Guest Phil1934 Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 Then you must think highly of W buying off the Iranians not to make nuclear weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pparaska Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Certainly not. I think we should handle the Iranians the same way we SHOULD have handled Saddam, Al Quaida, Syria, etc. Asymmetric warfare should only be fought symmetrically. Terrorism, whether it's hoodlums in the desert or regimes that threaten the world with WMDs (don't get me started on whether WMDs WERE in Iraq before we warned them we were coming!) like Iran, and North Korea, are examples of asymmetric threats. The way to fight that is with covert action. That is how you fight a threat that is asymmetric to your standard way of fighting wars. Covert action that leaves no real evidence of who it is that is the actor. If evidence is left, it should point to someone else, so the terrorists don't know who to correctly target. Make it look like a common enemy so you get your enemies fighting each other. Thats the way this should have been done and should be carried out. I never agreed with the how of what Bush and his guys did, although I agreed on the need to take Saddam and his cronies out. That's because I know what Iraq was up to. And what Iran, NK, and Syria are up to in more detail than you can find on the Internet. Trash like Giuliana are even worse than terrorist thugs. Because they spew lies and cultivate hate. There message is given some air of validity because they are journalists and they get to use the pen to transmit their hate and lies far and wide. They deserve to be shot, put through a shredder, whatever is available. It really is too bad they didn't get her and the other two lying wenches that went to Iraq with her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tony78_280z Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 *Sets up soap box* Asymmetric warfare should only be fought symmetrically. Eh? new one to me. Symmetry is the same on both sides or balanced. Who wants to fight a balanced war? You allways want the odds on your side. Ever ready Sun Tzus art of war? "Winning before the battle and Before battle begins, know that victory is yours." He means to have all the cards in your hand before you place your bet. I think what you are trying to describe is unconventional. You need to fight unconventional army with unconventional tactics. Sun Tzu also talks about the formless army. When your army takes a form a weakeness in the form can be found and the army defeated. There for an amy needs to be amorphous and without form, but able to assume any form when needed, then revert back to formlessness. This of course is a toasit principle of the uncarved block. How does an amy become formless and able to assume any needed form? TRAINING. Our military and the fledgling Iraqi military need to be trained to deal with this type of enemy as well as other types of enemies. Sun Tzu wrote "The Art of War" several thousand years ago. And the tactics outlined in the book are still used today. I can't stand ANYONE who has not read (and understands) the book who then criticizes any military engagement. How many times do you supose these soldiers have seen someone try to run past their road block because the car was full of explosives? In that situation I'd give the person one warning to pull over before I started shooting too. *falls off of soap box* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pparaska Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Tony - you copying my avatar is a high form of flattery Yes, that's what I meant. Asymmetric meaning we have a conventional army and the terrorists use the most advanced guerilla tactics. I've never understood why we didn't just infiltrate Iraq covertly, take out Saddam and his underpinnings and disassemble the WMDs and labs. Sure, it might take a decade to do. But many fewer of our army would die, and fewer peace-loving Iraqi's. Now we've started the civil war I was afraid would happen - it might be inevitable no matter what we did after Saddam's regime was taken out of power. Instead, we gave him months of warning and went in with conventional methods. (if) he had WMDs and labs for them, we gave him plenty of chances to hide it out of country. And plenty of time for he and his cronies to devise a way of retreating and hiding and waging the war slowly as they have done, along with the opportunist terrorists that joined them. I just don't understand why the US government chose to do it this way. I never really thought it was a good way to go about things, even months before we went in. The side effects of that method would have been avoided if we'd just done it covertly. If terrorism isn't covert warfare, I don't know what is. And like you said, the only way to fight it is symmetrically, with covert attacks on the terrorists, once you hunt them down (in secrecy) and kill them. No trial, no prisoners. Just kill them. To do it any other way is to show them a weakness they can go after. Why we didn't kill Saddam in the spiderhole astounds me as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted March 12, 2005 Author Share Posted March 12, 2005 Now we've started the civil war We? Civil War? That's a couple big assumptions in that one little sentence. Even the most liberal commentators out there haven't made that declaration yet. A recently as yesterday the most liberal weekly in Australia was asking: "IRAQ: Is there a threat of civil war?" http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/617/617p13.htm Pete, I can't possibly image you to the left of a weekly who's main mission is: Most importantly, Green Left Weekly is a campaigning paper: it helps strengthen the anti-racist, feminist, student, trade union, environment, gay and lesbian, civil liberties and anti-imperialist movements by linking the issues and activists, and by letting people know how they can join others in action for change. Instead, we gave him months of warning and went in with conventional methods. We? Forgot about the UN and Hans Blix already? Forgot about the delaying tactics of France, Germany, and Russia? Here's just one last minute example: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0213rusun.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pparaska Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 John, what you are seeing now is a bit of a civil war. Between those who don't want a democratic government, and certainly not one that they don't fully control. With the radicals in each of the Shiite,Sunni, and Kurdish camps, it was bound to happen. Maybe not your typical civil war, but one none the less. I shouldn't have said "we". We created the vacuum of power when Saddam packed his bags for the spiderhole. I didn't mean to insinuate that's a bad thing. Beyond what the terrorists/insurgents/radicals are doing to the country, there are many more freedoms now than before. But the vacuum of power means that there will be fighting in this kind of country. No, I don't line up with the liberals on much at all - certainly not hate mongering idiots like the Green Left Weekly. Actually, I'm not against many of the things they say they stand for. I just don't agree with their philosophy and tactics. We could have side stepped the UN (and maybe should have covertly) at any time. We played their game while the whiners (France, Germany, Russia, Koffi, Hans), who had something to lose by us shutting Saddam down, bitched and moaned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Z Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Lots of good stuff here to discuss. ...When the shots go off and the blood starts pumping, all you have to go on is instinct and training. These guys stopped what they thought was a threat, and they did it very efficiently. They were unfortunate that this was indeed NOT a bomber, so it was a tragedy instead of cause for celebration... the lines got blurred... If you've ever been in that situation, you know what I mean. Nice point Mike. Marine Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey was a platoon leader who left service after 12 years largely due to the stress of checkpoint security. In his case, the 5 times they lit up cars no explosives were found and civs died - that messed him up. These situations should be reduced whenever possible, especially if the technology's at hand to do so. The way to fight that is with covert action. That is how you fight a threat that is asymmetric to your standard way of fighting wars. Covert action that leaves no real evidence of who it is that is the actor. Covert action can get really messy without solid intel, and unfortunately in Iraq it's been hard to find people willing to drop the dime on the insurgents. That's why we have resorted to the same method other occupiers have done in the past when they get frustrated: street sweeps, house to house searches, looking for clues, weapons, and suspects to interrogate. As for a civil war, most war buffs I listen to have been talking this possibility for a while. We'll be cast in the role of midwife should one erupt in Iraq. Right now, under the media radar, Kurdish forces are waging war against the Sunnis and Turkmens in the north of the country. In addition, the above mentioned seem unprepared to accept the rule of the Shiite majority. One big happy family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil1934 Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 We are trying to break into a society that has been raised to hate the very foundation we have built our nation on. Our lifestyle, the society we have morphed into is simply something that only solidifies their hate for us. We are told they hate us because we have a lavish lifestyle, but I would think more the reason is the US government meddling in these countries for economic reasons. Do you hate your rich neighbors? Want to kill them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 If my neighbors were the most crude, vile, and rich people I had ever seen, and they tried to convince me and my family and my children to turn to their vile, sinful, evil lifestyle I might get a little pissed, yeah. The only example I can think of is if I had a heroin addicted NAMBLA member living next door and he was constantly trying to seduce my children to his way of life. Yeah, that would probably piss me off pretty good. To fundamentalist Muslims we are that heroin addicted NAMBLA member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil1934 Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 If I had a heroin addicted NAMBLA member living next door and he was constantly trying to seduce my children to his way of life. Yeah, that would probably piss me off pretty good. So you are saying you would be upset if they meddle in your affairs? What if you knew he lived in the next town? Would you start sewing bed sheets into uniforms? A quote in the local paper got a grin out of me. About the gay marriage issue: " I don't care. We don't fish in the same pond." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 It doesn't matter what I dould do, but I'm a libertarian and I don't care what people do as long as it doesn't affect my life. What does matter is that you're talking about a group of people (fundamentalist Muslims) who are taught that we are the most evil people on the planet, that we are trying to corrupt their virtuous way of life, and who's holy book says that they need to destroy our culture, and that if they do not destroy us, we will destroy them. It seems like you don't want to deal with the reality of extremist Islam or wahhabism or whatever you want to call it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil1934 Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Iraq is the least fundamental nation in the mid East. Enemy. Saudi Arabia is the most fundamental. Friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 That's not the argument we were having. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted March 12, 2005 Author Share Posted March 12, 2005 We are told they hate us because we have a lavish lifestyle, but I would think more the reason is the US government meddling in these countries for economic reasons. I've always thought this arguement (meddling) was a red herring. Arab countries meddle with each other's politics, finances, and religion far more then anything the West is doing now. Some examples: Syria, Jordan, and Lebannon (financial, politics, religion), Iraq and Iran (financial, politics), Shites and Sunnis (religious), Turkey and Iraq (religious), Gulf states (financial), Iraq and Kuwait (financial), Iraq and Saudi Arabia (politics), and many more. Compared to the meddling that West did prior to and immediately after WW2 what goes on now is almost non-existent. Now, if the arguement is that the "Arabs" are angry with us for past meddling and want some type of revenge, then I would agree, but the key word here is "revenge", not meddling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil1934 Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 That's not the argument we were having. I thought it was. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis. I don't think any were Iraqis. So why are we in Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia? Is it because Saddam had the knowledge and the resources to build WMD in the future? Or because Saudi Arabia has already agreed to help regulate the price of oil in exchange for US protection of the royal family's rule while no agreements could be secured in Iraq? It's about money. Governments could give a rat's *** about religion unless they can use it to secure votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 We are told they hate us because we have a lavish lifestyle, but I would think more the reason is the US government meddling in these countries for economic reasons. Do you hate your rich neighbors? Want to kill them? I was taking issue with this statement. Had nothing to do 911. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil1934 Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 Neither did the invasion of Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 You're pretty good at sidestepping arguments... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Magnum Rockwilder Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 You're pretty good at sidestepping arguments... ...and pretty good at making a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 ...and pretty good at making a point. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.