Fighting means dying

[Perd Hapley]

richyoung,

Yes, comments in support of genocide

Genocide.  shootinstudent's favorite straw man. 

[RevDisk]

RevDisk, I think the point they are trying to get across to you is that given the Arab mindset, and the nature of this particular war, if the forces of the West and civilization are unwilling to spend the blood, as well as treasure, to get down and fight them in the mud one-on-one when appripriate, then the West is doomed to loose - regardless how smart the bombs we drop on them are.  The poor bloody infantry still has to go root 'em out, and pay in flesh for the priviledge.

Ah.  Hrm.  Sorta agree, sorta disagree.  The Iraqi insurgency very much believes something akin to that.  Kill a small number of Americans, stick to lower risk tactics, and wait out the occupation forces.  They believe eventually we'll get sick of the whole mess and leave.  Probably correct, but who knows.  

I see the homegrown Iraqi insurgency as being slightly different than the original terrorists we were hunting pre-Iraq.  (For ease of discussion, I'll call 'em Wahhabis)  Sure, I'm sure a significant number of Wahhabi are running around Iraq but the reports I read before I left the Army was that the bulk of the insurgents in Iraq are indigenous persons.  Wmenorr67 would probably have more current information than I possess, and I'm fairly sure accurate reports on insurgent force composition are classified for political reasons as well as military related ones.  There was (probably is) a significant amount of cross training between the Wahhabi and Iraqi Sunni, and between the IRGC and Iraqi *expletive deleted*it.  I'd be more shocked if there was no cross training, as militarily speaking, it's common sense to use the enemies of your enemies as proxies.

Thing is, we need to "win" to win.  Unfortunately, there is no common concensus of what victory is.  That part of our mission has been a bit vague.  From what I understand, it's to have a democratically elected stable Iraqi government.  Unfortunately, stability is more of a concept than a reality throughout the entire region.   The overwhelming majority of the people are very glad to be rid of Saddam and have a democracy.  But they are not willing to change things themselves.  There is a mild number of Iraqis trying to stabilize the country, and a mild number of Iraqis trying to destabilize the country.  Yes, the proportionally low number of insurgents is a reality, but it's countered by the proportionally low number of folks very dedicated to the stability of the current government.  The majority are just watching and hoping to avoid the cross-fire.  

Thing is, we're spilling a lot of blood and treasure against an enemy we did not need to have.  Most of the homegrown Iraqi insurgents have zero intention of invading or attacking US soil.  Their perceived enemy is our occupation forces, as well as domestic targets (current regime, rival factions, etc).  We went out of our way to add enemies.  Spilling blood and treasure you did not need to is generally an unwise idea.  "Conservation of assets" and so forth.

As for Pearl Harbor, its called the "McCollum Memo" - it pretty much lines out the steps we took to push Japan into atttacking us.

Yea, I read plenty on that theory, attempting to instigate a war.  Eh, I believe certain folks wanted a war and did what they could.  I don't think it was a widespread conspiracy.  Then again, intentionally lax security, and the only unreplacable assets (carriers) being conveniently out of port...  

Regarding Sun Tzu -

The principles are valid but cannot be divorced from their political/cultural context.

Winning a bloodless battle of maneuver only works if everyone involved agrees to pack it in when one side proves their virtuosity.  Otherwise, surrounded or not, you still have to be willing and able to go in and kill the bastards or you haven't "won".

Chosin Reservoir.  Falaise pocket.  Schwarzkopf's "Left Hook".

You can set the other guy up with clever maneuver, but, unless the rules are he has to roll over at that point, you haven't won diddly

I'm sure Generalfeldmarschall Friedrich Paulus would agree.  

Sure, context is everything.  But, for every Bastogne, you have a Dien Bien Phu.  

Personally, I thought Schwarzkopf was one of the most overrated generals we've had in a while.  Anywho, completely off topic, and subject to another discussion.

[roo_ster]

The war against Islamic terrorist savagry should have been an Air Force mission, not a Marine and Army land war in Asia.

The entire Middle East isn't worth a single drop of American blood.

Ahh, but the oil they sit on is.

Unless we want to watch mass-starvation and an economic downturn to make the Great Depression seem a mere bump in the road, we (civilization) will have to use oil.

[wmenorr67]

Zeke you really need to pull your head out.  You always seem to say you respect the military and those in it but in the very next breath you decide to insult the whole lot.  I take great offense of you calling the MEN AND WOMEN of OUR ARMED FORCES minions.  To claim that anyone person in the military is better than another just based on thier position is degrading to each and every one of my BROTHERS AND SISTERS in arms.

[roo_ster]

BTW, I am starting on Gobbon's Decline and Fall.  Of course, I read the conclusion first*.  Gibbon's work is yet another example of unchanging human nature.

Lack of patriotism and an unwillingness to fight for one's group/city/country/civilization?  Enervating philosophy(ies) that attack the underpinnings of manly and civic and martial virtues?  External barbarians who desperately want what the civilized peoples have, but also hate them and want to see them destroyed?

"Where have I seen this before?" (jfruser asks)

*  It is not like the ending was going to be a spoiler.

[roo_ster]

Zeke you really need to pull your head out.  You always seem to say you respect the military and those in it but in the very next breath you decide to insult the whole lot.  I take great offense of you calling the MEN AND WOMEN of OUR ARMED FORCES minions.  To claim that anyone person in the military is better than another just based on thier position is degrading to each and every one of my BROTHERS AND SISTERS in arms.

wmenorr67:

Give his opinion the weight it is due. 

Some have drunk heavily at the poisoned well of what we call "higher education" without discernment.  Wisdom != Intelligence || Education

[richyoung]

richyoung,

Yes, comments in support of genocide and comparing modern societies to ancient tribes are "for adults"....but only special adults.

You want to drop the "G" word - fine.  Lets all be clear that we are in fact talking about genocide, or near to it - the only thing you have wrong is which way its directed.  Read the Koran.  Study history.  The United States, by means of near-unfettered capitalism, has been responsible for the greatest increases in wealth and improvements in the human condition of all of Western Civilization.  Western Civilization, in turn and in toto, has been responsible for the greatest advancement of humanity with respect to any competeing cultures.  Islam has been at war with Western Civilization since it came into existence, eventually crushing the last vestige of the Roman Empire at Constantinople, and advancing within 30 miles of Paris up through Spain, and getting darn close to Vienna from up through the Balkans - before being repulsed.  The United States has been at war with Islam off and on ever since the United States came into being:  The Barbary Coast pirates felt free to prey on non-Muslims:  the "shores of Tripoli" refered to in the Marine Corps Hymn were the scene of the young country's first military action - and it was AGAINST Muslims.  The  failure of .38 calibur round-nosed lead bullets to deter Muslim Morro tribesman hopped up on narcotics and clad in bambo armor led directly to the 1911 pistol.  MIx the same mentality that lead to 9/11 with NBC weaponry, and see who 'genocides" who.

  A more approrpiate comparison is Vietnam, where more force was applied than in World War II...yes, more force, more bombs, over a smaller area. 

And the more we applied, the more they fought back.

Again, you are simply WRONG.  Ask anyone who was IN South Vietnam in ..1970.  Or 1971. The Viet Cong had been crushed - in part, as planned by North Vietnam.  The VC had been expended in a series of ill-advised offensives, and you could pretty much go wherever you wanted in South Vietnam.  It was not until the US CEASED applying force, adn more importantly, cut off our proxie from arms and fuel as part of the ongoing Watergate backlash, that South Vietnam fell.  And it fell NOT to revolutionaries in Ho Chi Minh sandals and black pajamas, but rather to multiple divions of tanks and infantry invading from North Vietnam.  Since the VC were no longer around, the conquerors didn;t have to share power with them.

Different world, different situation from colonial Mexico (which, incidentally, was conquered through alliances with the natives...one native against another, not by a superman Spaniard.)

...and Muslims have never scragged other Muslims, right?  That whole Iran-Iraq war thing was just a misunderstanding?  Divide and conquer sounds good to me.

Usually though, "force" becomes a euphamism for genocide in these discussions.  And my response is: if you wouldn't support building gas chambers and running every single person in the population of your targets through it, you aren't being principled when you call for the same effect by other means.

The story I keep getting is that only an "extreme minority" of the "religion of peace" are causing the trouble - these I would happily commit to the "showers" - and that should be all that is needed.

[Art Eatman]

I guess one part of what chaps my tail about all this ya-ya is that we're trying to focus on a relatively few murderous Jihadists, but are being accused of attacking the whole of Islam. 

But, no different from me griping about illegal aliens in the U.S. and being accused of hating Mexicans.

It's just a bunch of BS from those who apparently value political power above all else, or money, or who just hate the US because we're rich and have too many personal freedoms, as Clinton said we have.  No different from those who were wilfully blind to the serious intent behind such statements as, "We will bury you," from Lil Nikki Kruschev et al.  People don't believe Iran's president, either.

"It's all about oil."  Damned right.  In today's world, oil = civilization.  Whoever controls the oil, controls civilization.  Try doing without it. 

Art

[Ezekiel]

Zeke you really need to pull your head out.

(sigh)  Whatever.

"Minions."  "Cannon-fodder."  "Pawns."  It's the place on the strategy board for automatonic single-rifle infantry that serves at the will and pleasure of thier King.

I'm not really concerned about what offends you.   

That said, I appreciate your opinion.

[wmenorr67]

I'm not really concerned about what offends you.   

But yet you are one of the first ones to bitch when you are offended. 

[RevDisk]

Zeke you really need to pull your head out.

(sigh)  Whatever.

"Minions."  "Cannon-fodder."  "Pawns."  It's the place on the strategy board for automatonic single-rifle infantry that serves at the will and pleasure of thier King.

That's "Legion of Evil Minions", "Demonic cannon-fodder" and "Ruggedly handsome pawns" to you!  We all know you're just jealous of our shiney jack boots and "automatonic" rifles.   

While I was never infantry branch, I'm familiar enough with infantry units to know they carry additional weapons besides select rifles.  Most infantry units I worked with had crewed served weapons, some anti-tank weapons, occassionally a mortar team or three, and a handful of designated marksmen.  And everyone is a volunteer, not subject to "the will and pleasure of their King".  And oh yea, per the Constitution, no titles of nobility can be issued.   But whatdoIknow?

I'm not really concerned about what offends you.   

That said, I appreciate your opinion.

Well, you should be.  We fashionable storm troopers have very fragile egos when folks label us incorrectly. 

[wmenorr67]

Hey Zeke, what do you have against the military anyway?  And it would be one thing to criticize the military as a whole but to bash on individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines is just unacceptable. 

[De Selby]

Art,

I'm not accusing you of that, but look at Rich Young's post.  He's made it pretty clear that it's the whole of the religion he's worried about, or else comments like "Read the Quran" and "Islam is at war with western civilization" wouldn't make any sense.

[Bogie]

Scenario:

"Tell ya what, Brother Abduhl... I know you don't want to do this, but since I and my friends are true believers, we'll provide handsomely for your wife and children when you go to your 72 virgins. If you don't, we'll kill your wife and children in front of you, and then cut off your hands, your tongue, and blind you. Your choice."
 

[richyoung]

Art,

I'm not accusing you of that, but look at Rich Young's post.  He's made it pretty clear that it's the whole of the religion he's worried about,...

GEez, first history and math, and now reading comprehension....did you go to public school or something?  Anyway, in the furtherence of your remedial education, compare and contrast the previous statement of yours, especially the part in bold, with the quote from me following:

"The story I keep getting is that only an "extreme minority" of the "religion of peace" are causing the trouble - these I would happily commit to the "showers" - and that should be all that is needed. "

Notice any incompatibility?

[De Selby]

richyoung, yes, I do notice incompatibility with this:

Lets all be clear that we are in fact talking about genocide, or near to it - the only thing you have wrong is which way its directed.  Read the Koran.  Study history.  The United States, by means of near-unfettered capitalism, has been responsible for the greatest increases in wealth and improvements in the human condition of all of Western Civilization. 

Then:

Islam has been at war with Western Civilization since it came into existence, eventually crushing the last vestige of the Roman Empire at Constantinople, and advancing within 30 miles of Paris up through Spain, and getting darn close to Vienna from up through the Balkans - before being repulsed.

and:

the "shores of Tripoli" refered to in the Marine Corps Hymn were the scene of the young country's first military action - and it was AGAINST Muslims.  The  failure of .38 calibur round-nosed lead bullets to deter Muslim Morro tribesman hopped up on narcotics and clad in bambo armor led directly to the 1911 pistol.  MIx the same mentality that lead to 9/11 with NBC weaponry, and see who 'genocides" who.

If I did nothing other than replace the word "Muslims" in those blocks of text with the word "Jews", it would read exactly like a piece of neo-Nazi propaganda.  So yes, I think it's pretty clear what you're saying here.

[richyoung]

If I did nothing other than replace the word "Muslims" in those blocks of text with the word "Jews", it would read exactly like a piece of neo-Nazi propaganda.  So yes, I think it's pretty clear what you're saying here.

If I did nothing other than replace 9/11 reporting of "Arab" or "Muslim" with "Hebrew" or "Jew", it would ALSO read like Nazi propaganda.  The DIFFERENCE that you fail to acknowldge is that radical islamic fundamentalists ARE TRYING TO DESTROY US.  Similarity to propaganda has NOTHING to do with whether something is TRUE or not.  Please argue FACTS verses the irrelevancy of how somehting is like propaganda.  Anything, true or false, can be used for propaganda.

[CAnnoneer]

If the big silent majority is used as living shields by the little crooked minority, then it is the responsibility of the big silent majority to pull their heads out of their asses and get rid of the bandits, or at least helps us do it for them if the desert sun is too hot for them to move their arses.

But we all know that this majority/minority model is a gross simplification. In some areas it might hold (e.g. Iraq, maybe), but in others it certainly does not. The majority had its free elections and they chose to vote for the terrorists. Enough said.

[De Selby]

richyoung,

Wait a minute, if the accusations you're making and the language you use to make it looks like Nazi propaganda, you don't think that's at all troubling?  Seriously...is the only thing the Nazis got wrong the fact that they targeted Jews instead of someone else?

You're right that a lot of 9/11 reporting was fear-mongering.  You should recognize that as a bad thing instead of using its association with 9/11 to put it beyond all criticism. 

When we're talking about crimes and killing, we should stick to blaming the people responsible...and by "people" I mean individual people.  Radical fundamentalists should be called what they are, criminals and thugs, not taken to represent a whole religion...but that's exactly what you're doing when you allege that this is just par for the course for "Muslims", and that to learn about Osama Bin Laden I should "read the Quran"

[Manedwolf]

If I did nothing other than replace the word "Muslims" in those blocks of text with the word "Jews", it would read exactly like a piece of neo-Nazi propaganda.  So yes, I think it's pretty clear what you're saying here.

If I did nothing other than replace 9/11 reporting of "Arab" or "Muslim" with "Hebrew" or "Jew", it would ALSO read like Nazi propaganda.  The DIFFERENCE that you fail to acknowldge is that radical islamic fundamentalists ARE TRYING TO DESTROY US.  Similarity to propaganda has NOTHING to do with whether something is TRUE or not.  Please argue FACTS verses the irrelevancy of how somehting is like propaganda.  Anything, true or false, can be used for propaganda.

Correct. Jews don't pull this sort of #$%!





Want to defend this sort, shootinstudent?

Or the fact that the "moderate" majority is nearly SILENT about this sort? Where's the condemnation? The distancing?

[De Selby]

Manedwolf,

Why would I defend them? They are nuts.

But similarly, to allege that Christians and Jews don't have nuts is just ridiculous.  However, since  I don't agree with maligning all Jews and Christians, I don't go around posting pictures of their psychos and asking them to own up to it.

Anyway, if you're interested...there are most definitely pictures of Jews in Jerusalem wearing makeshift armor with signs that say "Burn in Hell sodomites".  They were angry about the planned gay parade through the city.  You can also find small demonstrations in support of the man who murdered Yitzhak Rabin...

But my opinion on all of those is that it's not just illogical to post about it all the time and demand answers from other Jews-it's actually irresponsible.  Western societies in particular are prone to taking any bad thing they can find about Jews and turning it into a witch hunt.  Do you think that there might be any similarity to Muslims there? People are willing to believe whatever about them, so when you agitate like this, you just might be encouraging the next gas-station Sikh shooter.

And Christians...well, Fred Phelps turns out crowds at least as large as this little band of Bin Ladenites every where he goes.  Does that mean that I can post pictures of Phelps' funeral protests and demand that Christians answer for it?

[richyoung]

richyoung,

Wait a minute, if the accusations you're making and the language you use to make it looks like Nazi propaganda, you don't think that's at all troubling? 

Not at all.  The Nazi's were FALSELY a ccusing Jews of things they DIDN'T do, whereas I am ACCURATELY REPORTING what Muslims not only ACTUALLY DID, but  PROUDLY CLAIM      CREDIT FOR in their own news and internet  organs.  Similarity to propaganda has nothing to do with it.  Just tlike "truth" may be similar to "lie".

[De Selby]

richyoung,

The problem is that you choose to identify them generally as "Muslims."  Imagine if I reported the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin as "Jew shoots Prime Minister in plot to topple government"...I think you would rightly say I was being misleading and maligning an entire race of people with my factually accurate, but misleading statement.

You're naming "their" news organs as if there's some one Muslim entity that owns all of this.  There isn't, and it's wrong to imply that there is. 

[Ezekiel]

Hey Zeke, what do you have against the military anyway?  And it would be one thing to criticize the military as a whole but to bash on individual soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines is just unacceptable.

I have nothing personal against militaristic organizations or anyone who is part of one.

But I don't see the harm in calling "minions" and "cannon fodder" what they are.

That's all.

Your opinion is appreciated.

[Perd Hapley]

Sigh.  Can anyone define minion?