Officer of Engineers

Sir,

I am sorry. I am so, so, so, so, sorry for you. God, I am sorry for you. I have got a cousin who's also into religion (she's a Catholic) and there are times, I just wish she would shut up. Oh, I know how you feel. I am so sorry, Sir.

__________________
Chimo

Ray

Colonel,

My posts are not to make a statement that Confed, Praxus or Trooth are wrong or right.

It is just to highlight that cultural sensitivity that has to be taken into consideration in warfare like Iraq, where one is fighting with one hand tied to the back.

Iraqi Islam is different to Saudi Islam as it is different to the Indian subcontinental Islam or European Islam. The book maybe the same, but the cultural effect and history also plays a part. To my mind, the Iraqis after being subjugated by Saddam would be either docile or very volatile with the new found freedom!

These insurgency related warfare blurs the dividing line between military force, politics, economical soundness and culture. Hence, it becomes awfully difficult to conduct a purely military campaign.

Like Buddhism that you understand may not be the same as I understand (BTW, my battalion was staffed by Indian Buddhists, whose philosophy was totally different to my sister in law's phliosophy and yet both are Buddhists!) Japanese Buddhism has no commonality (as I perceive) to the Indian Buddhist. And the Shintos are belligerent.

What a complex world!

__________________


"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

Trooth

It isn't contradictory at all. The US did not wage all out war with Japan because it wanted to liberate the people. It did not wage a limited war, it waged all out war. Japan had physically attacked the US on American soil was evidently capable of doing so and of restricting US interestes in the pacific. It had allied itself with countries that were actively trying to destroy US allies in Europe and US interests in Europe. As far as the US military was concerned in Japan, and as far as 40s thinking went, targetting and killing huge numbers of civilians was acceptable. The only outcome of WWII was the the US or Japan would prevail. The US never tried to portray itself to the Japanese as anything but an enemy.

Iraq has always been a war about liberation, allegedly. It has always been a limited war. Iraq was never going to invade the US etc. Granted there was a lot of talk about how Iraq was going to attack the US by WMD. But people on this board have said that wasn't the reason for the war. The US strategy in Iraq was to minimise collateral damage and civilian casualites. Regardless of anything, all would agree there was no danger of Iraq launching a direct military offensive agains US soil as Japan was capable of.

The parallel would be better served if Bush had, shortly after his "Axis of Evil" speech, launched a nuclear strike on, say, Tikrit. Or, if Nukes are now not as sexy as they were 60 years ago, launched a Bomber Harris style firebombing of Iraqi cities. Had waged all out "last man standing" war.

Then the people of Iraq would have no fight in them. But equally they would know that they were not being liberated, they were to be beaten into the ground. Instead America is your friend, Saddam is your enemy.

Post Vietnam, America doesn't fight all out wars in this manner. Every war has to be a limited, surgical engagement, with each deployment troops having their withdrawal date announced to the world. In fact tehy aren't really referred to was wars any more. Fox News likes "Amrica at War" type splashes, but the US governemnt talks of engagenemtns and operations.

The US had no intention of getting out of Japan after 18 months. It was in for the long haul to prop up whatever society was created out of the rubble of WWII. The US has always intended to put a limited window on its involvement in Iraq.

They are different scenarios in my mind and therefore require different treatment. I have never thought that Iraq required firebombing etc. Because it was never a fight to the death for all concerned.

Ray

Trooth,

What is your problem? You should support your govt. You voted for it.

If Blair finds it OK to hold the gonads of Bush, whats your hassle?

I am sure Bush would be having huge gonads (never saw it though! and don't want to see it). Remember, Atlas had the world on his shoulder. I wonder when it will shrug!

Trooth

I did vote for it.

However i don't trust Blair anymore. It isn't so much that he is untrustworthy, he is just acting above his position. He is making promises only Parliament can truly make. He ain't our head of state and shouldn't act like it.

Confed999

It wasn't meant as a comparison to Iraq, it was a contradiction to Trooth's previous statements.
There are ALOT more US areas, over 10x more.
You're right, it's an occupation still, but there is no power vacuum either. Seems like a bunch of mean a** holes taking the chance to get some power while the US will *****-foot around and make a deal with them. I think this is the wrong plan.
You said that heavy handed tactics create enemies. I can think of nothing more heavy handed than a pair of atomic bombs. It's contradictory even if you don't see it that way.
They were still liberated.
I guess your news doesn't cover the US well. The US is in Iraq for the long haul, if it weren't the US would allready be gone.

__________________
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

Praxus

"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"."
-Trooth on the 28th of April

Here he is implying that only "largely secular societies" based on the "rule of law" can become free nations. But this contradicts the fact that Japan prior to MacCarther unilaterialy setting a free nation up, never had a "largely secular society" or the "rule of law".

Premiss: A - "I don't see how who started it has anything to do with how it is finished. I believe there are certain tactics that are likely to cause the war on terror to lengthen, Carpet bombing would be one of them."
-Trooth on the 27th of April

"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."
-Trooth on the 28th of April

Premiss: B - "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. "
-Trooth on the 18th of April

Now you are claiming that this is a non-contradiction. But this can not be the case.

Premiss A says that firebombing and carpet bombing cities will only enbolden in the enemy and will never solve anything, while Premiss B says that if destroy one city after another they will have to surrendur.

These two statements can not coexist within the same argument.

Trooth

Who is "he"? Are you playing to the crowd or debating with me?

Germany had a democractic base to return to. Germany was not nuked. The Nazis were worn down. The Japanese did not have a democractic tradition to return to, were led by a god, were attacked with a weapon to which there was no conceivable answer.

Yes they can, because Carpet bombing and nuking are not the same thing.

Carpet bombing kills lots of people, but takes many waves to do it. In between the people can meet, discuss, mourn, complain, plot revenge etc. Nuking a city is literally done in a flash and, in the case of the Japanese, there is no revenge they could plot but tens of thousands are dead in a second. Equally their God was clearly not as powerful as they had thought and therefore the right of his cause was brought into question. Which was the reason he was forced to tour the ravaged and starving country after the war.

Which is why i asked you if you would advocate nuking Fullujah. Because if you do, and you can get Allah to tour the ruins, you are comparing apples with apples. Otherwise you are comparing Carpet bombing Fallujah, with say the Blitz or perhaps the bombing runs on Vietnam.

Praxus

Excuse me firebombing is just as effective. Just look at Tokyo and Dresden.

Japan surrendured because they were facing complete anihalation, doesn't matter if it was from firebombs or nuclear weapons. Nukes just made it easier. After firebombing most of their major cities, then nuking two more, and then having their army in Manchuria butchered by the Soviets we zapped away their will to fight.

So essentially what you are saying is that Leveling Cities only takes away their morale if it is done by nukes. I don't know how you could came to this conclusion, it is likely you backed yourself into it because of your obviously contradicting statements.

Also how can you compare it Carpet Bombing Fullujah to the Blitz?

The Germans never had a four engine bomber to deliver a massive payload and last time I checked the British had an airforce!

Comparing it to Vietnam is even more rediculus, we are talking about a city in the middle of the desert, there is no way to hide.

Comparing it to the firebombing of dresden and tokyo and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki however are completely legitiment.

Trooth

What corner? I don't think Carpet bombing would be a good idea. You offered up Japan which i don't think is a valid comparison- hence my question regarding nuking iraq). I agree carpet bombing fullujah would be more in keeping with dresden (or the blitz, or even the mass bombing raids of Vietnam).

I am not comparing the tactics as military operations. I am comparing the affect on the populace. Fallujah doesn't have air protection. But then it won't get levelled in a single night by carpet bombing, whereas it would with a nuke.

You offered the Japanese comparison, which i don't think is valid - WWII and the war on terror are nothing like each other. Also you are unlikely to get Allah in a nice Rolls Royce and drive him around devastation. Therefore the people are unlilkely to see that a mere man has led their country to its knees/

Either way i wouldn't advocate Nukes or carpet bombing. As i have argued, carpet bombing would not win anything. It would just lead to lots of dead, and lots more extremists because the American infidel has just laid waste to their cities.

The forces in the area seem to have decided less is more.

EDIT : It occurs to me i may have given the impression all i am referring to is those under the bombers. There are going to be uprising in more places if you took carpet bombing tactics. People just don't like being killed.

tw-acs

The use of Nukes and Fire bombs and hell war is not necessary if you are smart enough to not make a fist.

Praxus

How can you pretend to claim that firebombing a city to the ground will encourage enemy fighting but nuking it to the ground will discourage enemy fighting.

Name me one war that was won by "winning their hearts and minds". You have to strike the fear of God in them, you have to make them see you as an unstoble force.

Trooth

Normally people fight against the agressor and most hearts and minds fall into place. In this "regime change" war, we are the aggressor. I know you don't see it that way, but if you put yourself into the shoes of someone in Iraq who has lost friends and relatives, property, jobs etc, through the coalition invasion. How would you feel? Remember you have been told for a long time these people are the great satan.

It isn't like we are liberating the Iraqi's from a foreign occupying power. We have invaded Iraq, killed Iraqis and removed Iraqi's from power. And, as far as they were concerned, Iraq had been a victim of the west sanctions etc for ten years and wasn't militarily active. That is the hearts and minds bit. Convincing them that we are here for their benefit. This is the bit tha ti think is tricky to do in a tank, or using mortars.

Praxus

Liberation does not mean replacing one dictatorship with another. Liberation means to bring liberty. A theocracy or any other collectivst Government by it's nature can not bring liberty.

Giving them what they want(a theocracy) is exactly contrary to the idea of Liberation. We liberated Japan and we liberated Germany but we didn't do it through giving them what they wanted. We did it by convincing them we were right and destroying thoose who would use force against us.

We shouldn't invade a country for souly their benefit. The war should be in our self-interest but it is certainly in our self-interest to create a fee friendly nation.

Trooth

Its the convincing bit that we are struggling with. Because i don't class killing people as convincing them. I am not saying force is never required, i am saying, that it will not solve the problem by itself. It will at best suppress it until whatever iron grip we put on the people is relaxed.

I would also be concerned that unless they get the government that they want, they won't respect it and will feel oppressed. As the saying goes "perception is truth".

EDIT : I have no problem with countries declaring a self interest. But this time around we didn't do that. I agree free nations make ours safer. But that wasn't what was declared, so i can't see anyone declaring it now, not with the problems Bush and Blair are facing at home.