Insurgents target Strykers in Iraq

[civdiv]

Quote from Tarquelne,

The ME/SE Asia can be made more secular - or less rabid - just like the rest of the world.

We pretty much agree, except I doubt there is anything in the forseeable future that can bring about the change you note.

And in regards to making the world more secular, man, that is a wholely different topic. History tells us secularism leads to low birth rates, which leads to an increase in influence for immigrants, which tend to be non-secular as religion is a characteristic of the down-troddin, who tend to emmigrate. The self-licking ice cream cone if there ever was one. Check this out, pretty scary;

http://forum.themarkettraders.com/read-m/26/3773/3789

[Abou Nayeek]

Originally posted by civdiv:

Who are my incumbants, you don't know, do you?

civdiv

Oh don’t play possum with the board div, everyone knows you’re a hard ass for the McConnells, Lotts, Hatches and McCains, nor are your point by point nance delineations doin’ you any favors.

Course div might come out and blurt ‘why I’m not from Mississippi, I’m from some other barn pipi’

See, civdiv is the kinda sap who believes trashing the troops is alien to America, on accounta his TBI, he doesn’t recollect a certain conflict in Indochina after which American troops were disowned and urinated upon by their own.

Civdiv is the same sap who believes Tillman wasn’t fragged, and his ilk, Tilman’s, are good for the US army.

Say bonjour to the following divboy, every ideal and lofty vision you hold and project for your party and kind will soon be slurping corn kernels outa dysentery pools.

[Abou Nayeek]

You wanna talk about a “backward”, funky and beyond the pale relegion? Examine your Catholic Church, what does the Catholic Church say to believers? “NO Surrogate Motherhood”, too bad they didn’t notify your Virgin Mary about that edict, ey?

Of course the memo legalizing and encouraging pedophilia in your midst is well-worded in case plausible deniability is ever warranted. Get da funk outa here with the “backward”.

[Sergei]

It amuses me how a thread titled "Insurgents target Strykers in Iraq", upon reaching page 3, is touching the issues of Zionist Occupation Government and the essence of Islam.

To begin with, who is this Abou Nayeek person? He claims to be an astronaut, but I have some doubts. I hope he isn't one lone Syrian again...

oh, it's a lost hope then.

Originally posted by civdiv:

Islam is a compeletely backward religion that has failed to adapt to the modern world. Islam stopped growing and mutating over 300 years ago when they got thrown back from Vienna. They went back and hid in their holes and ignored what the rest of the world was doing. And now they are stuck with the culture and mores of 300 years ago.

You're simplifying, I know, but you just economize way too much. First of all, it wasn't "Islam" that was thrown back from Vienna, it was the Ottoman empire. All along the Turks were fighting not only in Central Europe or Mediterranean area, but in Middle East as well, against Persians, Mongols and whoever. Islam wasn't any more united than it is today (you seem to think that Muslims from Morocco to Philippines, from Chechnya to Sudan share the same culture and values).

Secondly for the Turks the inevitable stop to their expansion wasn't the cause of their decline and eventual fall, unless you consider that their state had evolved itself into a machine of expansion that didn't work so well when it had nowhere to expand and no one managed to re-engineer it. Even if Vienna had surrendered, the Ottoman empire would have declined in the following centuries.

The temporary flourishing of science and arts in Islam can be attributed to two things: trade and receptiveness for ideas, both from west and east. The income that facilitated feeding the lazy buggers in universities came conveniently from taxing or pirating trade between Europe and Asia, which then came to an end with the Portuguese finding a sea route to India (along came the decline of Italian city states). The tolerance aspect whittled away along with the disappearance of smaller caliphates and formation of corrupt empires with little interest in such pettiness.

Your average Muslim is desperately poor, uneducated, and very, very angry.

The "poverty creates terrorism" theory is a bit outdated. Osama bin Laden didn't become a terrorist because his daddy couldn't buy him shoes. Terrorism is so... middle class. This about Al Qaida type terrorists who bother to go from, say, Jordan to Iraq or Turkey to blow themselves up. Local part time terrorists, part time insurgent gunmen in Iraq fighting for their sect or clan might be from a poorer background, but there the local tensions matter as much.

What's the answer? Probably some incredibly dynamic, charismatic, and popular Muslim figure who has the influence to drag the entire culture and religion into the 21st century.

The problem with dynamic, charismatic and popular figures is that they tend to end up with lotsa lotsa people dead. I'm sure Saddam Hussein saw himself as the Pan-Arabic Dr.Phil.

But Islam begat radical Islam, and it did it all on its own.

If it lived in a vacuum. The current political situation in Middle East has to do with 20th century developments: the final fall of Turkish empire and the creation of British and French mandates and 20-30 years later the independence of those countries, countries which like other such creatures in Africa and Asia (and let's not forget European post-WWI monsters like Yugoslavia and USSR) were doomed from the beginning. Then the cold war, oil, Israel and all other issues resulting in that the new states were very undemocratic and had lots of tanks to keep the population away from expressing themselves. The birth and popularity of radical Islam, then, is largely the fault of Europe (Europe here including USA and USSR).

How that radical Islam manifests itself in news headlines is a different matter. Suicide bombing must be the most idiotic tactic ever practised.

[civdiv]

Hmmmm, I am for gays in the military despite my career there. I am pro-gay union. But I don't have a problem with any of the Patriot Acts nor non-FISA wire-taps. I don't think the Second Ammendment covers automatic weapons or armor piercing ammo, yet I own a half dozen weapons myself and am seeking a concealed carry permit. Has the needle on your meter crashed out of the glass and flown across the room yet? I've lived in the south for a total of around 3.5 years (mostly while I was in the military), so Abou, you got a nice cookie-cutter hole in your wooden toy for me?

Tillman's death, known by Army brass within hours to be fratricide, was managed horriby, and they deserve all of the mud that will be hurled at them to stick to them.

Come on Abou,

You have someone here that knows your culture and speaks your language and is semi-on your side. Set off the car bomb you intend for everyone, allies and enemies alike, and I will continue to show you a close-up of the floor.

You look at my criticism of US policy but then you are blinded by my criticism of Islam. You immediately lump me in the category of semite and ignore my arguments. I am one of the ones smiting you, but I am also one of the few who realize there is a better way. So take a big breath and re-read my comments (that freely criticise the policies of my own country) and understand my intent and my beliefs. You won't get a 100% agreement with me but you will get a partial agreement with me. We can argue colonialism versus culture but we agree on the way out.

I'm sorry my rendition of Islam hurts you, but it is the god's honest truth as far as I am concerned. You can argue the point, or you can use personal insults. And before you begin to refute the points, which is what I hope you do, provide the path out of the quagmire we are in. Ancient history means nothing, we are where we are, and we need a road back.

Bottom line; we have a problem, east versus west. Many people will die unless SOMEONE comes up with a solution. Our solution here probably won't affect things afar but let's at least think about things. Give up the hyperbole and come up with cognicent points and we will discuss. Keep with your current attacks and I will 'peel the onion' as I have spent literally years living within your culture.

civdiv

[Sergei]

civdiv,

nevermind him. He's a banned looney.

[Battlefront.com]

The population aspect is worse than that. There was a book out not too long ago called "The Dumbing Down of the World" or something like that. Not only do secular societies have lower birthrates, but so too do educated, financially stable people. In other words, the most successfull members of the genepool reproduce the least, while the ones that have the most difficulty providing for their children reproduce at much higher rates. Couple this with the braindead consumer culture in the more afluent countries and you get a bad showdown in the making.

Abou Nayeek,

I should also mention that taking a deliberately hostile and aggressive tone like that is also against the rules. YOu can be critical without being abusive. Please reread the Forum Rules.

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In other words, the most successfull members of the genepool reproduce the least, while the ones that have the most difficulty providing for their children reproduce at much higher rates.

It's always been that way Steve - look at Europe during the Industrial Revolution for example.

Hmm. Given all the wars they had ... maybe not such a great example ...

[Abou Nayeek]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Suicide bombing must be the most idiotic tactic ever practised.

I commend Sergei on his learned and balanced analysis, bravo. Moreover, I assure Sergei I'm not the "banned looney" he speaks of, you made a mistake.

On a different note, this suicidal idiocy has the west soilin’ its shorts, how do you stop the dead? With your decapitated head, so the saying goes.

Hitler had his belated rockets, Stalin had a mighty sperm bank, Churchill had speech, you have da bomb and a tard president, the Japs have semiconductors, yet you wanna dispossess the Muslims of a little death? Where’s that renowned American empathy?

And civdiv, you should “peel that onion” in that crate you carry on your shoulders, maybe you’ll learn about that culture you claim to have lived in from Sergei et al, somehow I very much doubt it though. Your inability to improve is uncanny indeed, you’ve quite a lot of peelin’ to do.

Admin, thank you for pointing out the rules, I will abide by them.

[Battlefront.com]

JonS,

It's always been that way Steve - look at Europe during the Industrial Revolution for example.

Yes, but back then the upper class felt little responsibility for keeping those lower than themselves alive. The West exports huge amounts of food and wealth to poor countries. Even though most of it barely benefits the people it is sent to (through corruption), it keeps hundreds of millions alive than otherwise would die. In their home countries, even, millions would die every year if they had to fend for themselves. One reason why both the US and European healthcare models don't work is because too many people are using it and too few are paying for it.

Conflict/war is also something that the more wealthy nations try to control, yet this is one of nature's most powerful population controls of the less educated, more disadvantaged. I just saw an article recently warning that the US military is going to go through some hard times as the number of physically fit candidates drop and those with intellectual skills go off to high paying jobs. The argument goes that the military will have to rely more and more on filling its ranks with the disadvantaged and problematic youth. If that is indeed the trend, it doesn't take a social scientist to see what effect that will have on the military's ability to function. I asked a Colonel many years ago what he thought about the all volunteer mlitary. Overall he said it was a good thing, but in ways it was bad. How so, I asked? He said "well, back in the old days if we needed an accountant we likely had one coming in anyway. Now we don't."

In other words, things are different now because nature is not allowed to have as much say as it once did. Through good intentions the balance is becoming more and more askew.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

For the record, I do not think Abou Nayeek is Lone Syrian.

And also for the record, Sergei is Finnish. Need I say more? Me thinks not

Steve

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Abou Nayeek:

Moreover, I assure Sergei I'm not the "banned looney" he speaks of, you made a mistake.

In which case I apologize.

So... Username? Gaylord Focker?

[Cpl Steiner]

Abou Nayeek,

You are SO Lone Syrian. Your writing style is, let's just say, unique! BFC, I don't think asking Mr. Abou to read the forum rules is going to make much difference.

[Abou Nayeek]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And also for the record, Sergei is Finnish. Need I say more? Me thinks not

Steve

In that case, let me not be the ugly Muslim and rephrase:

Hitler had his belated rockets, Stalin had a mighty sperm bank, Churchill had speech, The Finns have this limpin’ Focker tard, Marti Ahtisaari who thinks the Russians are gonna hand him Kosovar independence and the Japs have semiconductors, yet you wanna dispossess the Muslims of a little death? Where’s that renowned Finn Nothingness?

So Sergei should convey to Marti, that is from one Finn Focker to another, to lay off the Sushi for a while, dig, Finn Fockers?

No Steve, he no need say no notin’ more bout above nice companions Finn Fockers.

Cpl Steiner, the world hears your ”so” British male companion sailor is undergoing a rather oblong Farsi pap smear up there and down there in Tehran. And that your only complaint is that “it is I Steiner who should be administering and enabling such joyful contraptions up...”, ya soft, “unique” fiend you.

It’s providential that even if by some miracle Steiner attains US citizenship, he’ll never be admitted to the US army cuz he always likes to show & tell.

[Cpl Steiner]

Lone Syrian or copycat Lone Syrian, it doesn't really make any difference. Apostles of hate are not welcome here.

[Wisbech_lad]

Cpl Steiner, the world hears your ”so” British male companion sailor is undergoing a rather oblong Farsi pap smear up there and down there in Tehran

Hmm, thought homosexuality was halal myself. Still, Allah is all knowing and oft forgiving, so maybe the Farsi dude won't end up in hell.

[Battlefront.com]

Since Abou Nayeek is showing the same disregard for the Forum Rules (not to mention a familiar posting style) as Lone Syrian, I'm going to do the same thing I did to him... hit the ban button. Sorry Abou Nayeek, you had several chances and I even gave you the benefit of the doubt (even though I didn't doubt it). And sure enough, you showed your unworthiness of being here amongst the relatively sane people of this Forum. Doesn't matter if you are who we all think you are or not, a Troll is a Troll and all Trolls get banned.

Steve

[Sixxkiller]

Sad, he could have atleast given a different perspective here on the forums. I just wish one (or more) Middle Eastern people would come here and not have a chip the size of Iraq on his/thier shoulder.

Ok enough of Oprah, where's Kettler this morning??? j/k

[zmoney]

Originally posted by aunt slapper:

I’ve been both excited and concerned about CM moving to a contemporary setting. Specifically, I was afraid that a preponderance of reactionary and jingoistic postings would turn me off of the game itself, as happened in the group discussion of another modern game. So, it is big relief to see mostly comments like those of Abou Nayeek and Steve.

Thank goodness.

You've got to be kidding me, did you happen to read Abou Nayeek post. It was utter rubbish.

I personally have never seen a militant Christian cut off another militant Christians head because he wasn't the same exact kind of militant Christian. On the other hand I have seen plenty of militant islamics cut off the heads of other militant islamics because they weren't the same kind of musilem.

Oh and lets not forget wha, wha, wha, its all the Jews fault.

Abu you claim there is no such thing as militant islamic armies then what do you call the Iranian military, Hezbola, Al Quada and Hamas etc.......

I'm personally tired of Americans hearing this kind of crap and just lapping it up or disagreeing with it and keeping their mouths shut. Everything in this guys post was ridiculous. Its sad too because he probably lives in a Western country because either he or his fore fathers fled his native country to be free and have opportunity yet he takes every chance to talk down the very country which has provided him an opportunity.

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by zmoney:

Its sad too because he probably lives in a Western country because either he or his fore fathers fled his native country to be free and have opportunity yet he takes every chance to talk down the very country which has provided him an opportunity.

Like this guy used to do..

Abu Hamza

He preached hatred against the West in my country for years before the authorities finally acted, and claimed "Incapacity Benefit" (currently worth about £60 or $120 a week) from the state the whole time for an injury he suffered whilst making a bomb 20 odd years earlier. I'm pretty sick of this sort of ungrateful whining too.

[ March 27, 2007, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ]

[Bigduke6]

Steve,

The remark about "not letting down my men" was not mine.

Mostly I agree with you, certainly the higher the rank, the more the responsibility.

What I'm trying to work out is how far down the chain of command the reponsibility stops.

As you can see I am putting forward the POV that if an American citizen voluntarily serves in an army engaged in a useless war - indeed less than useless as it gets US citizens killed and maimed, wastes US taxpayer money, and increases international hostility towards US citizens - then maybe that US service member should be answerable, somehow, for his decision to participate in said war.

This is not to say he should be punished, far from it. But in cold logic that service member is part of the problem, he is in fact a very small contributing factor. You're right if he refused to participate pretty much nothing would happen, but there is plenty of historical evidence that's a fallacious argument.

First, there's the Nurenburg riposte, which goes wearing a uniform does not fully excuse you from reponsibility for participating in an "illegal" war.

Second, there's the Vietnam riposte, which goes if enough military-age members of a democratic society say "heck no I won't go" to a war the society sees as wrong, then the society's leaders will end their participation in the war.

Third, there's the Washingtonian riposte, which goes just because you are a service member you do not cease to be a citizen with responsibilities to your society. Act against the interests of the society, and you cannot expect your uniform to protect you unilaterally from criticism in fair and open public debate.

Fourth, there is the 1917 riposte, which is if an army's leaders are too gung ho about a war that isn't working for too long, they risk mutiny by the troops, unheaval in the societies they swore to protect, and more practically devastation to the militaries wherein they make their careers.

As I say, I'm not exactly sure how the wars of Iraq and Afghanistan fit into all this, which is why I kick it out here on the forum.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

BigDuke6

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'd put things more in terms of "not letting down my men." Protesting in some form would be taking a principled stand, but I think "abandonment" is what they'd feel they were doing. And probably what a good portion - if not most - of their men would feel.

Oh, I am sure that is how they justify it to themselves. Just like Keitel and Jodel did in Nazi Germany. "Vell, it voot be a lot vorz if I vern't in charge" sort of thing. Sometimes that is true, but the less influence one has over events, the less ability one has to mitigate the harm, and therefore the less reason there is to stick around. In some circumstances the best good can be done by simply refusing to take part. And this only works to the degree one's position has influence on the whole.

PFC Jones saying "HELL NO, I WON'T GO!" has no effect, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying to Rumsfeld "if you want to wreck this military and weaken this nation... you go right ahead and do that since it is your decision to make. However, we can retire with dignity. That is our decision to make. And if the media spins this in way that isn't flattering to you or your policy... well, we have no more control over their decisions any more than we have control over yours".

It's really rather simple and I don't see what wiggle room there is for those at the top. This war was unnecessary, poorly planned, poorly executed, and a huge setback to the US in pretty much every sense of the word. And they were the ones that made it possible. Not Splinty, not M1A1TankCommander. Those are just two of the poor saps that have to try to pull our bacon out of the fire that it's in. That's a tough job and I'm glad we have tough people willing to do it.

Steve </font>

[Bigduke6]

Civdiv,

No offense taken, I realize I am pushing a pretty provocative line of thinking. Thanks for the intelligent and well-reasoned response. And I would join you in voting against pretty much all incumbents.

I really don't have an expectation of military behavior here. However, I have read history and I lived through the Vietnam era, so I have a pretty good idea in my mind that there are times when a war is so senseless, dragging it out can be disastrous for the societies involved. I am of the opinion that military careerism tends to drag wars out, and that, if members of a military are sworn to protect a society, they are breaking their oath by placing their careers ahead of an early end to the useless war.

Further, if loyalty to one's troops is to mean anything, if the commitment not to waste soldier lives uselessly is not just something the leaders say but actually mean, then I ask, "How can those leaders square their continued commitiment to the organization and the war, when that is getting the soldiers killed and maimed, for no useful reason?"

I suspect the line gets drawn at the definition of "acceptable death and injury among one's subordinates".

It appears to me that, since the American military has gotten fairly good at avoiding casualties, most of the leaders in the organization can tell themselves they are doing their job, as practically all the soldiers under their command are unharmed.

But keeping one's soldiers alive, isn't a good reason for a war. That mindset prolongs useless wars, and it harms the national interest. So what is the professional soldier's responsibility, in the case of a useless war?

How about if he signs up for the war two or three times? What exactly is the definition of useless?

And if the entire force is, technically, professional, i.e. no one is being drafted and every one volunteered, what is the army's responsibility to society then?

You argue an army where soldiers are thinking about the consequences of their actions outside narrow mission terms is an army without law and order. Maybe, but I respond: "An army without a belief in anything but its own professionalism, will sooner or later be defeated by an army - almost certainly less professional - where the soldiers believe in what they're doing. And once that defeat happens, the professional army is devastated."

(And almost inevitably, the professionals spend the peace until the next war not learning from their mistake, but rather telling one another "We never lost a battle!")

With respect, I flatly reject your arguement that the US military service members are outside politics. That's a cop out. Service members vote, have political opinions, spend money in the economy, and form public opinion. If they go to fight in a foreign war they are making US foreign policy, whether they like it or not.

So I would ask, should a US citizen be excused from all responsibility for his actions, just because he is in uniform? Is the society to say "Yeah, you really signed onto a losing program, you demanded we support you, we did but the war really screwed things up for all of us, but since you put on the uniform, you are member of society deserving respect?"

Maybe the answer is "yes". Maybe signing on to risk one's life in a war, and to live at least somewhat uncomfortably, trumps the responsibility to hold one's government to intelligent policy for the good of society.

Of course, if the risk to life isn't so high compared to past wars, and if the comfort level is a whole lot higher than past wars, and if the pay is a hell of a lot better than past wars, then maybe society has a right to ask the service member "Hey, when it became clear this was a big waste, why didn't you speak up? It's not like this is WW2!"

Most Americans agree it isn't the job of the military to carry out coups to keep government honest (although I read that in Thailand and Mauretania, to take two recent examples, that is precisely what happened), but my question is, should every one except the people directly involved in starting the war, be held responsible for the war's results? If the results are bad, should the personal accountability - a very popular word among the US NCOs these days - be limited only to the leaders at the top?

After all, had the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq been won early and decisively, the society would not just have thanked the top generals, but pretty much made ever service member involved in the war into a hero.

FYI I served in the US Army during the Cold War era. I was a volunteer and a junior leader in a combat unit, at a time when joining the army was not popular with the public, and rah rah patriotism was nothing like the post-911 era.

Since then I have matured somewhat. That's partly why I ask the questions that I do.

Originally posted by civdiv:

Bigduke6,

I thought from your name you had served, but your comments lead me to believe that you haven't. Not trying to flame you or anything, but your expectations of the rank and file military boils down to derelection of duty. Lets take Clinton's impeachment. What if the majority of the military thought Clinton had to go (And believe me, the majority despised Clinton.)? So they decide to overthrow the government? Hey, they are doing just what you said they should, right?

We have a civilian run military for a reason. The military carries out it orders, period. It has no stake in politics. Refusing to carry out a lawful order (and they are lawful) is sedition and derelection of duty, you simply can't have it. Once the rule of law disappears from the military you have a disorganized bunch of well trained individuals armed to the hilt. That isn't a pretty picture.

In the military we have a saying; 'We don't make foreign policy, we just carry it out.' It's up to the voters to guide foreign policy, and then the troops to carry it out.

And in return the military expects respect from the population, but they do not demand it. And they expect solid backing for their mission from the government. Don't give the military an order and then be horrified when they carry it out. Militaries don't start wars (at least in a democracy), governments do that. Who is responsible for the government? The voters, of course. Wars are ugly and dirty and horrifying and the military breaks things and kills people.

So the knucklehead neocons got us into this war, and now the dems are playing games with the funding. Hmmm, resolution to be out by September 2008? Hmmm, the election will be in full swing by then, cooincidence? I think not. Hmmm, shut off funding for the troops or give spinach growers $25 million in funding to make up for losses when spinach growers poisoned people? The dems admit they are bribing senators to vote for the war resolution by piling all sorts of dumb earmarks on the MILITARY supplemental funding bill.

I say vote against all incumbants for the next series of elections; lets get rid of them all.

civdiv

[Sergei]

Originally posted by zmoney:

You've got to be kidding me

Indeed, it looks like he did kid you.

[Moronic Max]

Originally posted by civdiv:

Max, and everyone else serving, you are in our prayers. Drive on, draw fire, and DUCK!!

civdiv

Ah, I should make it clear that I am not, in fact, serving; I was thanking those who are for their service.

My fault for not articulating that clearly.

[argie]

Originally posted by zmoney:

I personally have never seen a militant Christian cut off another militant Christians head because he wasn't the same exact kind of militant Christian. On the other hand I have seen plenty of militant islamics cut off the heads of other militant islamics because they weren't the same kind of musilem.

Then, you should read a bit on South of Rio Bravo XX century history.