Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Are the hard hitters held back because of the WMD threat?

More importantly, Saddams Regime displayed the My Way Or No Way attitude by igniting the oil wells when leaving Kuwait. I also find it disturbing that citizens are shot for leaving the cities. Are the citizens to be used only as shields, or will they be sacrificed in an act of WMD suicide?

examples of (cult) leaders and mass suicidal incidents:
Hitler:
He ordered the destruction of German Infrastructure and ordered armed children to the front lines. All citizens were ordered to resist to the end.
He did not have WMDs and not all orders were obeyed.
Jones:
Jones Town suicide/massacre.
Loyal followers drank poison after forcing the doubters to drink first.
It was done after their chosen life style was threatened. US refused to send social security and pension checks to "imprisoned" elderly.
Waco:
Followers died in raging fire caused, in part, by spread of lamp oil accelerant. Some doubters were shot before they had a chance to run from the flames.

Baghdad lies near a river (valley?). A heavier than air gas or chemical could do a lot of harm in a closed valley. The WMDs were suppossedly hidden in civilian locations.
Very Very Scary Scenario...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Thermodyne:

I don't know what the TV networks are reporting, but the 'special coverage' from NPR has definitely mentioned that Rumsfeld had a fantasy war plan that Iraq would crumble when our troops marched in. He wanted to send less than ONE division and rely on air power to handle any resistance. Think of what a disaster this would have been if the actual military men hadn't known better and fought for more troops. As it turned out, Turkey did us a favor by refusing access to the one heavy armored division we were going to send. Now they are going around and will re-inforce the invasion from the south much faster than a division could have been moved all the way from the US. It's still gonna be close to two weeks before they can arrive. Can you imagine how exhausted those Marines and Mechanized Infantry will be in another week or two? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif The northern front can be handled by the air-borne and special forces being dropped in.

Wardad:

Saddam will not committ suicide until and unless he has no remaining options. He's been trying to rouse the 'Arab nation' to serve him for decades. The war on Iran was as much a ploy to do this as to grab some territory and gain better access to the sea. Most Americans don't realize that Iranians are not Arabs, and there is a long-standing ethnic hatred between the Arabs and the Persians (i.e. Iranians). This is one reason that Iran is more-or-less standing aside and not interfering in the US invasion of Iraq. (Militias possibly excepted?)

Saddam's current strategy is still geared towards that same goal of rousing Pan-Arabism -- under his leadership of course. The 'Fedayin' and other irregulars cannot defeat US troops, and he knows it. He is sending people out to get slaughtered, on purpose, so he can have stories and pictures of the awful slaughter broadcast around the world. This would be why the civilians trying to leave the cities are killed, too. There must NOT be pictures of Iraqi civilians greeting US troops gladly or being aided by them in large numbers. Only pictures of battle and slaughter. So refugees have to be killed before they get in range of the western media cameras. Thanks to the Arabs having their own network this time around, his long-time desire might actually be realized. The resentment is building up fast, and I don't see how this war can possibly be ended in 'a few weeks' as Rumsfeld was fantasizing.

I suspect that the only way Saddam is likely to use WMD is if he can find some way to blame US forces for it. He must realize that he would destroy most of his 'moral advantage' even with other Arabs if he actually used the weapons he claimed he does not have. The mass slaughter is going well, anyway. Lots of bodies, in civilian clothes, are available for the Al Jazeera cameras every day. I wouldn't put it past him to have purposely bombed some neighborhoods in Bagdad in order to create photo-ops, either.

[ March 29, 2003, 20:40: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

WarDad... WMD gas ones are way over rated...

If the wind blows the wrong way their useless....

Their more for propaganda...

Now Nail Bombs etc... will cause way more deaths than WMD ever will in close quaters...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Now on the lighter side

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/27/french030327?

Yea... Frenchs mustard is worried...

But shouldn't be as it does not go well with Freedom Toast..... "In other news, American cheese in France has been changed to idiot cheese" SNL - March 22nd 2003

Ha Ha... Man... I got a chuckle out of it.... Now back to my Wus Bacon !

[ March 29, 2003, 23:42: Message edited by: tesco samoa ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Don't underestimate Iraqi patriotism. Very few would gladly greet US troops. Saddam is not as hated as you suppose.

If I were in Saddam's place and I had WMD I would have already used many of them against US and its allies.
I insist that they haven't been used not found yet because of the simple fact that they do not exist.

He might most likely commit suicide himself to prevent being captured alive, but I don't think he'll ever massacrate his loyal followers.

Crazy Dog, keep posting those links, even if they are not perfectly acurate, it's hard to find info that is neither american nor arab propaganda.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I know they are not perfect info, but in a running war that don't exist......
All sides, even the ones not fighting have they interests, and the battle of media today is one of the more importants.
These links are not perfect info, but IMHO they portrait a very credible / possible situation, more 'real' than the ones reported by US/Iraq.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

intel analysis update

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...Id=954&sesid=2

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Iraqi "patriotism" differs from place to place. If you were to begin a jouney by car from Basra to Baghdad, you'd notice the change of loyalties quickly, especially from the lack of portraits of Saddam to the overabundance of them as you head further north.

And let me remind you of a very important fact: It's hard not to say "glory to saddam" when Uday's Fedayeen runs around shooting people in their foreheads, execution style.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Living under a dictatorship is not as scary as you believe.
Only opposition activists are persecuted and treated brutally. Most people may have a few complains about the government granted (as they complain about the sanctions imposed by the international community), but they are not that desperate to have a regime change.
They had a relatively normal life that was disrupted when the bombing and fear began.
I wouldn't gladly greet US troops as my saviors, I'd blame them for all this terror around me.
Add patriotism (and propaganda if you want) to the equation and you'll have many people against the invaders and very few, the same ones that were persecuted by the goverment welcoming the US troops.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Russian military intel update: War in Iraq, March 29

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...d=1069&sesid=2

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Several links for the war in the web.....

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...653844793.html

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Maybe 80% of the Iraqi people hate Saddam the dictator but 100% hate foreign invaders destroying their country. I'm surprised that this simple truth hasn't been realised by the attackers.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Right. And not only that 80% of the people don't hate Saddam. They love him. That's why 100% of the Iraqi people voted for him in the Last election. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Your "simple truth" is nothing but made up numbers that you pulled out of the air. You can't support it with anything. The only people in Iraq that support Saddam are part of the problem. They are part of the regime oppressing and suppressing the majority.

The soldiers fighting against the coalition aren't fighting "for Iraqi sovereingty". They are either part of the regime or they are forced to fight by the regime under penalty of death. They are poor bastards caught in the crossfire. I feel sorry for them.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Geo:
Roanons numbers may be made up, but there are some valuable truths there that the US should take notice off (and they should have known this before the war, the warnings was there).

Basically the US have F... up big time.
They gambled that the Iraqi people would rise up against Saddam and do the job for them. It is now clear that its not gonna happen (Maybe in the South, but not in Bagdad). There may be many reasons for this; fear may be one, but not the only. The truth is that most of the people (of central Iraq) would prefer Saddam over USA any day.

That leaves 3 possible solutions for the war.
1: GWB packs up and goes home. That's not gonna happen.
2: US troops will have to storm Bagdad. Seems like thats gonna take a while, and cost many American (and even more Iraqi) lives, and damage US international relations even more.
3: Some Iraqi general takes over from Saddam and negotiates a peace. Then we are back where we started, just with a new dictator in Bagdad. Only time will tell if he will be better or worse than the old one.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The people of Iraq don't have to make a choice between Saddam and the USA. The USA isn't there to rule them, just to get rid of Saddam so they can rule themselves. There will be much resistance from those that are part of the current power structure, but that is only because they know that once the regime is gone they are going to be on the wrong end of rope held by the now liberated and very pissed off populace.

In 91' there was a lot of celebration among the Iraqi people because they thought we were coming to free them. They weren't complaining about an invading army. And then when we pulled out and Bush Sr. told them to revolt they did. Unfortunatly we screwed them again and cost them a lot of blood. Any hesitance on their part now is completely understandable. They are worried we might pull out again. They are waiting to be sure that the regime is done before they stick out their necks.

I can't blame them a bit. But let's not pretend it's anything but what it is. Fear. Not fear that the US/UK is coming, but that they will leave before the job is done.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Geo, just a small question:
Is this your personal opinion, or is this the general opinion promoted by the news in the US ?
I only ask because it is so different from the news I get in Norway (and from BBC).

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am not sure what you are asking me. Which point? Or do you mean the whole thing?

Of course I can only give you my personal opinion, the same as anybody here, yourself included. The US press is not of a single mind about the war anymore then the population of our country, or any other country for that matter. All one can do, and what I try to do, is get as much information as I can from as many sources as I can and formulate an opinion of my own.

I read the BBC, I read CNN and several other US news organistions, I read the arabnews website out of Saudi Arabia, and the Haretz news daily out of Isreal. I even try to read the Al Jazeera website, although since the inception of their english Version web page it's been tough to get on there because of the constant DOS attacks of a bunch of idiots with more technical skills then common sense.

And I try to read most of the links people put in their comments here. And I have been reading a lot of the blogs that have gotten so much attention lately. Although most of those are just opinions of people that have no more direct knowledge of the events then myself.

I don't believe everything I read from any of them. But all the little pieces go together to form the view that I have.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Here's a good example of why the people in Iraq fight us and how much they "love" Sadaam.

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24481

Is it all true? I don't know of course, but is has the ring of truth to it.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But... after this link, check this one: http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24469

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

MB, that's a thought provoking article as well. It's not directly related to the disccussion Primitive and I were having as we were discussiong whether the average Iraqi supports the invasion, not whether those in teh neiboring countries do. But it's thought provoking nonetheless.

Noone has to convince me that the US policies in the past have been, to be kind, inconsistant. Our support for Isreal and the lack of pressure on them to resolve the Palestinian issue has been unconcionable.

Maybe we have learned something, or maybe the war with Iraq is just another example of that. If that's the case then all our effort in removing the threat of Saddam will as the saying goes just be sowing to the wind. I hope that is not the case. But for me the fear of repurcussions of action started and not finished is no greater than no action at all.

Geoschmo

[ March 30, 2003, 22:12: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

No love lost betew the US Army and Rumsfeld

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...d=1144&sesid=2

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It may be true, it may not be true (personally I am inclined to believe it is true).
But it does not change a thing. The question is not if (the majority of) the Iraqi people love Saddam, but if they will fight for their home country against an outside aggressor.

I think you underestimate the hatred for Western imperialism in the Arab world. Very few Iraqi would believe in your noble intentions of restoring democracy and free the oppressed people. Very few Europeans even belive that.

The reason I brought up the news is that we obviously read and watch the same stuff. I just find it strange that we would manage to come to so completely different conclusions.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I believed was related with your discussion with Primitive, because is another view to understand why some (or most?) Iraqi (Arab) people doesn't see the US forces as liberators.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

War's Military, Political Goals Begin to Diverge

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...d=1084&sesid=2

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

It should be remembered that the Iraqi’s are survivors. They have learned over several
generations that to be noticed is not a good thing. And they have been conditioned to obey the
Saddam government without question. Also, we can’t blame them for not embracing America
and it’s troops. Their history is one of conquering despots replacing the despot that was in power. And lets not forget that those lucky enough to be from Saddam’s tribe, have a good
thing going with him in power. Once Saddam is gone, and they see that the US is going to give
them the opportunity to have a government that is by the people and for the people, they will
soften in their hatred of America. Also, once Saddam is gone, the silent survivor majority will
begin to say more. Last time they wagged their jaws at Saddam, they paid dearly. I for one
don’t hold their lack of a warm reception against them. The opposition by the people is actually
very small, the attacks by the paramilitary/people are very few, given the opportunities that the rapid advance to Baghdad has given them.

Note of the day would be the capture of a terrorist training camp, computers and records intact. I’m sure that quite a few terrorist SOB’s will not sleep well for the next few weeks. They will be waiting for the local police to kick the doors in on their homes in the west.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I hope you are right.
I hope US give them the chance to prove you are right, by setting up a true democracy. Not just a puppet regime backed by US guns, while US companies (GWBs buddies) grows fat on "rebuilding" Iraq with Iraqi oil money.

And just to nitpick (You know I love that).
According to a definition earlier in this thread: It's "Freedom Fighters" not "Terrorists". Terrorists attacks Civilan Targets, Freedom Fighters attacks military targets.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

If it is against the rules of war as described in the Geneva Convention, then I think it should be called terrorism. To blow up a car and kill invaders in the process is the act of a patriot. To kill civilians that are trying to flee from the fighting is terrorism. To open fire under the protection of a white flag is terrorism. To kill and dismember POW’s is also something less than an act of patriotism; it is an act of savagery.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Thermo:
My personal definition would call all that terrorism, but then I call many of the actions done by coalition forces in Iraq Terrorism too.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Note that there is a difference between what intentions the US have, what actions they actually do, and what people think about what they are doing.

There may be the intention to liberate the Iraq and install a democracy (though I doubt it, there is just too much oil involved). What actually goes on now is a war hurting a lot of civilians. And someone who used to live not in freedom but in relative safety in Iraq, and who now faces the danger of being killed by bombs and who is starving because he can't get food or water any more, who has a completely different religious and cultural background, who hasn't access to all the different sources of information - he is very unlikely to welcome the invading soldiers with open arms.

There is widespread disagreement and doubt about the altruistic intentions behind this invasion, even in the "free" world. Why should an even more biased Iraqi citizen share the US viewpoint? That seems to be simple to me, and I am still wondering about the US theory of a warm welcome and no resistance.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I seriously doubt anyone in the administration or the military thought there would be "no resistance". Otherwise why bother sending the military at all? That being said, it's clear there is more resistance in some places then we expected. The question that hasn't been answered is what is the source of the resistance.

Yes, civilians get hurt in war. War sucks. However the number of civilians killed and wounded to this point are small compared to even the number the regime has killed on it's own, and would kill in the future if left in power.

I think it interesting that people will try to make the argument that it is preferable to give up their chance at liberty to live in "safety" under a murderous dictator, and in this country we have people criticising the administration recently for trying to take some of our liberty in exchange for safety from the terrorists.

I'd also like to know why doesn't the Palestinian argument apply to the arab governments in the region as well? I completely agree the Palestinian issue is a terrible human tragedy that needs resolved. But isn't it rather hypocritical for them to insist that it be resolved before Saddam be removed from power, when he is responsible for more arab and Islamic deaths than the Isreali's?

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I could give you a patronizing answer, but you haven't, and I appreciate that. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Suffice it to say it is one of the imponderable questions that makes humanity such a fascinating and wonderful creature. If everyone in the world could spend their time pondering such questions, sharing their views and thoughtfully considering those in opposition to their own as we do in this forum perhaps oppresion and war truely would be things of the past.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

An intersting article from the NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/30/in...D-ASSE.html?th

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To nitpick your nitpicking (can I do that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ), I was defining terrorists and guerillas (not gorillas http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). I said that terrorists act against civilians to disable them with terror; while guerillas choose weaker or slower military targets because they (the guerillas) can't risk engaging in pitched battle. Special Forces troops would probably fit into this Category (although they can carry some awesome firepower and weaponry). Scumbags who execute/torture POWs are doing so for the shock ("terror"/propaganda) value, and are closer to terrorists than anything else. Maybe "war criminal" is the best term there is.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

For awhile I have heard references to the Rand think-tanks, related with the visions that moved the US to start this second war in the Gulf.
Today I was reading some papers in their website(http://www.rand.org/), and some of them, seemed very interesting to me.
If somebody have the time/patience, here some links that I liked (specially the 2 Last):

- Confronting Iraq: U.S. Policy and the Use of Force Since the Gulf War (MR-1146-OSD) by Daniel L. Byman and Matthew C. Waxman, 2000. http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1146

- Leadership Succession in the Arab World: A Policy-Maker’s Guide" (RP-902) by Jerrold D. Green, 2000. Originally published in Changing Leadership in the Arab World.
http://www.rand.org/cgi-bin/Abstract....pl?doc=RP-902

- The Persian Gulf in the Coming Decade: Trends, Threats, and Opportunities (MR-1528-AF) by Daniel L. Byman and John R. Wise, 2002 (PDF).
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1528/

- Persian Gulf Security (MR-1245-AF) edited by Richard Sokolsky, Stuart Johnson, and F. Stephen Larrabee, 2000.
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1245/

[ March 31, 2003, 03:09: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

British fury at 'cowboy' US pilot's deadly error

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...962677977.html

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

How do arabs country see the gulf war 2 ?
The other side of the Hill.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/31_03_03_a.asp

It is a libanese newspaper, but a moderate one. I had troubles finding any interesting sources of more "weird" arab countries such as Syria/Saudia Arabia.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I remember there was a war once in which some guy said something like "You only need to knock at their door and the whole house will come down in debris...."
This guy was invading because of ideology diferences, because the other war he had with some other guy was in stalemate, and because of oil......
Who says history doesn't repeat itself with a twist?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To nitpick your nitpicking (can I do that? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ), I was defining terrorists and guerillas (not gorillas http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). I said that terrorists act against civilians to disable them with terror; while guerillas choose weaker or slower military targets because they (the guerillas) can't risk engaging in pitched battle. Special Forces troops would probably fit into this Category (although they can carry some awesome firepower and weaponry). Scumbags who execute/torture POWs are doing so for the shock ("terror"/propaganda) value, and are closer to terrorists than anything else. Maybe "war criminal" is the best term there is.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">But Iraqi who blow up cars (and themselfs) to kill soldiers? is that terrorism? Or "Gorilla" tactics http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

But to make the discussion a bit wider... Is blowing up the Pentagon terrorism? I mean, US forces blow up Iraqi ministry of (what not).... too. And killing of innocent people by mistake or in the proces is called collateral-damage, the same can be said in the 9-11 pentagon disaster. (with as collateral damage the passengers & bystanders)

But my point is as Primitive already said:

It's all a matter of perspective.

We all agree that people who excecute, torture etc. Can be considered war criminals..
But what is the divinition of people? Al Aqaida people on Cuba? I think they are not handled that well.... in that light, maybe next year when "we" have a new US president, we can accuse Bush of War-criminal acts.... and put him in jail, with Saddam in one cell.

R.

[ March 31, 2003, 14:13: Message edited by: Some1 ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">hohoho, me pay Pay-per-view fee for that fight. Me like it. Me bet Saddam kick, Bush cry. Me thinks Saddam make Bush wash underwear.

Me thinks Romans had Gladiators, me have Marines on CNN live.
Me thinks Romans not that evil now.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I wonder if friendly fire could be a feature of se5.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As long as is not as bad as in Fallout Tactics, where you could easily shot someone next to your target than your target....
One of my tactics was to get one of my guys to sneak behind 2 or 3 enemies and then I would target my own guy from maximum range with a .50 caliber and I would take out all the bad guys with one spray. It never failed.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

And to think that I came to Shrapnel Forums to get away from this mess... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

I haven't had the chance to skim over all 45+ back pages of this thread, but what I have seen is pretty close to a lot of other discussions on this topic - lengthy exercises in missing the point.

I have given a lot of thought to what the real significance of this war is, for America and the world in general. Several articles I have read have greatly influenced me in this regard. For those interesed, here are the links...

Our World-Historical Gamble

The Pentagon's New Map

Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology

The Clash of Civilizations (The article that started it all. Before you agree or disagree with Huntington's thesis, read it.)

For the more adventurous, I would recommend two hardcopy books that relate to the subject...

The Ends of the Earth - A reporter's travelogue through various failed third-world "nations". Definitely not recommended bedtime reading.

The Next Christendom - examines, among other things, the coming clash between Third-World Christianity and Islam.

I don't agree with everything in these articles, but they all provide sobering food for thought. The twenty-first century looks to be "interesting times", as the old Chinese curse goes...

(If these articles have already been referenced or discussed, I apologise. Like I said, I haven't had the time to start at page 1 of this thread...)

[ March 31, 2003, 21:54: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Geo:
I agree fully with your statement. And I always try to save my patronizing answers to to the more moronic Posts, not those which there are logic and knowledge behind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Krsqk:
Your wellcome to nitpick as much as you want. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
I only complain when different standards are applied to the different sides.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

General Woundwort: welcome on board!

I was reading the first link (Our World-Historical Gamble)... and honestly, disliked so many the approach of this article (so sided IMHO), that will need a rest before try another.

Just an example:

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm glad that nobody during the Cold War, finally decided that was needed to broke the deadlock launching Nukes!

About the old Samuel Huntington, already I knew his views. Still want to understand how I live in the "Latin American Civilization", and using their own definition about "cultural entity", how I share the civilization with the Bolivian citizens, but not with Spain and Italy (form where the 90% of the people here descend).
Honestly, I find their simplifications astonishing.

EDIT: was reading the "Pentagon's New Map", and liked the article (not mean that I share their views... for example, believe that Israel belong to the Gap too!).

[ April 01, 2003, 00:52: Message edited by: Master Belisarius ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">IMO, that's just part of war. It's the actions of a desperate foe, but it's still war. Today, we've seen some of the repercussions of fighting such a desperate enemy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As the attack on the Pentagon was not in time of war, it was unannounced, and it was done via hijacking civilian aircraft, I would call that terrorism. If war came here, I would expect the Pentagon to be shelled/bombed.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Indeed. Now, if we could only find an unbiased perspective. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I know, there is no such thing.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Iraqi who blow up cars (and themselfs) to kill soldiers? is that terrorism? Or "Gorilla" tactics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMO, that's just part of war. It's the actions of a desperate foe, but it's still war. Today, we've seen some of the repercussions of fighting such a desperate enemy.

I am sure they would like to attack them with Apache's and Abrams but that is not the weapons they currently process...

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm glad that nobody during the Cold War, finally decided that was needed to broke the deadlock launching Nukes!
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think that Harris' reply would be that during the Cold War, you had two "national" entities in opposition who both stood to lose, from their strategic viewpoint, if such an exchange occured. The "deadlock" then was one of balanced power. That situation no longer applies, as you have "nations" now that are little more than fronts for local strongmen - or ideological fanatics. Such folk as these cannot be counted on to view the use of WMD in the same 'balance of power' light that the old US/USSR framework did. Harris' other article, on the mindset of al Qaeda and other such Islamic Groups, illustrates this rather chillingly. These articles should be read in tandem to get the full gut-wrenching effect.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Point well taken. I will repeat, I do not agree 100% with everything in the articles. As things stand now, South America has a lot in common with its old European "home countries". But, how long will that Last? Just suppose - if Europe continues down the path of secularization, while Latin America becomes a center of a new form of vigorous Christianity (see Jenkin's book), what effect might that have on their relations? Their common cultural links? Just suppose - what if, through immigration and/or cultural accomodation, Europe becomes radically "islamicized"? What if France becomes the next Pakistan? What happens to Euro-Latin American relations then?

My point in posting these articles is to get people to look at the events that are unfolding not just in the old "nation state/liberal rational democracy" model, but in a developing model of regional cultures, diffusion of mass-casualty weaponry, and the role religious conflict may play. I think that the 21st century will be as different from the 20th in how things play out as the 20th was from the 19th.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Now there's a loaded comment... :-}

[ April 01, 2003, 10:28: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No way no how can you possibly tell me hijacking a civilian aircraft and crashing it is not terrorism. I'm stunned you could even suggest it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

If one wanted to stretch the definitions a bit I could almost see some logic that the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole was an act of war and not terrorism. And if the 9/11 terrorists had taken a private plane loaded with explosives or something and flown it into the Pentagon you could make the same case. You can have a war that is undeclared afterall. But calling the innocents on the airliners collateral damage is ridiculous. Collateral damage is not intentional by definition. The 9/11 terrorists purposly murdered those pasengers. They made no effort to prevent their deaths. Their deaths were in fact part of the objective.

Geoschmo