Iraq War discussion ghetto

Because it only took Viking-Sensei three years (and the approaching end of Errant Story) to come up with a better name for "General Discussions"
User avatar
Boss Out of Town
Team Captain
Posts: 1051
Joined: August 20th, 2007, 8:49 pm
Location: Near where the Children of the Corn go to school

Re: Iraq War discussion ghetto

Post by Boss Out of Town »

mindstalk wrote:
Neko7 wrote:
Boss Out of Town wrote: Here are the most up to date UN rankings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ment_Index
(It would be very interresting to see this index now and after the end of the depression/recession since some of the top country are those hited the hardest by this crisis (way more than the US). If the US reach the top 5 after the crisis, we can expect a decade of speculation about the US creating volontarely the crisis to get their hand back at the top world lvl. )
That seems rather excessively conspiratorial. Also, while Iceland or Ireland might be notably suffering, I see no reason the crisis would relatively benefit the US in general. Welfare states ride out recessions better (though if they don't cough up Keynesian stimulus, we might do better), and the HDI takes into account life expectancy, where the US comes in last among rich nations.
Besides which, I don't think the kind of information these people use is processed daily. It is far more likely to reflect months of statistical work done six month to a year ago, before the worst of the crash.
History celebrates the battlefields whereon we meet our death, but scorns to speak of the plowed fields whereby we thrive; it knows the names of kings’ bastards but cannot tell us the origin of wheat. This is the way of human folly. --- Henry Fabre
User avatar
Boss Out of Town
Team Captain
Posts: 1051
Joined: August 20th, 2007, 8:49 pm
Location: Near where the Children of the Corn go to school

Re: Iraq War discussion ghetto

Post by Boss Out of Town »

Brought this over from the other thread . . .
Itterind wrote:Oh, I forgot that Iraq and Afghanistan has also pulled the vast bulk of the terrorist strength over the last several years. (Contrary to public opinion they are not limitless.) Initially these conflicts spurred recruitment too, but rates are now well below pre-conflict levels due to suicide-bombing of muslims discrediting global jihad.
DIU - Different Information Universes. I've been taking in information from different sources on the terrorist issue for six years now, and I've never found one that credibly claimed that terrorism rates were dropping. Just the opposite, in fact. Scholars and intelligence analysts routinely agree that the world has grown more violent since the American invasion of Iraq and terrorist activity by Islamic fundamentalists has steadily increased.

As for that first statement . . .

1) What do you mean by "pulled? Do we have any reason to believe that any number of terrorists who would have attacked the United States or Europe have chosen to go to Iraq or Afghanistan instead?
2) What constitutes "the vast bulk of terrorist strength?" What organizations and how many people are you referring to? What fraction of that total are in Iraq and Afghanistan? What total are elsewhere? According to the American military, most of the "terrorist" attacks in those countries have been done by locals, taking action against what they see as foriegn invaders, reinforced by people from nearby countries who share their sympathies. How many of these people would have committed terrorist acts if there where not an obvious enemy close at hand?
3) Where is this "public" that feels that terrorists have "limitless" resources? I am pretty sure I've never seen a poll or research study that has asked anything resembling this question. In the United States, at least, the only people who appear to believe that there are an enormous number of terrorists out there are the paranoids and religious bigots who think all Moslems are potential suicide bombers. They might constitute 10% to 20% of the population. For the rest of us, I suspect that if you asked them "how many terrorists are out there?" they would look puzzled, as they would never have considered the question before, and then they would guess at a number in the thousands or vaguely suggest that there might be a million of them.
History celebrates the battlefields whereon we meet our death, but scorns to speak of the plowed fields whereby we thrive; it knows the names of kings’ bastards but cannot tell us the origin of wheat. This is the way of human folly. --- Henry Fabre
Itterind
Mage/Priest War Veteran
Posts: 502
Joined: November 13th, 2007, 3:47 pm

Re: Iraq War discussion ghetto

Post by Itterind »

longwarjournal.org is my primary source, this is a distant second:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/ar ... 90501.aspx (This is a slighly rabidly pro-American but it has lots of useful information, and is correct about most things though in general (read other articles) also religiously prejudiced in favor of religions never being warlike at heart though almost all are to varying extents. Also it was hopefully optimistic about people's opinions and Pakistan, something I warned them about on-site. I believe conflicts are POLITICAL but also VALUE-based (including philosophy and religion). One must always judge the acts of a group, person or religion or whatever. And also judge their theology and core theology and branches and errant branches and keep them seperate but also in a complete generalized form lest one not understand part or whole, though these will be intertwined.)

Seems, according to the Iraqi government casualties are MUCH lower than expected. Not the several hundred thousands even I thought. These numbers could be wrong however, but personally I now believe the number to be somewhere above 200,000.

Preceding estimates hovered below half a million, and according to some brainwashed anti-war people close to a million or above.

Oh about the WMD btw., I don't believe there were weapons there myself other than what was in the past destroyed by sanctions, the several chemical rockets and huge load of uranium yellowcake - but I wouldn't be surprised if some were sold or given away to allies secretly - there are some reports on that of questionable validity bordering on conspiracy theory... but they do have governments backing up this data so it's far from the conspiracy anti-war advocates say it is.


Regardless, less people are dying in Iraq now than under Saddam's PEACEFUL years and much, much less than under him in average.

The place has been saved from further descent and improved. And Afghanistan would sooner too if the Afghan government would stop taking bribes from the druglords to enchance ROE and the West would stop being so pathetically weak.

NATO does everything it can in Afghanistan as the Coalition does in Iraq to avoid collateral. It is the truth that no organization before the typical NATO countries have EVER shown a higher regard for life.
The problem is Islamist Nazis (and while I do believe there are a significant number of liberal and moderate muslims the religion itself was started by a warlord, and it has bloody borders, and thier casualties against just one other religion is 600 million, more than any other religious wars combined of any one other religion. Hindu Kush means Hindu slaughter, they used to live there), except religion is much more deeply ingrained than political adherance which changes more frequently.

Often villagers will lie of collateral in A-stan to gain compensation, if such lies are found out they are rarely reported back in the West or even Afghanistan. Sometimes collateral happens and the Taliban inflate casualties, always they use human shields (it is practically an artform by now or a science or a doctrine). Sometimes the Taliban make up massacres when no NATO forces were even in the area, not that half the West believes it even if there are actual records (the US military is not made out of covert Ops).
And a usual tactic of the Taliban is of course to massacre civilians for not cooperating during a battle or while in control of a province and then blaming it on NATO, sometimes they just go in and murder them for propaganda value.

And you all lap it up.

Fancy the adequate and sometimes brave German troops with their cowardly political leaders and vast majority of their population, they dare not even open fire even if they have a 100% positive ID unless they're fired on first. The enemy uses it to their advantage to escape. So much for your promises Angela Merkel.

You may paint me as a right-winger or a far-right even though I am no such thing except in regards to sections of military policies, but what I say is the truth: The enemy are baby-killing, drug-addicts fighting highly disciplined, moral troops who wish to rebuild the country from its own and Pakistan's ravages. (I'm far-right, a warhawk in SOME aspects of foreign policy though I am not American, and I agree with moderates in justice except telephone data mining (which doesn't actually disturb privacy unless there's a reasonable chance of it being terrorist comms, I almost agree with average right-wingers as to Guantanomo. Some of the scum there that you think is innocent is unbelievable. Others should be released.)

So let's keep on training the Afghan forces... for we will need a large amount of troops if we're ever going to win letting people who are IDd and beyond reasonable doubt reds keep on getting away from blue justice, military or police. This is a war, I do not ask for indiscriminate or even moderate measures. I ask for sane, humanist/religious measures instead of our often insane, humanist measures.

Perhaps this war will help wake up the west from its self-hatred since WW1.

Or perhaps it will take WWIII for the masses to become unthinking, bloodthirsty lunatics who cry for vengeance and murder instead of doing only what is necessary and good.

It never is the middle way, and when it is it is sometimes perverted as the only good.

The Taliban are evil, and so was Saddam and they must be stopped with rational means.

Read the Longwarjournal.org ... even if it prefers to think of the right-wing and not also the moderate dominant (not as but still belligerant) as 'bad Islam'.

The truth is the vast majority of Pakistan wouldn't mind if their countries became Islamist and fought the West. Do you ever read their publications? Or even Al Yaziraa? Fox is nothing, nothing compared to AY if u look at the facts on the ground and the local publications are nothing compared to AY. Even Egypt's civilians mostly wouldn't mind if the same thing happened, though the significant moderates would want it to happen in a way in which they could still receive aid from american and trade and deals with Israel.

Face it, muslim countries that haven't seen suicide bombing still support it, and the ones who no longer do so largely have gone against it because of the MUSLIM casualties it caused. A small section of the Islamic community has recently stared to revolt against Islam, though it is yet in its infancy, but if u weigh the scale of the Islamic community's protests... they are largely token or even red herrings.

Much like Westerners complain about racism and Israelis defending themselves (they always largleyl were though they did grab land and do some bad things in the past, but it has become crystal clear the last few years) you do not complain about THE EIGHTY MILLION CHINESE under MAO or the SIX HUNDRED MILLION HINDUS THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND BLACK MUSLIMS SLAUGHTERED and THREE MILLION EVICTED in SUDAN do YOU?
Or even the Jews, which anti-war people hate but love having 'defended'. Back then it was make peace, while the moral politicians and realpoliticians wanted to fight! Back then of course the Arabs supported it. Not blaming them over the Nazis, it was their fault. Just pointing out they wanted to do it openly, even many of those who weren't concerned with Palestine at the time.

And I do recognize Christianity's massacres. They do number a lot, for the Catholics in particular thanks to time, power and straying from the correct theology (which does not prohibit but discourages war). I'm not sure if I would classify Hitler with all his occultism and no correct theology as protestant, he is completely unlike Mohammed who is 100% theology correct and killed and murdered millions and had hundreds assassinated (Scientology has peple assassinated too), but he SAID he was a Christian so to some that's on Christianity - and I won't fight that. It was claimed in the name of Christianity but it was not Christianity which the Crusades could be argued as among other wars though there has always been debate, even at the time! (Back then of course there was no debate instead of a marginal (though thankfully growing, but either they'll leave Islam or become so modernized they don't follow the Koran, Hadith and other Holy scripts anymore which demands strict compliance) at all in Muslim communities except among their heretics)

The inhumanity!!!

But it's not PC to tell the truth is it?

Religions can be warrlike, some more than others. And some are theologically partially or largely or completely correct in doing so wihle others aren't.


So whine about depleted uranium, not calling people with a fourty-eight hour instead of several hour warning to leave their houses, be truly justly upset about small-diameter bombs hitting a house that 10% likely only had two or three civilians grabbed against their will to sit there as human shields.

You've won. I don't think that's actually LEGAL in Afghanistan anymore unless it's a HVT.

So now we'll send our own troops to die to lose maybe .2 to .3 lives to save 0.1 civilian. Y'know I can agree with that.

I except the next thing to be that we CAN'T do so because of the possibility of loss of civvie life. I love civvie life but military lives and future military and civilian life is important too!

AND YA KNOW WHAT?

THAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN ALL THE TIME!!!

.check the news. a few hundred hours. you'll find out. crossreference it. use sources on the ground and not in the big bases.

- cw (I am rightfully upset about all the people who are largely and most of the time the Devil's Advocate.)
Last edited by Itterind on May 4th, 2009, 5:39 am, edited 8 times in total.
Itterind
Mage/Priest War Veteran
Posts: 502
Joined: November 13th, 2007, 3:47 pm

Re: Iraq War discussion ghetto

Post by Itterind »

Oh and about your sig BossinTown... I've been thinking it made sense but then I thought about it slightly for a few months and started changing my mind: there are millions of soldiers and thousands of officers and hundreds of forgotten generals, so all in all I think it's fair.

Name any great battle from the time when farming was invented. The way I see it history is pretty well done. Science is important, but so has warfare been, for bad, neutral, good, neutral, bad and lots of bad.
Our memories have more to do with the passage of time and means of recording oral or written and perceived importance at the time and culture of its happenings, than the enduring factor of human sinfulness and therefore often unavoidable, half-good (a war can never be more than half-neutral and half good while it can wholly bad) or plain evil conflicts.

I'd say society's memory is overall reasonably fair and not heavily slanted either way, though there are some cultures i.e. the Byzantine and Islamic and parts of Christianity that lean towards civvie inventions and militarism heavily and slightly respectively.
China is an interesting example for both.
Post Reply