam isn't "in charge" and is passive, these fascists have the only microphone.

[jmervyn]

Agreed. (I feel dirty...)

Use Borax.

Not at all. I think by "support the troops" you actually mean "worship the ground that they walk on, never question a thing that they or those in charge of them do, never hear a word said against their mission or their organisation". Saying that the American military has a long history of pathetic failure has nothing to do with whether you support the troops or not.

Then you don't understand me at all. I'm often the first to condemn them and their command. Allowing shoddy mistakes and misconduct is unprofessional and shouldn't be tolerated (i.e. Tailhook). But the reason you're nonsensical is that the military <is> 'the troops', as well as other things.

I think you'd better define "support the troops" before I answer that question.

Please read above.

Yeah, but deciding on that plan and those forces is called stra-te-gy. It's kind of an important part of war. You might even say the most important. If it's poor, then you have a poor military.

Bullhookey. Keep in mind you're talking to someone who started out as a career Infantry officer. Case in point - the British military of the Napoleonic era was the finest in the world. Yet the officers were worthless, their support laughable, and their employment ludicrous. Nevertheless, they won.

Shock and awe's wholesale destruction and intimidation of the surrounding populace make it disasterous against a country you intend to occupy. It makes the civilians hate you and ruins vital infrastructure. It certainly conflicts with decapitation. I don't think Saddam mattered a bit to the war, that was a purely political victory.

Saddam organized the insurgency 4 days after the decapitation strike. Still fail to grasp the importance?

"Shock & Awe" is perhaps questionable, but it doesn't equate to wholesale destruction. The use of showy tactical capabilities is worthwhile, but is only one component of psyops. The fact that we have the number of Baathist "dead-enders" in the conflict that we do indicates that it wasn't completely effective as a standalone concept, but it certainly worked against the armies Saddam <did> field.

You didn't occupy East Berlin, I was obviously referring to West Berlin. There were no "insurgencies" against American occupation. Nor even a resistance to speak of. I don't see how you can compare this with Iraq.

Fine, and we're getting even further away from topic. Take the Phillipines if you prefer.

[Stevebo]

Again, you can't call hoping for someone's downfall, as long as they are alive, support.

Unfortunately, yes, this conflict is being promoted as a war against Islam by our enemy. Perhaps you've missed all the "Crusader" jargon?

I am not hoping for their downfall - I'm hoping for them to come home. You are the one who seems to be hoping to keep them in harms way indefinately to meet indefinate and undefined targets.

Who is the enemy? To me it seemed like you were the one saying it was a war on Islam.

Crusader? Is that in reference to Bushes comments at the start of the Afgan war?

[jmervyn]

I am not hoping for their downfall - I'm hoping for them to come home. You are the one who seems to be hoping to keep them in harms way indefinately to meet indefinate and undefined targets.

Utter nonsense. How does hoping for a conditional victory equate to indefinite danger and a lack of definition?

Who is the enemy? To me it seemed like you were the one saying it was a war on Islam.

Crusader? Is that in reference to Bushes comments at the start of the Afgan war?

Way to twist words and miss the point, pal. I guess I need to explain it as I would to my almost 4-year old son...

Bad men in a far away place don't like us. They don't like us because they don't like what we do for fun, who our friends are, and that we have more money than they do. They want us to do as they say, or they'll our heads off. They have hurt us for no reason several times.

They decided to tell everyone that God doesn't like us either, and that anything they do is God's will. Even their church doesn't support this, but there's enough of the priests that are stupid or nasty enough to let them keep saying it. They blame us for something that knights in armour did to their great-great grandpas, and say that we haven't changed since then. But they're really the ones who want things to be like they were hundreds of years ago.

So we sent our armymen to places where their friends live and fought with their friends. Some people who their friends were hurting like us now because we helped them. But the bad men say that we're hurting the people we're helping, and that the people were better off being hurt by their own kings. They even say that none of this would have happened if it wasn't for our king, Shrub. But they also pretend that they weren't angry with us before they tried to hurt us over & over, and that they wouldn't be angry with us now if we didn't fight back. They're silly.

He's a smart boy, by the way. He understands this issue. Whenever he sees Osama's or Saddam's picture, he shouts "Bad Man!" Too bad you can't grasp the finer points as well as he does.

[Stevebo]

Bad men in a far away place don't like us. They want us to do as they say, or they'll drop bombs on our homes and invade our country.

They blame us for something that some evil people from another country did to them, because those people claimed to be from the same religion as us.

Our country has never attacked them but the bad men say that we were thinking about it and they will come to stop us thinking about it by *freeing us*, and that we are better off being killed by them than by ourselves. They said we had big weapons, but we did not. They are the only ones with the big weapons. They even say that none of this would have happened if it wasn't for our king, Saddam. They say that they are killing our people to stop us from hating them

Incidently the reason I say you are the one saying it is war against Islam is:
"where the battle is a political setpiece for Western civilization versus Islamist theocracy?"

Anyway, aside from ripping off your stuff - had to be done for the perspective - Saddam and OBL were bastards, but one of them is now in prison looking likely to be executed by his people and the other has gone from being a lippy SOB to being comletely silent - strangely at about the time we bombed the **** out of his suspected hiding place... is it possible he is dead. So why are the US troops still in Iraq antoginizing the population and giving fuel for radical recruitment.

Think about it - what 100,000 dead iraqis? Say 50,000 as a lower estimate - say each with say 4 close relatives living? thats about 200,000 people who have had a close family member killed by the US. Will those people bear a grudge against the US? Are those people likely canditates for radical recruitment? And thats ignoring those who have been cripled or whose friends were killed. Now all you need is for one of those 200,000 to be motivated and compentant and you have the next OBL. Great plan.

The US occupation of Iraq has to be the biggest boost to recruitment into groups like AQ for years.

[rikstaker]

Bad men in a far away place don't like us. They want us to do as they say, or they'll drop bombs on our homes and invade our country.

They blame us for something that some evil people from another country did to them, because those people claimed to be from the same religion as us.

Our country has never attacked them but the bad men say that we were thinking about it and they will come to stop us thinking about it by *freeing us*, and that we are better off being killed by them than by ourselves. They said we had big weapons, but we did not. They are the only ones with the big weapons. They even say that none of this would have happened if it wasn't for our king, Saddam. They say that they are killing our people to stop us from hating them

Ouch.

Rik

[jmervyn]

Bad men in a far away place don't like us. They want us to do as they say, or they'll drop bombs on our homes and invade our country.

They blame us for something that some evil people from another country did to them, because those people claimed to be from the same religion as us.

Our country has never attacked them but the bad men say that we were thinking about it and they will come to stop us thinking about it by *freeing us*, and that we are better off being killed by them than by ourselves. They said we had big weapons, but we did not. They are the only ones with the big weapons. They even say that none of this would have happened if it wasn't for our king, Saddam. They say that they are killing our people to stop us from hating them

Well played, but trying to pretend that tacit (to say nothing of overt) support for UBL isn't a given in the mideast is feebleminded. Likewise, pretending that the agression against the West somehow didn't exist prior to our actions is foolish and either ignorant or maliciously deceptive.

Incidently the reason I say you are the one saying it is war against Islam is:
"where the battle is a political setpiece for Western civilization versus Islamist theocracy?"

I'm glad Rik is reading this; it might clear some air - my point is that the ISLAMIST crowd is positioning this as a battle against Islam. The mainstream of Islam (if one can concieve of such a thing, since it would be like saying 'mainstream Christianity') either doesn't give a rat's patootie for their arguments or reject them, but this is the crowd that terms jihad as offensive action (which I'm pretty confident it is never supposed to be) and ignore the more moderate Islamic teachings (the "People of the Book" stuff I believe I saw Rik refer to earlier) in favor of the martial and totalitarian ones.

Therefore, it fits nicely in the fundamentalist Salafist/Wahabist "kill all jooz" mindset, so it gets a lot of promotion. The Wahabi's are currently the dominant sect in Saudi Arabia, and therefore control the holy sites.

Keep in mind that Islam has internal disagreements the same way Christianity does, and I'll be buggered if I can keep it all straight. From my point of view, it would be as if one of the Southern Baptist branches that goes in for snake handling were arguing for slavery (sons of Ham & all that rot), but were being promoted as spokesmen for Christianity and were ensconced in Washington D.C.

Anyway, aside from ripping off your stuff - had to be done for the perspective - Saddam and OBL were bastards, but one of them is now in prison looking likely to be executed by his people and the other has gone from being a lippy SOB to being comletely silent - strangely at about the time we bombed the **** out of his suspected hiding place... is it possible he is dead. So why are the US troops still in Iraq antoginizing the population and giving fuel for radical recruitment.

Think about it - what 100,000 dead iraqis? Say 50,000 as a lower estimate - say each with say 4 close relatives living? thats about 200,000 people who have had a close family member killed by the US. Will those people bear a grudge against the US? Are those people likely canditates for radical recruitment? And thats ignoring those who have been cripled or whose friends were killed. Now all you need is for one of those 200,000 to be motivated and compentant and you have the next OBL. Great plan.

The US occupation of Iraq has to be the biggest boost to recruitment into groups like AQ for years.

People like Christopher Hitchens have addressed your logical fallacy as stated here, so I hardly need to go into it again. However, about the occupation idea - your presumption that the insurgency would simply dry up & blow away is laughable. Yes, there are a few people that would actually take up arms against their countrymen simply because they don't like the U.S. But have you paid attention to the casualties? The insurgents aren't attacking U.S. troops for the most part; they get their asses handed to them. Instead, they are attempting to cause sectarian violence, at a minimum in order to ensure that we continue to be stuck there and be available as a rallying cry. If we really were to pull out with no regard, do you think for a second that these insurgents wouldn't do their damnest to set up another Lebanon? And given that Saddam's Iraq was a terrorist haven, do you think there wouldn't immediately be something like the Taliban or worse to fill the void?

The Iraqi people want a chance at something resembling democracy. I know this - I "talked" and met with them over a decade ago. Furthermore, they share a border with Turkey, so they realize that the future could hold something better. But they're so thoroughly terrorized from Saddam's rule that I'm amazed there's still recruits showing up at the police stations.