BS?: "US Marines Are Locked In Battle With Syrian Troops"

[stoat]

Originally posted by Sergei:

And what is GOP doing in Japan? :confused:

Drumming up anti-Chinese sentiments to bolster US exports?

[Colin]

Okay Sergei I am off topic. In one post. I just don't like having to scroll down several posts to skip yours.

I should have just posted that it isn't really a surprise that the US has it's troops in another unpredictable,extremely questionable and potentially unpopular combat situation. I should not have suggested that it is totally inline with this administrations war making policies.

Steve,

You do make good points about Venezuela, but I am curious if you've seen the documentary 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised'. It was shot by an Irish team which was in the country during the a coup in 2002. The US blatantly spread the lies of the Venezuelan media. Now it's clearly meant to portray a certain POV but the footage is real and the film crew is in the palace to see it all. It strikes me as odd when the US supports a media mogul that uses a questionable coup to dissolve the democracy.

I just think it's interesting that there are such differences in two democratic countries. I do personally think that the US democracy is so archaic that a refreshed democratic shift in a nation like Venezuela should bring about changes everywhere. It's interesting that the poor are more concerned about politics then most middle class North Americans.

[ November 27, 2005, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Colin ]

[Battlefront.com]

Colin,

You do make good points about Venezuela, but I am curious if you've seen the documentary 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised'. It was shot by an Irish team which was in the country during the a coup in 2002. The US blatantly spread the lies of the Venezuelan media.

No, I have not seen it. But I also know that the US funded the opposition. Then we also have the right wing nutjob Pat Robertson (who is supposed to be a Christian, but I can't yet figure out how) who called for Chaves' assassination because he doesn't like GW. Great basis for foreign policy there Pat.

However, this doesn't change the fact that Chavez is a politician and, like all politicians, you can't believe a word he says. Some of it might be true, some of it partially true, but a lot of it is pure BS. The policies that come from Chavez are, like I said, a complete double standard. And the history of populists has not been that good. Generally they burn themselves out and/or the public grows sick of the slogans and lack of action. It is easy to gain support, it is an entirely different thing to keep it. Again, this is where Bush and Chavez are more similar than dissimilar.

Bush talked a good talk (well, not gramatically!) and gained a lot of popular support. But that popular support is gone now that most people have figured out his Admin is all about smoke and mirrors rather than real, positive action. I am sure Venezuelans will figure out the same thing about Chavez. Might take a lot longer (things seem to take longer "south of the border"), but mark my words it will happen. I just hope he'll let go of power when the time comes instead of dragging the country down with him. There is a razor thin line between a populist and a demagogue.

Steve

[Kellysheroes]

What I can't figure out is. Here I am sitting here considered the most evil man in the world (Saddam) and the most powerful nation in the world is barreling down on my doorsteps and I got all these supposedly WMD at my fingertips and I just sit there and do nothing with them.

I've scratched my head over that one since day 1 of the war.

Now, I'm a NORMAL man, have my evil days muahahahaha, but, I don't care who it was, I woulda used everything in my arsenal against whoever invaded my country. I would have launched every missile, every bomb, planted mines from here to kingdom come leading into Bagdad. Built underground ambush points to hit them from behind, etc. etc. And Saddam just sat there and then eventually just ran away. SOmething don't add up here.

[FAI]

Originally posted by Kellysheroes:

What I can't figure out is. Here I am sitting here considered the most evil man in the world (Saddam) and the most powerful nation in the world is barreling down on my doorsteps and I got all these supposedly WMD at my fingertips and I just sit there and do nothing with them.

I've scratched my head over that one since day 1 of the war.

Now, I'm a NORMAL man, have my evil days muahahahaha, but, I don't care who it was, I woulda used everything in my arsenal against whoever invaded my country. I would have launched every missile, every bomb, planted mines from here to kingdom come leading into Bagdad. Built underground ambush points to hit them from behind, etc. etc. And Saddam just sat there and then eventually just ran away. SOmething don't add up here.

Word in the street is, well, he didn't have them...

[Bigduke6]

Mostly, I want to appeal for more politeness in this thread. The contributors, almost all of them, are too well-read and too smart to need to resort to name-calling and scatology. Insult each other by all means, but do what the pros in academia do: Use big words dripping irony, not four-letter expressions, to belittle your opponent.

I think Michael E. makes the essential point. It is one thing to say "Woah, those Syrian Arab dudes across that line in the sand there, they're not respecting international frontiers, they're illegal! Gotcha! So now we can bomb the hummus out of them and invade for good measure. Show them what for, they broke the law and we can prove it!"

It is another thing entirely to go to war against yet another Sunni population in the heart of the Middle East.

The U.S. can't invade Syria without creating a firestorm on both the military and political fronts. Sure they can take Damascus, but Syria hasn't gassed any of its citizens and can't even be mistakenly accused of having WMDs. The Iraq insurgency would pale by comparison to Syria - Syria is for practical purposes homegeneous, committed to a single form of Islam (basically the same flavor as Saudi Arabia) and a front-line state against Israel. A Syria invaded by the U.S. would have a lot more friends than Saddam.

Any discussion what the Syrians are or are not doing in terms of their border with Iraq, must take that basic fact into account: The U.S. can huff and puff about military intervention, but when push comes to shove (like the word choice? ) they can't do it. Without a Syrian casus belli directly and clearly linked to at least a hundred dead American citizens, it can't happen. An invasion of Syria won't fly with the U.S. public, in the Congress. The Syrians know it, and the U.S. military command knows it.

Thus, there is indeed a limit, in fact a very real and unpleasant and annoying one, to the military options available to the U.S., if indeed the Iraqi insurgency is due to porous Syrian borders.

(Parenthetically to Steve, this is what I am getting at on war and morality. Unless the people making the decisions for the U.S. military - the public - think it is "right" to invade Syria, then Syria will not be invaded. This means Syria can to some extent at least be a safe haven for Iraqi insurgents, at least theoretically. Thus morality has direct impact on the military prosecution of the Iraq war. You and I don't disagree on morality as much as differ on how often "push comes to shove", apparently.)

Second, I think it would be worth remembering, as the players in this issue (Syria government, Iraqi insurgents, U.S. command in Iraq, etc.) have certainly not forgotten, that it's not just the Syrians that police the Syria-Iraq border. If the U.S. and its Iraqi allies cannot keep line-crossers out of Iraq (and the Rio Grande shows the U.S. kinda sucks at this kind of job), then that failure is clear proof of the limitations of the U.S.-led government in Iraq. It sounds good - especially if you are looking to explain the limits of the U.S. supposedly awesome military machine - to say "the Iraqi insurgency would be nonexistant if only the Syrians would close their borders to foreign terrorists."

This is however an ignorant question which won't work in any place beyond an uneducated, mindlessly pro-U.S. military audience. While the U.S. administration makes its dark noises about Syria, pretty much every one else in the world is asking "If the Americans are so awesome and all-powerful, like they say they are, if they are so committed to Iraqi security, like they say they are, why don't the Americans close the durn border themselves?"

The answer is of course that the U.S. military can't manage that task given present resources, and that the U.S. populace is unwilling to make the commitment in money and lives to make that happen.

The U.S. government however cannot admit this, because the moment the concede they can't control the Syria-Iraq border and are unwilling to commit the resources to do it, the "stay the course" doctrine becomes exposed as fiction.

And so, rather than honestly face the reality that what needs doing can't get done, the U.S. administration just keeps its hand in the war, spending lives and money and repeating over and over everything will be fine.

This to me is a cardinal error of statesmanship, and exactly what is wrong with the Iraq picture. A responsible government does not spend lives and money on impossible tasks, and then lie about the chances of success. Just because the limited will of the voting public is the reason the task is impossible, is no reason to stick your head in the sand and pretend that it is possible.

I therefore question those in the thread blaming the media. Essentially, the media is reporting "The security situation in Iraq sucks, people are still dying." As long as people keep dying in terrorist acts, the insurgency obviously is continuing. It is nice of course to stick talking heads on the screen saying the insurgency is on the wane or the wax, but that's not the essense of the media's responsibility.

It is nice to point to a newly-built hospital. But if the Feds came into your neighborhood and built a hospital, and during the construction period insurgents killed one or two people on your block you had grown up with, which event would influence your view of the suburbs more? Don't forget if the suburbs are Iraq the number one priority for almost every one is not a higher material level of living, but rather the stability of the family unit.

For most Iraqis, newly-built building run by a corrupt government take a very distant second place to dead neighbors and even worse relatives.

The media's main job in Iraq is keeping tabs on the progress of the war against the insurgency. The measuring stick is terrorist acts, which cause the deaths the Iraqis are worried about. That's the reality.

Pretending the war would go better if there were more reports about heroic U.S. infantry protecting children or Halliburton building hospitals, and less about the umpteenth car bombing, is simply that: pretending. The war will be going better when the insurgency is defeated, and the insurgency will be defeated when it is unable to threaten the security inside the country in a major way - by killing people more or less at will.

[ November 28, 2005, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Bigduke6 ]

[Kellysheroes]

Are you running for congress BigDuke? Cause if you are I'll come vote for yah.

BRING OUR BOYS HOME!!

[Nidan1]

BigDuke,

Explain to me why the media chose to report the shooting of one insurgent in a Mosque in Fallujah, as if it were the only thing going on there at the time.

No reporting about how the sacrifices of American troops would mean safer neighborhoods in the rest of Iraq, or how Americans were forced to step up because the Iraqis were not capable of dealing with Fallujah on their own.

Are you saying that the only way that the Iraqi situation can be resolved is if American either club the inurgency into submission or just leave?

The media cannot have it both ways...if America steps up militarily, the reporting will be just as negative, I think. Right now the U.S. is damned whatever it does.

If someone were protecting your children, while you built up the ability to do it yourself, wouldn't you be appreciative in some small way? Why can't the media report both?

[Bigduke6]

Kelly's Heroes,

Thanks for the kind words but let's get more thought-out opinions on the table, like yours. Just because I type fast doesn't make me or any one else right.

Nidan1,

First, there is the practical problem that the country is not secure enough for most reporters to move about without risking their lives unreasonably. And don't forget, reporters can't shoot back.

Thus, reporters tend to go where U.S. forces can guarantee security. The options are basically the Green Zone, embedded with a U.S. combat unit, or at the scene of the latest bombing/killing/terrorist attack, as there are plenty of U.S. forces providing security there.

If you were a news editor and your job was to decide which news you want your reporter in Iraq covering, and the reporter wasn't suicidal, where would you send him?

Before you answer, remember that embedding means your reporter is tied to a single battalion and your reporter's ability to produce news under those circumstances is iffy at best. Most of the time nothing happens to combat units, and more so in Iraq. If the light colonel in charge of the battalion decides he's in a bad mood or how the reporter wrote a story about the porn movie a couple of his soldiers watched, the reporter spends a week with the cooks and the clerks and the chaplain, and he only gets to talk to the troops when the first sergeant brings in the chow, and that only if the first sergeant doesn't have it in for the press at the get-go as well.

And even if your reporter actually finds something interesting, it has to go by the censor.

So basically, if you embed your reporter, about 19 times out of 20 he's not going to have anything to report.

It ain't Vietnam where all a reporter needed to get where the action was a MACV accreditation and enough guts to board the helicopter. It seems to me a U.S. journo in Iraq actually has less ability to move about the theater, and definately less access to troops in combat, than Izvestia and Pravda reporters during the Great Patriotic War.

So where do you send your journo, Mr. Editor? Don't forget if you get the decision wrong not only might your reporter die (meaning not only you have to figure out how to replace him) but much worse you could get canned in a New York minute if your reporter misses the big story somewhere else.

(Yeah yeah, I know, the place to send the journo is on a long walk to the Tigris on a short bridge, har har har, shoot the reporter it's his fault.)

Second, since when is an American soldier just doing his job news? We have cops and firefighters, heck, doctors in ER wards treading AIDS-infected drug addicts, who have jobs a good deal dangerous than the overwhelming bulk of U.S. troops in Iraq. Do those civilians get written up as heroes? Do they do less for the U.S. society? Why are they less important than U.S. troops under on average a smaller personal risk in Iraq, for a much shorter period of time?

If I was a cop in a tough inner city, I might be kind of mad about all the rah-rah support the troops in Iraq are getting, when in fact the big threat to troops in Iraq is traffic accidents, with the insurgency harming fewer soldiers (I'm guessing here) than sports injuries. Here I am walking a beat, no air support or artillery on call, and I have to deal with these fanatical nutso drug dealers far better armed than I am. Deadly force is so proscribed to me so as to be useless, the populace hates me, and the job don't pay that well. And no one writes me up in the news as a hero. Is that fair?

Of course not. News reporting is not a pumpkin pie at a big family gathering, when aunt Floe gets a small slice because he's on a diet, and uncle Ralph gets a big slice because he likes pumpkin pie. News reporting is a business which sells information to people, with the qualification that the media selects the type of information it sells, based on what its customers are interested in.

Most news consumers could give a hoot about the details of the Iraq war, which troops are where, which high school private Schmedlap went to. Most news consumers want to know basic facts about Iraq - how's the war going, are the insurgents dead yet, how much is this going to cost, when's it going to be over - and then get on with their lives.

The answers to those questions is most simply expressed in the number of people the insurgents manage to kill.

One thing an editor knows for sure, none of those questions are answered by a report on "C" Company 502nd Bn 101st Airmobile, and how a bunch of high school grads hate MREs but all in all make a fairly disciplined military unit. That's kind of interesting if you're a military buff, but it has little to do with the success or failure of the insurgency.

Sure a report on the history of Mesipotamia would help, but this is 21st century America. Lots of people have trouble finding Baghdad on a map. Try to get uneducated morons like that to watch a show on (say) the civilizations of the Fertile Crescent. We both know what the public would do. Say: "That's too much like school" and change the channel. Maybe pro wrestling is on.

As to the prospects, well, you have my point of view exactly right.

Originally posted by Nidan1:

BigDuke,

Are you saying that the only way that the Iraqi situation can be resolved is if American either club the inurgency into submission or just leave?

Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. The Iraqis would rather fight a civil war among themselves than have the Americans in charge and actively eradicating an insurgency. I personally think that attitude makes little sense, the Americans are fairly careful about how they destroy things, and the really bloody wars always are civil wars.

I think the prevailing Iraq attitude - get the Americans out and life in Iraq will be safer - is quite possibly a pipe dream. But I am much more sure that the antagonism to foreign occupation is so strong across such a breadth of the Iraqi society, that it is useless for the U.S. to try and defeat an insurgency. They can't. The will is not there. Thus the "beat them into submission" option doesn't even exist.

Using hindsight, the people in charge of the U.S. should have realized an insurgency was really likely, and the logical implications that policy carried. They should have looked at the facts honestly, rather than just falling in love with expressions like "asymetrical warfare" and "outside the box thinking" and "sowing the seed of Democracy for the entire Middle East".

[aka_tom_w]

Good Post Big Duke, very insightful .... but,

What about the four permanent bases in Iraq?

Camp Anaconda will never be evacuated will it?

The Americans have a foothold in Iraq and with some REALLY large military bases there, they are sure to stay in those bases forever somewhat like bases in Japan and Germany after WWII.

Is that not correct?

-tom w

The supplemental funding bill for the war in Iraq signed by President Bush in early May 2005 provides money for the construction of bases for U.S. forces that are described as "in some very limited cases, permanent facilities." Several recent press reports have suggested the U.S. is planning up to 14 permanent bases in Iraq— a country that is only twice the size of the state of Idaho. Why is the U.S. building permanent bases in Iraq?

In May 2005, United States military forces in Iraq occupied 106 bases, according to a report in the Washington Post.1 Military commanders told that newspaper they eventually planed to consolidate these bases into four large airbases at Tallil, Al Asad, Balad and either Irbil or Qayyarah.

But other reports suggest the U.S. military has plans for even more bases: In April 2003 report in The New York Times reported that "the U.S. is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region."2 According to the Chicago Tribune, U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," to serve as long-term encampments for thousands of American troops.3

As of mid-2005, the U.S. military had 106 forward operating bases in Iraq, including what the Pentagon calls 14 "enduring" bases (twelve of which are located on the map) – all of which are to be consolidated into four mega-bases.

Click Here for more details about the bases identified above

web page about "enduring" bases in Iraq

[ November 28, 2005, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by BigDuke6:

.......Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. The Iraqis would rather fight a civil war among themselves than have the Americans in charge and actively eradicating an insurgency. I personally think that attitude makes little sense, the Americans are fairly careful about how they destroy things, and the really bloody wars always are civil wars.

I think the prevailing Iraq attitude - get the Americans out and life in Iraq will be safer - is quite possibly a pipe dream. But I am much more sure that the antagonism to foreign occupation is so strong across such a breadth of the Iraqi society, that it is useless for the U.S. to try and defeat an insurgency. They can't. The will is not there. Thus the "beat them into submission" option doesn't even exist.

Using hindsight, the people in charge of the U.S. should have realized an insurgency was really likely, and the logical implications that policy carried. They should have looked at the facts honestly, rather than just falling in love with expressions like "asymetrical warfare" and "outside the box thinking" and "sowing the seed of Democracy for the entire Middle East".

I must admit that I am starting to agree with your assessment. The more reading I do about Iraq and its history, the more I see that a lot of what I personally thought would happen was so much wishful thinking.

Its hard for me to admit that professional statesmen and military leaders in the US would be a naive' as me, but the possibility seems much more likely to me today, than it did two years ago.

The Iraqis know themselves far better than we know them, so the possibility exists for a draw down of the insurgency if the American troops leave in large numbers. My fear is for a rise in the influence of foreign trouble makers, but in any event the Iraqis have to deal with these problems on their own sooner or later.

Perhaps America should just chalk this up as another noble idea gone south and hasten the withdrawal of our people.

[Colin]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

BigDuke,

Explain to me why the media chose to report the shooting of one insurgent in a Mosque in Fallujah, as if it were the only thing going on there at the time.

No reporting about how the sacrifices of American troops would mean safer neighborhoods in the rest of Iraq, or how Americans were forced to step up because the Iraqis were not capable of dealing with Fallujah on their own.

Are you saying that the only way that the Iraqi situation can be resolved is if American either club the inurgency into submission or just leave?

The media cannot have it both ways...if America steps up militarily, the reporting will be just as negative, I think. Right now the U.S. is damned whatever it does.

If someone were protecting your children, while you built up the ability to do it yourself, wouldn't you be appreciative in some small way? Why can't the media report both?

Hey Nidan,

Now I know your post was directed at BigDuke (which BTW has singlehandedly put this thread back on track) but I have a couple thoughts also.

Re: the guy killed in a mosque. Mosques are holy so maybe this would have more meaning to someone concerned with Islam. I think a big part of is the limited access of embed. Perhaps the WP allegations would have come out earlier. If you are hearing about a major firefight on CNN you know the Americans came out on top. If you know there's a firefight going on and your only hearing about 1 Iraqi death you know the censors are working.

The problem is the US chose to go to war and has NEVER given any more information then what they could get away with. Any positive reports often appear staged and negative ones are always ripe with 'spintalk'. The US is fighting a media war as many have pointed out.

Now what gets me is the fact the US gets to, for the most part, choose what media is released. If there are no good reports coming out of Iraq through Western media channels, it comes down to two things.

Either the US doesn't want good reports coming out, or there are none. Occam's Razor applies here.

Now I know as of late there has been more journalistic freedom in Iraq and the reports haven't improved. I think this is even more telling. The problem with stories that shed the US in a good light is that the only group interested in reading them is a minorty that continues to support the US despite all the evidence that it's an illegitimate and poorly executed war.

Again some personally opinion will come into these discussion, simply because I believe that the US should have focused on grassroots reconstruction. I agree, that 'US soldier dies when insurgents attack aid distribution post' would be better then another 'IED attack on convoy, 3 dead' article. I would suggest that its been 3 years of this and the focus has never changed from a blind 'remove the insurgents' plan. I believe that it should have been 'remove support for the insurgents by doing things that will make our troops popular' rather then play directly into the US World Police stereotype.

Now just to put my view's in perspective I'm a 20 year old Canadian hippie so I don't have years of experience in this stuff. I've got my head on my shoulders and definetly am aware that there is a youth generation with a very different outlook on the US then the generation before. I know sometimes I come across poorly but just put me back in line and I'll learn from my mistakes.

Ohh just read that post about permanent US bases. When will the US administration admit the war has been a lie? Or at best a horrible series of mistakes which exposed a lie.

[ November 28, 2005, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Colin ]

[akd]

Originally posted by Nidan1:

BigDuke,

Explain to me why the media chose to report the shooting of one insurgent in a Mosque in Fallujah, as if it were the only thing going on there at the time.

No reporting about how the sacrifices of American troops would mean safer neighborhoods in the rest of Iraq, or how Americans were forced to step up because the Iraqis were not capable of dealing with Fallujah on their own.

...

If someone were protecting your children, while you built up the ability to do it yourself, wouldn't you be appreciative in some small way? Why can't the media report both?

Okay Nidan, I'll agree that there is a universal tendency in media to focus on the negative, but this is institutional rather than political. In fact, this tendency probably does more good in a free society in the long run by acting as a balance of power.

However, I'm surprised you can't see that the "facts" you don't understand the media not reporting on are in fact your political opinion, not to mention gross simplifications. It is fact that U.S. troops have a presence and make sacrifices in Iraqi neighborhoods. That this makes these neighborhoods safer is an opinion. It is a fact that the U.S. suppressed an insurgent stronghold in Fallujah. That this was the only course of action or the course of action that developed only because of Iraqi incompetence is an opinion. It is a fact that the U.S. is conducting security operations. That these operations lead to a net increase in people's feeling of security for their children is an opinion, and most importantly, a relative one. Do you really believe that Sunni Iraqis feel their children are safer since the U.S. intervened in Iraq? You want the media to report this as a fact?

Are you saying that the only way that the Iraqi situation can be resolved is if American either club the inurgency into submission or just leave?

The media cannot have it both ways...if America steps up militarily, the reporting will be just as negative, I think. Right now the U.S. is damned whatever it does.

And the current administration can't have it both ways either. They are the most powerful institution in the world. They can make and break nations. If they so choose, they can take life on a massive scale with little threat of outside intervention. Do they really need the media to help them out?

[Battlefront.com]

A quick thought... when I heard we were going into Iraq to liberate them, I thought "oh boy". The reason is rebuilding countries just defeated never works out well. Take a look at Bosnia and Kosovo for recent examples. Look at the problems in Afghanistan already showing before the invasion of Iraq. How many times must we sort out Haiti? So on and so forth.

Nation building is difficult, costly, time consuming, and generally not successfull for decades later. Unfortunately, neo-cons forgot to check up on their history books when they thought it could all be done within 8-12 months. Ugh.

Steve

P.S. Islam does not think of mosques like Christianity thinks of chuches. We've found that out the hard way. In Fallujah a full 80%+ of the Mosques were knowing to be used by insurgents. They in fact counted on the US not attacking them because of cultural misunderstandings.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

A quick thought... when I heard we were going into Iraq to liberate them, I thought "oh boy". The reason is rebuilding countries just defeated never works out well. Take a look at Bosnia and Kosovo for recent examples. Look at the problems in Afghanistan already showing before the invasion of Iraq. How many times must we sort out Haiti? So on and so forth.

Germany, Japan, Italy....I think they were done alright by, no?

[Colin]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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

A quick thought... when I heard we were going into Iraq to liberate them, I thought "oh boy". The reason is rebuilding countries just defeated never works out well. Take a look at Bosnia and Kosovo for recent examples. Look at the problems in Afghanistan already showing before the invasion of Iraq. How many times must we sort out Haiti? So on and so forth.

Germany, Japan, Italy....I think they were done alright by, no? </font>

[Peter Cairns]

One (all be it pretty off topic) issue that the likes of Pat Robertson raises with Venezula, is the role of private citizeans and article 2, the right to self defence.

We are all pretty much agreed that if a group sets up in the US to train terrorist to attack another country thats wrong and we stop it.

but what about radio stations or press adverts or the like. At what point can the US legitimately "bomb" a TV station, that is actively telling people to attack US troops, as opposed to reporting people saying it.

Example al jazeera in my view has done nothing wrong, it's reporting may be biased at times but it hasn't actively promoted, encouraged or advocated attacks on americans. But if it did could the US strike at it legitimately.

Now turn the tables, if the above is true, if say Rupert Murdoch has FOX news ( yeh that's a contradiction in terms) call for the people of Venezula to overthrow Chaveez, can they take action against him.

Peter.

[Bigduke6]

Germany, Italy, and Japan were industrialized nations that before the war were more or less on an economic and social par with the U.S. Japan less so, comments below.

In Germany and Italy the cultures literally were parent societies of the U.S. The societies were, for all the jokes about G.I.s and Frauleins, extremely close. Not least of all was that every one involved came from society stemming ultimately from western Christianity.

The democratic tradition in Italy is ancient - the Romans after all invented the word "senator". You also can see old democtratic roots in Germany (not all offshoots were pure Locke, admittely). From the moment of Christian settlement for practical purposes tiny German principalities had to cooperate with other tiny German principalities; and what's more, as far as I am aware, the tradition of free cities electing their councils and Buergermeisters is about twice as old as the U.S. itself.

So, when it came to building democracy and a modern industrialist economy hopefully not inclined to attack other countries in one of the European WW2 loser nations, history had done a lot of the Marshall plan's groundwork centuries ahead of time.

Funny when you come to think of it. Now, a mere fifty years later, Americans get mad at Germans and Italians because most Germans and Italians think sending your army into another country is a bad idea! Sheez! Peaceful Italians and Germans would have been a pretty good idea in 1939, after all. That attitude was the precise goal of the Marshall plan, and now the Americans are all irate.

Some people would say a country that changes its mind every half-century can't be worth much respect. Ask the Chinese, they aren't worried about Taiwan, because in a century it's going to be theirs anyway. I wonder what the Chinese think about Americans mad at Italians, Japanese, and Germans don't want much to send troops to Iraq?

I'm not being sarcastic, I just love that Graemlin.

Heck, you don't even have to look to Iraq. The occupied territories are a pretty good textbook for what happens when a mostly poor Muslim nation is occupied by an army from a non-Muslim culture. The Israelis (at least they said) weren't just fighting for democracy and rule of law, but the very existance of their country.

The Israelis bailed on Gaza, what, a couple of months ago? So all in all it took Gaza's Egyptian/Palestinian population about two generations of low-intensity insurgency to kick the Israelis out. By most standards that's pretty fast - the Crusaders were in place for close to a century. How long until the same thing happens on the West Bank? Seems to me like insurgency works.

As to the Japanese, they most certainly were occupied. Emperor Doug, remember? My understanding is that the Japanese national character and the overwhelming nature of the U.S. victory - atom bombing after all - convinced the bulk of the Japanese nation they couldn't beat 'em, so join 'em.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

A quick thought... when I heard we were going into Iraq to liberate them, I thought "oh boy". The reason is rebuilding countries just defeated never works out well. Take a look at Bosnia and Kosovo for recent examples. Look at the problems in Afghanistan already showing before the invasion of Iraq. How many times must we sort out Haiti? So on and so forth.

Nation building is difficult, costly, time consuming, and generally not successfull for decades later. Unfortunately, neo-cons forgot to check up on their history books when they thought it could all be done within 8-12 months. Ugh.

As a sidebar to that—which BTW I think is right on—when it was announced by Rumsfeld & Co. that "major operations" had ceased, I wrote to a friend, "The war is over. Now the killing will begin." I wish I had been wrong. I would very much rather have been wrong. But it really didn't take a genius with a crystal ball to predict that events would unfold pretty much as they have. To go into Iraq without any preparation for dealing with the aftermath, aside from pouring taxpayer's dollars into the pockets of certain huge corporations friendly to the administration, was not only madness, it was criminal.

How could the administation have thought that we would be welcomed as liberators by a populace ready and eager to govern themselves? By that point, virtually the only people with any experience at running the country were dead, prisoners, or on the run. It takes generations to build up the kind of culture and institutions that will sustain anything like a tranquil democracy. Lord knows, we have trouble enough right here in our homeland protecting our rights and getting informed citizen involvement in government.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Germany, Japan, Italy....I think they were done alright by, no?

Significantly different ballpark though. In the cases of Germany and Italy, those were Western countries who had a cultural heritage that overlapped ours to a very large degree going back for generations. They also had some experience with home grown democracy. Japan, though in a different cultural spectrum, had for some time been dedicated to modernizing if not precisely Westernizing its outlook and likewise had some experience at trying democracy.

In the case of countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, they are deeply rooted in a culture that is not only significantly alien but to some extent positively and stubbornly anti-Western. Self-governance in the way that we know it is almost unknown in their history.

I think the bland notion that Western style democracy can be readily grafted onto Arab or other Moslem cultures is purely a pipe dream. If democracy is to have a chance in those countries, it will have to be one that emerges from native traditions and values, and might not look a whole lot like our own.

Michael

[Drusus]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Second, since when is an American soldier just doing his job news? We have cops and firefighters, heck, doctors in ER wards treading AIDS-infected drug addicts, who have jobs a good deal dangerous than the overwhelming bulk of U.S. troops in Iraq.

I just have to comment on this. Some statistics follows.

Warning. The numbers are propably a bit off. And another warning. Its been a while since last time I did maths. But I am SURE somebody will correct my numbers and mathematics if they are wrong.

Ok, there are about 150000 US soldiers in Iraq. Every month this year there has been 70 casualties per month. That means your risk of getting killed is 70/150000 per month and it is 12*70/150000 per year. That means your risk of getting killed is about 0.0056. To get injured seriously (not returned in action during 72h) is about 3 times that. So, your risk of getting injured is 1.5% per year and to get killed is about 0.5%. If you worked for 30 years with those risks your chances of surviving would be about 84%. And to get out without being injured or killed is about

50%.

I don't really know what the risk are with firefighters and cops, but if they are that high I am suprised. I found a figure that says there have been 137 line-of-duty deaths this year in the USA. Now if being a cop is as risky as being a soldier in Iraq there would be about (137/11)/(70/150000) = 27000 officers in the USA. Ofcourse there are officers who are working in bad areas, and these are the ones Bigduke was talking about. And ofcourse he was talking about the overwhelming majority of the US soldiers. But if there have been about 7500 WIA and 2000 KIA during the war it would seem that if only a small portion of the forces had been taking the casualties, then everyone in that portion would be either KIA or WIA. And then ofcourse there is propably a big portion of the forces who are in almoust no risk jobs. But, 1) these are propably not the overwhelming majority and 2) every soldier who is in no risk will raise the risk for the ones "doing the job".

Sources:

Number of officers down

Casualties in Iraq

[Drusus]

Somebody was talking about crystal ball. So, here is my (quite dark) vision about the future of Iraq. In the future Iraq will be ruled by Shiites. The government will propably be democratic. It doesn't matter as the majority of Iraqs are Shiites. The government will be using very inhumane ways to get rid of the insurgency (Sunni and in a lesser extent, Kurd). The governemt will be no better for the Sunnis and Kurds than the Saddam's regime was for Shiites and Kurds. USA (and Europe too) will be supporting the democratic government of Iraq in its struggle for freedom. The oilfields in Iraq will be controlled by the US oil industry and some of them will be controlled by European oil industry. US Army will propably not be in Iraq in the way they are now. But they will definitely have bases in Iraq.

I hope I am wrong.

[Kellysheroes]

I tend to agree with you Drusus. One bad leadership is just going to be replaced by another. They are a differnt culture and will not 100% accept our doctrines or contitutions and freedoms we enjoy as Americans. It may be a deocratic government, but, it won't be like ours. It will have their rules and their laws and their chosen freedoms, etc. etc. And the Sunni's and Kurds will continue to reap the agony of it in the future.

Thing is we got the OIL rights, which was the origional plan all along. Unspoken of course, that wouldn't look good in the papers.

[ November 28, 2005, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Kellysheroes ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Drusus:

The government will be using very inhumane ways to get rid of the insurgency (Sunni and in a lesser extent, Kurd). The governemt will be no better for the Sunnis and Kurds than the Saddam's regime was for Shiites and Kurds.

Unless the US intervened, it seems to me that if the Kurds were dissatisfied with the final setup, they would simply break away and set up their own independent state. But maybe the threat of Turkish involvement would discourage that. Very complicated dynamics there. Almost anything could happen.

Michael

[akd]

Originally posted by Drusus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

Second, since when is an American soldier just doing his job news? We have cops and firefighters, heck, doctors in ER wards treading AIDS-infected drug addicts, who have jobs a good deal dangerous than the overwhelming bulk of U.S. troops in Iraq.

I just have to comment on this. Some statistics follows.

Warning. The numbers are propably a bit off. And another warning. Its been a while since last time I did maths. But I am SURE somebody will correct my numbers and mathematics if they are wrong.

Ok, there are about 150000 US soldiers in Iraq. Every month this year there has been 70 casualties per month. That means your risk of getting killed is 70/150000 per month and it is 12*70/150000 per year. That means your risk of getting killed is about 0.0056. To get injured seriously (not returned in action during 72h) is about 3 times that. So, your risk of getting injured is 1.5% per year and to get killed is about 0.5%. If you worked for 30 years with those risks your chances of surviving would be about 84%. And to get out without being injured or killed is about

50%.

I don't really know what the risk are with firefighters and cops, but if they are that high I am suprised. I found a figure that says there have been 137 line-of-duty deaths this year in the USA. Now if being a cop is as risky as being a soldier in Iraq there would be about (137/11)/(70/150000) = 27000 officers in the USA. Ofcourse there are officers who are working in bad areas, and these are the ones Bigduke was talking about. And ofcourse he was talking about the overwhelming majority of the US soldiers. But if there have been about 7500 WIA and 2000 KIA during the war it would seem that if only a small portion of the forces had been taking the casualties, then everyone in that portion would be either KIA or WIA. And then ofcourse there is propably a big portion of the forces who are in almoust no risk jobs. But, 1) these are propably not the overwhelming majority and 2) every soldier who is in no risk will raise the risk for the ones "doing the job".

Sources:

Number of officers down

Casualties in Iraq </font>