Confed999

My point exactly.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Trooth

I thought your point is that you will take away people's ability to fight by attacking them. My point is that the attack (perhaps unprovoked in their eyes) will be a call to arms.

Germany had a democratic ideal to restore. Iraq has none. Iraq's history is oppression. There is now a power vacuum, people are filling that vacuum through oppression. To those in the middle, all those using force are oppressors including the US/UK. That is why the Shia (Saddam's enemies) are now fighting the US.

On top of that Germany was a largely secular (well if you discount the occult) society based on the rule of Law - which is largely man's law. Iraq is a muslim nation, even if Saddam wasn't a good muslim As has often been stated, Allah's law is not up for interpretation. But allah's law is being denied by the "oppressors".

Confed999

My point is to treat the enemy like the enemy.
Then they forefit their lives, and the lives of those around them. If they were that close to taking up arms, then they were allready the enemy, they're just comming out of the closet.
What power vacuum? The Coalition is the federal and some local governments.
They are Saddam's enemy, but that doesn't make them our friends. The Shia groups fighting the Coalition never liked us, we knew that. They are the enemy, just as all hardliners are.

Praxus

Riddle me this...

Did Japan ever have even a semi-free society previous to the US unilaterly setting one up in Japan after the end of the 2nd World War?

Trooth

The coalition isn't in control of, say, Fallujah. The Coalition isn't even a paper organisation, its a loose group of like minded nations, that doesn't have a mandate. Its a PR weapon, not a political or, really, a military one. Its certainly not an organisation that i would imagine the lcoals respect. The US, yes, the UK, yes, in fact any of rthe nations on the ground, but not the coalition.

The problem is what people are pushed to. I agree that if they are that willing to fight, perhaps they were never going to be our friends. Which sadly has to be put down to more bad judgement and local knowledge on our part. However we also have to consider their situation and viewpoint. They don't know what you know.

It wouldn't surprise me if they view the current US/UK occupation as an unprovoked invasion. Regardless of what people think Saddam has done, the people know less, probably, than we do. They certainly would see that this is the second time they have been invaded since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. This time Iraq hadn't invaded anyone, and didn't appear to be militarily threatening its neighbours. As far as Saddam's propoganda was going, they were complying with the UN, who were, by the way starving the local population. That is more likely to be their background and perception. Unless we try to change that, people are going to pick up arms. I don't want to be killing people who simply make judgements on the information they have available. I get the impression that people are expecting the Iraqis to be watching BBC World / CNN International and making sober judgements. But they are not.
Its a cycle of violence and i only see two ways for it to end. The first is that we (the invaders) take a step back. The invasion is over, the regime has been deposed and, from a WMD etc perspective we have control now over Iraq's arms. Iraq is not a threat to anyone but Iraq, at the moment.

The second is that we let the cycle turn into a spiral and we end up killing everyone. I don't call that liberation.

The problem i have is that we have gone down the second route. It is, in my opinion going to lead to either anarchy or us acting as occupiers for decades (and fighting all that time).

We need to work out what it is we want to achieve, long term, and plan how we are going to do it. Is June 30th realistic? What is it we want to achieve by June 30th? If the Iraqi's police can't maintain order by that time, do we need to put some Iraqi's in control of coalition forces? Do we need to scrap the coalition (which means nothing) and get the blue berets in there. If so, we had better get making nice to the UN, to the member states that are not in the coalition to get them on side. We might need some humility, we might need to say "we could do with some help" rather than "its your responsibility".

I think the first step is to call a ceasefire on our part and to withdraw to positions that we hold completely. This might be interpreted as weakness, but as we have complete air and land supremecy with the big blunt weapons then the insurgents can have their brief feeling of victory.

We need to get the Iraqi's talking to each and the Iraqi's in power. Let them have theocratic leaders if thats what they want, if thats who they will listen to. Its their country, their ways, their beliefs. Until we get the elections going it is an interim government anyway we can always put fixed terms, quotas on it and get it swapped out. But the most important thing is to get rid of the westerners in suits and the military men from being the public face of power in Iraq. Lets get people in local garb speaking Arabic.

Trooth

So we should Nuke Iraq?

Confed999

The local government was still in charge there, answering to the Iraqi Council, answering to the Coalition. The Coalition is the countries currently involved in direct economic and military assistance in Iraq. I don't care if they wrote anything down or not, that's the name they've been given.
We knew they didn't like us. These particular leaders have been watched for months, and at least one has an arrest warrent from 2 months ago, just made public in March. These hardliners need to be dealt with.
To turn over BASIC control of federal and local government to Iraqis, until elections can be held to elect a legislature. Security won't change, nobody has ever said it would.
We've been asking for their help for a decade and change. Nobody is stopping them from comming. Why scrap the Coalition, it's allready done more for Iraq than the UN has, they're allready trying to help.
Read their mandate and the resolutions involving Iraq and tell me it's not.
They have them, and the ones not causing problems aren't being hunted.
That's the goal, but it's going to be a long bloody road getting there. There are still alot of bad guys in Iraq that must be "removed".
Praxus gives a good example and that's your reply? Whatever...

Trooth

Well if Japan is being used as an example i think we have to have ensure the contexts are valid.

Aside from the Japanese people starving due to their infrastrcuture and supply lines being cut, they were then devasted by two atomic bombs that killed some 200,000.

After that Japan wasn't in a position to do anything. It was clear that if they didn't capitulate unreservedly another city would get nuked and so on.

Iraq is not devstated in the same manner. The coalition tried, during the invasion not to devastate Iraq. It was a war of liberation, it wasn't a war to the death with only one country to remain standing out of the US / Iraq (as US v Japan was - there was never going to be a draw or stalemate in WWII).

If you wish to use Japan as a parallel then surely you have to get the Iraqis into the same situation. Hence my response, should we nuke Iraq? If we did, then we would have the Iraqi's in the same isutation and i am sure imposing a unilateral government would be realtively straight forward. I wouldn't call that liberation, however.

Praxus

That's irrelivent to the Conversation, you implyed by your statement that only nations with a former "democratic" system could become free again. Japan shows that this is not the case.

You are just deflecting my point and switching it to something that you view you have the moral high ground on.

Confed999

If you take that stand, then Japan should actually have been harder to change to democracy. That is, if you're still using your previous reasoning that a heavy handed approach results in more enemies.

Praxus

Good Job Confed

You just reduced his argument into absurdity:-D

Ray

Confed,

I will disagree with you on the Japan issue.

Buddhism is a 'calm' religion. For the want of a better word, I will say that they base their religious philosophy on 'sacrifice' for acheiving 'moksha' ('relief' is the nearest translation I could think of) through self sacrifice and achieving 'nirvana'. Therefore, no catastrophe would really affect a practising Buddhist.

On the other hand, Islam is 'militant'. It is unforgving to what they feel is injustice. To die for Islam is to reach heaven. Others may contest this philosophy as being beyond logic, but then that is not how a Moslem thinks or learns to think for childhood.

That is the difference. One religion is all forgiving and the other is all NOT forgiving and instead believe in revenge! Therefore, the later philosophy that is based on revenge will ony increase the number of self sacrificing human suicide bombs as the violence increases and more of them die to US bombing etc.

Having combated insurgency for quite a long span of my army service, including against the Muslim terrorist infiltrating from Pakistan, I can state with some conviction that heavy handedness cannot achieve results. It requires an 'iron fist in a velvet glove' ethos. Calm and a balanced approach I found achieved the maximum results. It must be remembered that all are not militants. A large majority want to lead normal lives. It is this majority that must be kept on your side. Of course, this majority may not agree with you (since you are governed by ROE and law while the terrorists aren't, these terrorists being accountable to none and can run amok even with attrocities against the silent majority that wants a normal life and thereby buy their support through fear of lawless killings).

A contemporary example is that though Basra has had a few bombinga, yet the British held areas are relatively calm compared to the US held areas. One can't call the British lily livered by any shade of imagination!

There are many reasons why the US held areas are targetted and a easy meat for the radical and rabid militants. One is the US philosophy of shoot first and then talk. It might have merits but then it does not work in a highly charged environment where the population feels aggrieved, rightly or wrongly. The second aspect is that what is possibly rankling the Iraqis is the 'tough' and insensitive language that the US Generals are prone to use. It is like throwing the gaunlet or showing a red rag before a bull. In highly charged atmospheres, temperate language goes a long way.

An idependent observer like me who has no stakes in Iraq also feel most uncomfortable when Kimmit (?) (the General) and another Brigadier give their press statements. Blair says about the issue on the same lines but he does not come out offensive. In fact, the greatest thing about Blair is that he almost appears persuasive in his quest to prove that the whole show is hunky dory. And sometimes, you are left doubleminded. That is the psycholoigcal victory that is required.

Now take the Afghanistan issue. None are complaining or grousing about it. It was carpet bombed and it was worse in military show of might than Iraq. The faint hearted should have bawled over the 'attrocities'. None did. Why? Because, there was no heavy handedness or insensitive press statements from military martinets.

One may say that the military chaps are not versed in diplomacy. That may not be true. The rat race teaches all the 'finer' aspect of survival!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Officer of Engineers

Sir,

The official religion of the Imperial Japanese Empire was Shintoism, litterally a religion of the Imperial throne, akin to the God-Kings of old. And Hirehito was pro-expansionism and thus, so were the Shinto practitioners.

__________________
Chimo

Ray

I am sure they also dont like the British, Polish, Spanish. Yet, why is the US areas drawing maximum flak.

I am sure none would like any foreign countries to dictate terms or even affect their lifestyle. This is universal a feeling. Even non militants are not liked 'overstaying' the hospitality, for example the Mexican illegals in the US, the immigrants who swamp the UK. or the Bangladeshis who swamp India.

Therefore, it might be better to review and redirect the flow of events with calm and compassion.

Further, there is no civil administration in Iraq. It is just an illusion. It is not representative of the aspirations of the Iraqi people. That is why the rejected the new flag for Iraq and burnt it publicly.

Hving said that, I will also concede, I see no ray of hope. All are stuck in Iraq and the world economy is in serious trouble if the oil does not flow. The blokes have even target the Basra Terminal.

Ray

Colonel,

I am aware of it. But I was just talking of Buddhism which was the basic religious platform for the various derivatives.

My sister in law is a Japanese Buddhist! And I have been under a heavy barrage of Buddhism from her!

Further, I don't think one could compare the US approach to Japan and Iraq. In Iraq, the intentions were not to harm Iraq or to bring them to heel or to humiliate them into submission. However, some one down the line blundered! Reminds me of Tennyson's Charge of the Light Brigade.