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

[tesco samoa]

Has anyone read

Unrestricted Warfare, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts
Publishing House, February 1999)

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
Has anyone read

Unrestricted Warfare, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts
Publishing House, February 1999)

Give us a link!
Sounds interesting......

[tesco samoa]

google Unrestricted Warfare pdf

you will find it

[tesco samoa]

A random quote from the net....

repost:

interesting thought:

first the war was "a war on terrorism" because of the 9-1-1 attack (completely unrelated to iraq)

after we found no proof of that, it became a war "because iraq has weapons of mass destruction" (which was also unfounded to date)

finally after no proof of either one of those was found...it became our duty to free the iraqi people.

free them from what? and by bombing them?

does anyone know why we are at war right now...the REAL reason?

i am reminded why every time i head to the gas station to re-fuel my vehicle so that my capatolist goverment will survive one more day.
it's only a matter of time before this all comes crashing down around us anyway, why are we wasting the time and energy?

if anyone feels that this is unfounded, please convince me otherwise. my confidence and trust in my own government has been greatly swayed by the lies and propaganda that indended to grab my support. when will they stop treating us all like children the night before christmas, and tell us the truth for once. chances are, i am going to support the truth (regardless of right/wrong issues) before i will support lies. anyone else feel the same way?

if our governement were to say..."hey...we need the oil...and war is good for the economy"...i don't have to agree with it to support it. it's called "united we stand...devided we fall".

...the only true freedom lies in truth.

Posted by curiousgeorge at March 25, 2003 02:23 PM

Bah I post too much here....

Anyways my Posts feel like the CBC.... Damm...

[Hunkpapa]

Unrestricted Warefare link...

http://www.parrhesia.com/cryptome/cuw.htm

[primitive]

Originally posted by jimbob:
Posted by Some1:

quote:

---

p.s. Im against this war AND against Sadam, i just think this (war) isn't the right way to get rid of him.

And that's the real problem though isn't it. A (UN mandated) war was not the correct solution, a cease fire/disarmament agreement was not the solution, (UN mandated) sanctions were not the solution, (UN mandated) smart sanctions were not the answer either. Is it just me, or did Sadams' regime only begin cooperating with (UN) inspectors once the threat of force was at hand?

Please tell me that this is obvious to everyone - even those opposed to the use of force - that Sadam only responded once force was apparent!

---

I have some trouble understanding the logic here.

When you use "threat of force" to get someone (Saddam) to comply with your wishes. Shouldn't you then choose not to use the actual force when he complies.

Doesn't attacking anyway ruin the "threat of force" as a weapon in the future, as it now will be obvious for all bad-guys that him complying or not will have no influx on the decission to use that force ?

[phaet2112]

Re: tesco

The thing is, the scenario where saddam must exit iraq is lose/lose for him. There is no provision he can take his country back if they find no wmd (would anyone believe anti-saddam people saying "hey we found some wmd"? Do I believe my US govt if they say "hey we found some wmd?" Not really...I believe the embedded journalists, and I bet the govt is kicking itself for embedding them...maybe Id believe the international community running the country, but then no one wants to do that, cause it isnt in the UN charter. I believed Hans Blix, but he had no time...) and there is no guarentee that the US wouldnt try to extradite or somehow *still* go after Saddam after he is flushed out of baghdad.

If I were saddam, Id cling to power as long as possible and hope world pressure builds enough force to stop the war before it kills me. Otherwise, Id probably die in the bunker, and not use WMD (Blix and others belive that he won't use them because he feels he has an important standing in the community as the leader of the "cradle of civilization")

[ March 25, 2003, 21:10: Message edited by: phaet2112 ]

[Phoenix-D]

"(Blix and others belive that he won't use them because he feels he has an important standing in the community as the leader of the "cradle of civilization")"

This would be slightly more relevent if he hadn't already done so (though IMO calling most chem weapons WMD is pushing things a bit)

Phoenix-D

[Krsqk]

RE: the NY Times "Rally for America" article.

The original idea did not come from ClearChannel, but from a morning talk host at a Dallas-Fort Worth AM station. ClearChannel talk show host Glenn Beck picked up on it and began organizing rallies in 3 to 4 major population centers distributed fairly evenly around the country. Interest shot through the roof, as listeners began pestering their local channels to host their own rallies or to arrange transport to one of Beck's rallies. Beck has since organized around 15 or 20 rallies, with dozens more held around the country by local stations, including one here in Orlando (not all ClearChannel stations). Most recently, a 16-year old girl in Minnesota organized her own rally, held this Last Saturday, to which 3500 people came (in mid-March in Minnesota). Over 100,000 have attended rallies with Beck, and no one has estimates on total national attendance. Beck is currently considering one final rally in the nation's capital.

It is interesting that the Times published this article. Even NPR (that bastion of conservative thought ) backed away from doing an article when they found that ClearChannel had no corporate direction in the rallies. Oops, I forgot. There is no liberal bias in the media, only conservative. As if all corporations were GOP-owned and operated and tithed of their earnings to the RNC. The only thing that really matters to the vast majority (~99%) of corporations is $$$$$$$. If something will bring in money, they'll support it. It wouldn't matter if Beck's show consisted of quoting Cajun recipes in Pig Latin; if it sold advertising, they'd support it. Beck, incidentally, frequently rips the GOP and Bush for policies with which he differs. If ClearChannel really is in lockstep with the President, they sure have a lot of cleaning up to do at home.

[Some1]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
p.s. Im against this war AND against Sadam, i just think this (war) isn't the right way to get rid of him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's the real problem though isn't it. A (UN mandated) war was not the correct solution, a cease fire/disarmament agreement was not the solution, (UN mandated) sanctions were not the solution, (UN mandated) smart sanctions were not the answer either. Is it just me, or did Sadams' regime only begin cooperating with (UN) inspectors once the threat of force was at hand?

Please tell me that this is obvious to everyone - even those opposed to the use of force - that Sadam only responded once force was apparent!

But it isn't like the USA could afford to sit in Kuwait with 250,000+ troops for ever - that's a lot of mouths to feed, that's a lot of resources/money! And sitting in the middle east with 250k+ soldiers is a diplomatic nightmare, so it's a no win situation... vocal Arabs will be mad if the US invades Iraq, but they'll be mad if the US is even just present in the middle east. When it was the UN forces with US troops amongst them, it was the same catch-22.

So what is the solution? It's fine to be against war. I'm definitely against war. Unfortunately sometimes war is the only answer short of the second coming (and I'm pretty sure "Dubbya" doesn't have that much authority )

Please, tell me, what could have been done instead? If you can give me an answer, I'll go on a peace march. Until then, I have no choice but to support this war

Ok, if you quote me so good, why not reading it? I said i was against THIS was. I know that war is (and should in some situations) be the Last resort, but this wasn't it. Why?

- Because this war triggers even more hate in the region/world against USA & the west. So you end with more problems then you start with. (look at the little flash like i gave before)
- Because this war give a sign to the rest of the world that WMD is the only way to carve out your place, so that no one can touch you.
- Because this war gives the right to countries like Turkey to invade north Irak, cause they tread their country too. Even North Korea to invade South, China- tibet, Russia-formerSU countries....etc. everyone is a tread to the other in their opinion (with war or thoughts). What USA does, make it legimate for them too.
- Because the world is against it, when they would have let the inspectors do their work more, it could have led to more cooperation in the UN. (but this is an opinion, noone knows now)
- Because fighting a war for the wrong reason is always wrong (USA should be honest about their goals: Oil, power, supportive regime) not a democracy and the better for the people, cause these are not the real goals.
- Because it is hypocrite to remove a regime like iraq for the iraqi people and let the palestinians die. If the US would help them and would try to prevent the harmful israeli politicy from doing what they do now, US would have their UN resolution. And their would be a lot less USA hate in the world. Because all the Arabian countries hate Sadam too.. they just hate USA more now...
- Because if GWB would really care about people, he would have donated all that money in a fund to help everyone in the world, with so much money he could almost make everyone in africa/asia/middle east "rich"/have food (and they are in a situation as bad/worse as the iraqi people) and as dangerous in long term.
When people have it better then they have now, they are better fed/educated etc. that means that they are less extreme (cause extremes only occur when people are in a bad situation) and terrorist actions would be a LOT less frequent.
Terrorist organisations loose their support..etc.

Conclusion: because there is not UN support for this, it means its illegal... and give the sign for more chaos & war.

i hope i'll see you in the next march

Posted by Master Belisarius
a) Sorry guys, but we don't live in a fair world. The Justice and fairness are only a human illusion, just an ideal.
Somebody need examples? Just a few: Why I can't F$%K with Cameron Diaz?, Why I need to work to have a decent life?, Why some people doesn't have a decent job to live?, Why I'm more and more fat every day and other people is dying right now, due lack of food?

true, but can't we have ideals, cause we know what brought us in the "regular" way.... just more wars. Atleast things are somewhat better then 100 years ago, so i hope humankind learns from their faults.... (an illusion too, but you (I) should have hopes and dreams and "fight/discuss" for what i think is right) or else i have no reason to live

R.

[ March 26, 2003, 00:20: Message edited by: Some1 ]