We could be in Syria well before 2007

[Andreas]

Except for the south. But I have heard it will rise again.

All the best

Andreas

[M Hofbauer]

M.Emrys/Steve,

I agree with you that indeed such regimes can do the most irrational, ludicrous things.

In fact I think they are almost as good at it as western democracies.

They've already apparently done this with Lebanon. Assad even said he'd consider anybody that was involved in the assassination to be a traitor, yet his own brother and most of the big wigs in the security system have apparently got their fingerprints all over the whole operation.

one crazy raghead killing another won't do, that does not bother them too much, especially in that weird melting pot Lebanon where you have dozens of questionable factions fighting each other all the time.

no, it would take something bigger, like said big dirty bomb in Brussels blowing up a couple thousand eurobureaucrats, only that would arouse their fat-assed politoaristocracy brothers sufficiently for them to take action.

you will see that regarding the europeans nothing substantial in terms of CMSF military action will result from the hariri incident.

(the US is a different matter, I just heard on the radio GWB threaten with war against Syria over this)

Abbott,

Personally as a proud American I don’t have a problem with the US exerting its influence over a country that contains the second largest oil supply in the world.

the problem with such self-righteous "I can because I can"-attitude is that this law of the west works as long as you are the number one who can do it unchallenged.

in the mid- to not-so-long-term future there will be a problem when e.g. the chinese try to push the US aside and display the same attitude.

It wouldn’t bother me a bit if the US attacked Syria tomorrow to curtail the insurgents and it would not surprise me in the slightest if some cross-border missions (assassinations) have already been carried out. What some people seem to have difficulty understanding is that everyone in that business be it a soldier, terrorist, supporter or private contractor knows the score when they chose to walk in that realm. It is tough on those who haven’t been there but to those who have it is normal everyday life. Screw them, insurgents and terrorists are not people, they are bags of sh*t and bags of sh*t are easily disposed of.

there would be plenty of agreement with your opinion if indeed the military action would -guaranteed- only affect the insurgent terrorist scumbags.

there is only two problems with that.

ONE

what is a terrorist insurgent to one man, is a justified rebel and freedom fighter to the next. This term has no absolute application, rather it depends on the relative point of view.

Think USA 1775 to 1783. To the British, Washington and his independence fighters were nothing but insurgents.

If a CIA man plants a bomb on a Cuban airliner, is he actively fighting the cuban dictatorship regime by creating unrest and terror, or is he merely a terrorist killing innocent civilians? (not made up, btw)

imagine: (note this is just a mindgame, I am *not* saying the situation is mutatis mutandis reversible)

say, a russian, better chinese, better yet an Arab army invades the USA to liberate you of your american way of life and bless you with the only true way of life (id est, according to Allah and Mohammed's prechings).

the US Armed Forces are half defeated, half bribed over to the new Powers. The US is under a new arab government introducing new rules for society and everyday life.

Would you be a content citizen accepting this invasion and readily switch over to the new rulers and their rules, or would you take up arms and swear to fight to your last breath to drive out those stupid invader SOBs ?

I bet you would proudly claim to do the latter. (Red Dawn anyone?)

Yet, to the new government installed by the arabs who merely wish to improve the poor americans' way of life, you would be nothing but a terrorist insurgent.

TWO

even if we would agree on who is a killworthy terrorist scumbag, your proposed course of ruthless military action inevitably leads to casualties among civilians, innocent people who are not such scumbags.

now,

is killing one scumbag worth killing ten children?

is killing one scumbag worth the death of one child?

is the neutralization of ten insurgent terrorist scumbags worth accepting the loss of one innocent civilian?

what about hundred terrorists for one child?

what if it was *your* child?

[ October 25, 2005, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: M Hofbauer ]

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by Kurtz:

They really should have named the war Operation Iraqi Liberty.

Damn, that's clever. LOL, I don't know if that's what you intended but the first letters spell 'oil', thus, implying that the war was really just about oil, LOL! Sheer genius, and original too! LOL!

[C'Rogers]

All you are doing is running your mouth without any knowledge of what you are talking about.

You're just the perfect example of what Steve was talking about

And a pretty close to a perfect example of what I was saying. Everyone believes the other person is the idiot.

I suppose it is easier to assume the other person is idiot and doesn't know what he is talking about, versus is actually well informed but still disagrees with you.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />All you are doing is running your mouth without any knowledge of what you are talking about.

You're just the perfect example of what Steve was talking about

And a pretty close to a perfect example of what I was saying. Everyone believes the other person is the idiot.

I suppose it is easier to assume the other person is idiot and doesn't know what he is talking about, versus is actually well informed but still disagrees with you. </font>

[Tarquelne]

And a pretty close to a perfect example of what I was saying. Everyone believes the other person is the idiot.

Yes. But some of them are right.

I suppose it is easier to assume the other person is idiot and doesn't know what he is talking about, versus is actually well informed but still disagrees with you.

There's a lot to be said for that. Then again, you need not always just assume...

And yet, let's be frank, making that assumption can be such a great time saver.

We also have a very diversified media (read "often partisan and sensationalistic"), so people can be both "well informed" (for a given value of "well" and "informed")AND ignorant. (This is an excellent example of the power of supply and demand in a free market, btw.)

The problem isn't everyone thinking everyone else is an idiot. The problem is the actual idiots not realizing they're idiots. (If not selfish bastards.) Heck, it's the basic problem of government. Solve that and we'll all be eating off gold plates!

[ October 25, 2005, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[C'Rogers]

The problem is the actual idiots not realizing they're idiots.

If an idiot realized he was idiot, would he thus know what to do and no longer be an idiot?

Yes. But some of them are right.

Well technically there are four possibilities (using Abbott and Sergei as examples).

Abbott is right, Sergei is an idiot.

Sergei is right, Abbott is an idiot.

Both Sergei and Abbott are wrong, neither of them is an idiot.

Both Sergei and Abbott are correct, they are both idiots.

The main problem isn't that you should never assume a person you are discussing things with is stupid, there are plenty of people who are. The problem is that posted messages on a forum don't really do a good job of information conveyance, especially on a political subject. And when two people are treating each other like idiots it just becomes a shouting match. Which, while occasionally fun to watch the from the sidelines, is ultimatly unproductive.

I know there have been plenty of times I have gone off on someone on a forum (not here) because I thought they were spewing garbage. However when I met these people face to face their opinions seemed much more rational. It's harder to think someone a brain dead idiot when they are a living person in front of you and not just a message on your computer screen.

[Abbott]

Hofbauer,

the problem with such self-righteous "I can because I can"-attitude is that this law of the west works as long as you are the number one who can do it unchallenged.

You’re talking to a man who has lived most of his live with the attitude that “if I want something, I go and get it”. I think the world is a better place without Hussein in power and I also think that removing him could have been accomplished differently if Kofi and some other members of the UN were not accepting bribes. I think that Schroeder and Chirac used Iraq as nothing more then a springboard (as an opportunity) to try and strengthen the EU's position and their own financial positions and suffer from no moral dilemma. I believe that they carefully crafted the European public opinion of hate towards the US to aid them in accomplishing their goals. I see them no differently then any other politicians who are controlled by very wealthy men.

I think President Bush used his position to strengthen his financial holdings along with some others in his circle. I don’t like it but that is the way the world works. I also believe the world is better off with a semi-independent government in Iraq that sees some heavy US influence. As an American I don’t see that as a bad thing.

I believe it is in the troops best interest to carry militarily strikes into Syria. I am all for it if enough can be accomplished covertly to save Coalition soldiers lives. I also believe that it is very likely missions have already been carried out inside of Syria and I hope the Syrians stand down before any overt actions are required.

TWO

even if we would agree on who is a killworthy terrorist scumbag, your proposed course of ruthless military action inevitably leads to casualties among civilians, innocent people who are not such scumbags.

now,

is killing one scumbag worth killing ten children?

is killing one scumbag worth the death of one child?

is the neutralization of ten insurgent terrorist scumbags worth accepting the loss of one innocent civilian?

what about hundred terrorists for one child?

what if it was *your* child?

War is hell Hof. And I know you are an intelligent man who knows that. Terrible sh*t happens in war no one wants to see or be the cause of. I have seen a few of the awful things you describe above and I have to carry some of them to my grave. No one (that I know) wants dead civilians, well, that is not true, I know some who flatly don’t care. No one I respect wants dead civilians. To people like Hussein and his sons that does not even enter into the equation. Civilians are nothing more to him and those like him then herds of cattle. I am glad two of them are dead (his sons) and I hope the Father is killed and I would gladly do it myself because I believe he is evil enough that his passing is justified. I see civilians as people I did my best to protect from scum like him. Again sometimes terrible sh*t happens in war no one wants

As far as me and mine. I enlisted when I was eighteen years old. I have seen and done things that scar me and to this day they affect my wife several times a week. I give her credit for staying around through the waking some nights. I am used to it. I am a very happy man who finds great joy with my many children. As a matter a fact my wife and I are going to go watch 4 of my grandchildren today and for the next two days while their Mother receives additional training at work. I told all of my kids that the Military is a personal choice and if they do not want to carry the death of others by their hand with them through life. That I would support any decision they made towards the matter including removing them from this country if need be. I of course would do my best to protect my children as the animal that I am.

Edit: to change "morale dilemma" to my intended meaning of “moral dilemma". I am just used to typing the word morale on these forums.

I added the word "other" "to any other politicians"

[ October 25, 2005, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ]

[Tarquelne]

If an idiot realized he was idiot, would he thus know what to do and no longer be an idiot?

Good question. The answer is "Maybe."

The problem is that posted messages on a forum don't really do a good job of information conveyance, especially on a political subject.

I agree that's a major problem. Actually, I imagine that it is "the" major problem, in that communication problems are more common than idiocrisy. (I was disapointed to realize that "sensationalistic" isn't made up, so there's one.)

I'll just add that given a long enough posting history the likelyhood of a given person merely being a poor communicator as opposed to "an idiot" becomes insignificant. Or perhaps just unimportant.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Abbott:

My next-door neighbor who Steve probably considers to be an idiot is a retired Native American Firefighter, a Vietnam veteran, an excellent Bass fisherman and a all around nice guy. In conversation the other day he mentioned his thoughts to me on the problems in the Middle East. He said (and I quote) “We should turn the Jews loose”. I know a few dozen people, mostly veterans with similar thoughts on the subject who think that people with the attitudes of some on this Forum are the idiots.

I doubt your friend is an idiot and I'm sure he's a great guy, but he's also a perfect example that serving in the military doesn't make people foreign policy experts.

[Tarquelne]

I would gladly do it myself because I believe he is evil enough that his passing is justified. I see civilians as people I did my best to protect from scum like him. Again sometimes terrible sh*t happens in war no one wants.

Abbott didn't answer how many children he'd kill to get SH - Hof asked about the quantity of "terrible sh*t", not it's existance - and good for him: As a collision between the ethical and the practical that's an utterly political question. Whose kids? What's the probabilities? What's the cost in lives? Whose lives? Do we have enough money? Do they?

There are other forums for that.

Stop tempting us.

[ October 25, 2005, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Tarquelne ]

[Battlefront.com]

Abbot,

My belief system tells me that Terrorists are sub-human and it becomes much easier to deal with them when a person develops the proper mindset towards the issue

I couldn't agree more. Once someone has adopted the mindset of a killer, there is little that can be done to change their mind. But the reason why I reffer to people, like your friend who are otherwise good people, as "idiots" is that they are missing the point. If you create, maintain, and actually defend the conditions that create the terrorists in the first place, then complain and cry about it afterwords, then how smart is that? "Turn the Jews loose" would start a major war not seen in the Middle East in 30 years. Perhaps ever. Oil would basically stop flowing, hundreds of thousands could possibly die (tens of thousands at the least), and the same mess that exists now would still be there. Perhaps made even worse. Which is exactly why the "Jews" have not turned themselves "loose".

The truth of the matter is we can't kill the terrorists fast enough to make any difference. So it would be better to figure out how to cut off the supply by identifying the root causes and attacking them. The problem with "kill or be killed" thinkers is that the attacks would likely not involve the military and it would also likely involve giving up some degree of perceived control.

As Vanir put it:

I doubt your friend is an idiot and I'm sure he's a great guy, but he's also a perfect example that serving in the military doesn't make people foreign policy experts.

Abbot's friend is in good company, unfortunately. Most of the people making the world's foreign policies aren't foreign policy experts. They are political hacks that are brought in with elected officials.

Now, to get this thread back on track...

We have to assume that between now and 2007 that the world's leaders are not going to become enlightened. Even if they did the kinds of changes that would make the world a much nicer place to live in will take decades to show signs of working. Since everybody in power on this planet seems to have the patience of a small insect with only hours of life granted to him, it looks like we're stuck with the act/react vicious cycle.

The CM:SF setting is the reaction to an act that can not be ignored. What that act is will be determined later when we are closer to needing to put things down on paper. There are many realistic possibilities that can give us the setting we're looking for in a way that is plausible. Those who say it isn't possible at all are naive. History tells us to expect the unexpected. Very recent history underscores this.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

An article in this week's TIME touches on this suject.

What was once imponderable--the end of the Assad family's 35-year hold on power--is suddenly being discussed as if it is a real, if still distant, possibility. "People are edgy, jumpy and scared," says Marwan al-Kabalan of the Center for Strategic Studies at Damascus University. "This is the most serious crisis in the recent history of Syria."

A struggle for power in Damascus would be messy. Syrians say their worst nightmare is a political vacuum that leads to a civil war between the country's Sunni Muslims, who constitute 74% of the population, and its Alawites, a minority sect that claims 12% of Syrians, including the Assads. Many Sunnis harbor bitter memories of the regime's killing of 20,000 people in Hama in 1982, while the Alawites fear that Islamist groups will someday seek to avenge the slaughter. "It's a scary thing," says Joshua Landis, an American professor who has spent the past 10 months in Syria. "We don't know how bad things could get."

[SSgt Viljuri]

C'Rogers wrote:

Well technically there are four possibilities (using Abbott and Sergei as examples).

Abbott is right, Sergei is an idiot.

Sergei is right, Abbott is an idiot.

Both Sergei and Abbott are wrong, neither of them is an idiot.

Both Sergei and Abbott are correct, they are both idiots.

How about this fictional Sergei being right (and not vice versa), but still admitting that he's a quite a moron himself too.

Just another logical possibility, I think...

[Battlefront.com]

Hof,

you will see that regarding the europeans nothing substantial in terms of CMSF military action will result from the hariri incident.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the Euros would go to war over this. Not at all, especially since I don't believe that they would. I brought up the whole Hariri incident was to disprove your hypothesis that the Syrian government wouldn't be stupid enough to do something so blatent and leave a clear trail leading back to itself. So the hypothetical situation where terrorists within Syria operate on their own, and leave a clear trail back to themsleves, is quite plausible. Already happened once (i.e. Afghanistan).

Steve

[Efraim]

Abbot:

"I think the world is a better place without Hussein in power and I also think that removing him could have been accomplished differently if Kofi and some other members of the UN were not accepting bribes. I think that Schroeder and Chirac used Iraq as nothing more then a springboard (as an opportunity) to try and strengthen the EU's position and their own financial positions and suffer from no morale dilemma. I believe that they carefully crafted the European public opinion of hate towards the US to aid them in accomplishing their goals. I see them no differently then any politicians who are controlled by very wealthy men."

Noone could write this *and really believe it at the same time*, not even an american neo-con.

I mean, c'mon, even fox news wouldn't go any more for such crap.

As far as one can jusge from all polls, european AND american public opinion were/are/will always be against the *failed* invasion of Iraq.

That's one of the reasons, btw, of the "mixed feelings" (to put it mildly) about CM:SF of most afecionados (me included).

I said it before, it is pretty clear, at least to me, that this Abbot guy is just a poor and clumsy troll

[PseudoSimonds]

Maybe somewhere along the line "no politics" got translated to "more politics".

[C'Rogers]

Noone could write this *and really believe it at the same time*, not even an american neo-con.

Was his other statement any more reasonable?

Abbot:

I think President Bush used his position to strengthen his financial holdings along with some others in his circle.

Personally I disagree with both, but wouldn't be shocked to find that either of them are true.

I said it before, it is pretty clear, at least to me, that this Abbot guy is just a poor and clumsy troll

He sure has a lot of posts on varied subjects for a troll. One of those deep cover trolls? Waiting for just the right moment to strike?

As far as one can jusge from all polls, european AND american public opinion were/are/will always be against the *failed* invasion of Iraq.

Well the 'are' at the moment seems pretty definitive. As for 'were' polls in the past have been mixed. And as for 'will' it is near impossible to predict how history will judge the invasion of Iraq, and it will probably have a lot to do with unrelated events that people don't really consider at the moment.

Battlefront.com:

Now, to get this thread back on track...

That is still being tried? Well then my thoughts on that. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that CM:SF turns out to be an all to realistic scenario, though perhaps exaggerated.

One thing I am wondering, BFC has made it fairly clear they will change the plot line based upon events that happen up until close to the release. What about for the modules after the game? You release it when things are looking relatively calm, and come the time you are planning your first module there is a bombing campaign of Syria?

[Peter Cairns]

There is a risk that if things "Go Hot" in Syria over the next 18 months BF could find itself with more trouble that it bargined for.

I suppose that's the risk you take when you try to go for the most realistic scenario, you might get it too right and be accused of good knows what from war mongering to being CIA stooges.

Peter.

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Abbot, (snipped)

Steve ,

I know I was a bit out of line and I thank you for your graciousness. I did not post anything I do not personally believe. I felt that someone needed to speak up in defense of our great nation.

With respect,

Nick Abbott

[Dillweed]

Originally posted by Abbott:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Abbot, (snipped)

Steve ,

I know I was a bit out of line and I thank you for your graciousness. I did not post anything I do not personally believe. I felt that someone needed to speak up in defense of our great nation.

With respect,

Nick Abbott </font>

[aka_tom_w]

oh gets getting more interesting now

web page

US, France threaten sanctions on Syria over Hariri

Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:22 p.m. ET

By Evelyn Leopold

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States and France circulated a Security Council draft resolution on Tuesday threatening economic sanctions if Syria fails to cooperate with a U.N. probe into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

The draft says Syria must detain for questioning any official a U.N. investigation wants to interview in or outside the country. It invokes Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which makes council decisions mandatory for all U.N. members.

The sanctions threat invokes Article 41 of the U.N. Charter, which can include "complete or partial interruption of economic relations" and "severance of diplomatic relations."

German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, who heads the investigation and released a report last Thursday, said the assassination of Hariri in Beirut on February 14 "was organized by Syrian and Lebanese security officials."

Hariri opposed Syrian domination in Lebanon.

Mehlis repeatedly said Syria had not cooperated, he was unable to talk to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and several officials interviewed gave false statements.

It was uncertain whether the resolution would suit Security Council members usually wary of sanctions, like Russia, China and Algeria, although U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said all had been consulted. He said he did not expect sanctions to be considered until Mehlis again reports to the council, probably around December 15.

The resolution would also impose a travel ban and a freeze on overseas assets on those designated now or in the future by Mehlis' commission.

Bolton said this would include 10 people Lebanon has already charged with complicity. But the officials cited in Mehlis' report would not yet be subject to sanctions.

Written by the United States and France and backed by Britain, the text puts more pressure on Syria, already a Bush administration target for its alleged failure to keep foreign fighters from crossing its border with Iraq.

NOT RULING OUT MILITARY OPTIONS

Both U.S. President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have refused to rule out possible military action against Syria, but said Washington had not exhausted its diplomatic options.

Bush told Al Arabiya television in an interview aired on Tuesday, "It (military action) is the last -- very last option." He said he had "worked hard for diplomacy and will continue to work the diplomatic angle on this issue."

No vote on the resolution is set, but the United States hopes for approval at a Security Council foreign ministers' meeting, tentatively set for Monday.

"It is important to show that the Security Council can follow through on its resolutions," Bolton said. "If the (Mehlis) commission is obstructed by the government or by individuals, the council has to come to the assistance of the commission ... and back it up."

The United States and France circulated the resolution hours after Mehlis briefed the Security Council on his report and held a news conference.

Mehlis also said his 30-member team from 17 countries had received a number of "credible" threats, which he expected would increase before his probe ended on December 15.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Abbott:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Abbot, (snipped)

Steve ,

I know I was a bit out of line and I thank you for your graciousness. I did not post anything I do not personally believe. I felt that someone needed to speak up in defense of our great nation.

With respect,

Nick Abbott </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Abbot,

I don't think you were out of line per se. Efraim was out of line and I hope he is big enough to apologize to you for that troll remark. You are nothing of the sort, and I have the experience to know Also, I don't know many neo-cons that would accuse the current leadership of corruption and self-enrichment

But as Tarquelne said, I don't see the US' interests needing to be defended. There is a lot of criticism of the way it is going about things these days, but that isn't the same as saying the US is a terrible country and its people a collective boil on the bum of the world.

I did say that I feel most Americans are idiots when it comes to complex issues, and I stand by that statement. I am involved in local politics and it is clear that if the masses were left to run government on their own there would be a prolonged period of chaos and death, then a totalitarian regime would step in and settle things down. Yet I still feel that the majority of people around me are good, honest people. I just wouldn't trust them to run my affairs any more than I would a bunch of 5 year olds on a sugar high Although I can't speak for any other country's populace, I am confident that it is no different the world 'round.

In the imortal words of Agent K; "individuals are smart, people are stupid"

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

C'Rogers

One thing I am wondering, BFC has made it fairly clear they will change the plot line based upon events that happen up until close to the release. What about for the modules after the game? You release it when things are looking relatively calm, and come the time you are planning your first module there is a bombing campaign of Syria?

All very good questions. There will come a "Drop Dead Date" for making a decision about the actual setting. At that point we need to pick the storyline and stick with it, even if things should change after. One thing is for sure, though... if we do switch away from Syria then we'll come up with a comperable setting. We won't go and do WWII, Cold War, or a conflict in Asia with the Chinese. We're already too far into this to do anything but an arid 2007ish setting.

Steve