What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

dicktice · 2004-05-19 09:08:30

I think your levity regarding "tactical nukes shuffled into the deck" and "chemical suits and gas masks for Hallowe'en" is disgusting. "Plenty of soldiers volunteering for the Air Force" is an oxymoran, when you realize what the Infantry has to look forward to. "Maybe turning Mecca into a smoking hole," is the expression of someone too old to be drafted into the moppin-up operation. History repeats for those who don't understand history, I've heard, and most of the preceding observations regarding warfare show no understanding of what actually took place leading up to, during and immediately following WWII. The lessons are there in the archives, filmed in colour with sound, with all the realism needed to get the message. (Unlike WWI, which was the Gas War, where the filming wasn't realistic enough to be tangible.) Why didn't they go after Hitler, personally, with suicide bombers, you may ask. Why don't we really go after Osama ben Laden?--ask yourself that. It would seem to be easy enough, if you don't mind sdacrificing yourself, doing it. This is a conflict between individules who like to terrorize, not for massive armies and machines which were thought up during the Cold War. Brawn baffles brains. Somebody's got to get smart, or any prospect for Mars First goes down the drain.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-19 09:15:15

I think your levity regarding "tactical nukes shuffled into the deck" and "chemical suits and gas masks for Hallowe'en" is disgusting.

It's not levity. I don't think this the least bit funny nor am I trying to make light of it. But I'm not going to walk around with a blank expression, carefully choosing words to be as bland as possible. If you're offended I make no apologies, but to offend was not my intent.

dicktice · 2004-05-19 09:29:44

Not offended, and nothing personal intended. Just disgusted, that the situation prompts such rhetoric. I'll delete it tomorrow, when I've thought of a counter-argument which applies to today.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-19 10:11:42

Not offended, and nothing personal intended. Just disgusted, that the situation prompts such rhetoric.

Can't argue with that. Bad situation that's only getting worse.

Palomar · 2004-05-19 10:12:54

Gas masks and chemical suits for Halloween? ???

*I didn't take your statement for levity.

Interesting that "The Great Pumpkin" was mentioned in a different thread, just a few minutes ago.

Well, I am a bit worried, but this Halloween I think I'll pass out candy and goodies dressed as a good ol' 1960s Flower Child...with Beatles music playing in the background.

I probably shouldn't have posted that article. I am trying to live my life as joyfully as possible, regardless of what may come.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-05-19 10:25:00

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking … tm]Members of the House criticize the Senate's Abu Ghraib prison inquiry.

They say it undermines the wr effort.

Heck, I thought building an Iraqi society where the average Iraqi supported us was the war effort. Even if the US media shuts up about Abu Ghraib, the Iraqis sure as heck know what is going on.

clark · 2004-05-19 10:27:49

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/? … ct]TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB

By SEYMOUR M. HERSH

I suggest all who have not read this article, do so. It is a rather revealing look into what is happening, and why it's gotten this far.

Cobra Commander · 2004-05-19 10:28:33

I probably shouldn't have posted that article. I am trying to live my life as joyfully as possible, regardless of what may come.

The trick to that is taking the situation seriously without being too serious all the time, I think. As a nation we're going to develop a black sense of humor before this over. I've seen it on a smaller scale before.

I suppose I can see how someone might not take my "chemical suit" comment too well. Ah well, the times we live in.

Bill White · 2004-05-19 10:38:46

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/? … ct]TORTURE AT ABU GHRAIB
By SEYMOUR M. HERSH
I suggest all who have not read this article, do so. It is a rather revealing look into what is happening, and why it's gotten this far.

Then read this:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/]http:/ … d/4999734/

and then link through to the actual text of the White House memo and Colin Powell's reply.

Mundaka · 2004-05-20 11:13:49

Palomar · 2004-05-21 09:47:14

*I'm deleting what I'd written earlier in this post. I agree with another New Mars members' request for "lightening up" a bit.

Good idea.

Sorry for any inconvenience I might have caused others.

--Cindy

Gennaro · 2004-06-01 22:39:47

I know the discussion has moved on to a new thread, I just wanted to reply to this one.

No, the US did not supply the chemical weapons. Several European countries were involved in that.

The US did supply such weapons/the chemicals to produce them as did other countries. It was even in the Washington Post.
So what of it? Back then it was US foreign policy. I find it implausible that European countries set off US foreign policy.

No, President Bush never said they were about to launch a WMD strike. What he said was that Iraq had the capability to provide terrorists such materials in the future. He never used the 'imminent threat' language wrongly attributed to him. His reasoning was that by the time it was an imminent threat, it would already be too late. As it turns out, he was wrong about the WMD, though in all fairness the only people who knew the truth appear to have been the Iraqis who were supposed to be making the WMD's, as everyone (including Saddam) thought he had them before the war.

I don't remember who said what exactly at the time. Only that America was bound up in this terrorist thing and a lot was said on the TV screens while the rest of the world simply stood by and shook their heads in bewilderment.
My countryman Mr Blix never found any weapons, but wasn't listened to. Instead he was laughed at and ridiculed while at the same time he had the impression the US was pushing for war WMD's or no WMD's. He's a very angry man these days.

"Ask yourself" is always asked with the overtone of "It's your fault!" It isn't, at least here; Islamic fundamentalism crops up from time to time whenever there's a general failure in Islam as a whole. It's a historical pattern and has more to do with economic sluggishness and other (non-Israel) factors. Rage over Israel is a symptom, not a cause.

True, but in fact it's both a symptom and a cause. The Palestinian conflict did not start in 1948 but in 1917 when a certain third party simply decided to give away a certain post-Turkish territory to some complete stranger.
I never suggested Israel be shut down, only that it's Israel's headache if they want to keep their acquisition. Why should the rest of the world bother about an entirely self-inflicted and self-sustained dilemma?
Besides, don't get alarmed about my suggestion of self query. I'm not an America basher and my intent was not bashing or putting any specific blame on America.

No, Israel does not call the shots. Get a grip. Conspiracy theories aren't worth squat.

I never said Israel was calling any shot. I mentioned agents of Israel. People who are ardent Zionists besides being and having opinions about a lot of things else.
What does Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Fleischer, Zakheim and the rest of the boys all have in common? Get a grip.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-02 06:16:42

My countryman Mr Blix never found any weapons, but wasn't listened to. Instead he was laughed at and ridiculed while at the same time he had the impression the US was pushing for war WMD's or no WMD's.

And that is cause for concern, but the real reason for that concern is often missed. It's a matter of historical record that Iraq had chemical weapons. Blix didn't find them. So where the hell are they?

I've come to respect Gennaro's opinions and he makes some good points. All I'm saying is that while the Iraq invasion may not have been strictly necessary, this war is bigger than Afghanistan. Either the Arab world or the United States is going to come out of this fundamentaly altered. Focusing on one of the many reasons for this action and claiming non-confirmation of it as negation of the entire justification serves no useful purpose. The motives may have been clouded, but we've done a good thing there.

Gennaro · 2004-06-02 10:54:08

Cobra, the respect is reciprocal.

In a previous post you said that this might have to become an armed all out cultural conflict between the Occident and the Middle-east. Not because we like it to, but because that's where the policy pursued has taken us.

Suppose, you're right. Well... then at least you can count on my sword. I just hate being taken for a ride, that's all.

Otherwise, what I would do if I controlled the US, would be simply to get the hell out of there and hand over power to an Iraqi regime provided they are legitimate in the eyes of the Iraqis (I'd simply let them choose), and forget all about democracy and similar nonsense. The Baathists come to mind as a natural candidate.
In exchange for material and political support, and no meddling with their natural resources etc, before you know it you'd have a reliable buffer against Islamist terror and insurrection. They really just want you to leave, the population is honest about that. Besides, it's better to trust secular Arab nationalists than a double-crossing fundamentalist monarchy like Saudi Arabia, anyway.
Then the US and the rest of us can move on to better and more meaningful things than war, like recreating the energy sector and settle Mars.

It could be bad for the Kurds though, I know a few and honestly feel sorry for them, but there it is. On the other hand, conflicts in this extremely ethnocentric part of the world will always remain an unsolveable endless nightmare. Just look at Palestine.
The only alternative to the aforementioned would as far as I can see to go all hog, perhaps giving the Kurds a state in the north and the Shiites one in the south and proclaim colonial rule in central Iraq. Make it a permanent protectorate and explain to the masses in plain Roman that the Iraqis are a conquered people, that any insurrection will result in public execution, yet no harm will come those remaining peaceful. Let them keep their thoughts and customs and opinions about you to themselves, show respect to their culture but raze mercilessly to the ground every mosque giving proof of resistance. Be equally as harsh to your own troops.

This won't work flawlessly, but appearing honest is the best you can do at the present time. The worst thing you can do is appearing as their tutors. They'll find it disrespectful and hypocritical and hate you for it.

If we are to continue this discussion, I suggest we move it to the new thread before this one breaks down to hell.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2004-05-19 09:08:30

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#202 2004-05-19 09:15:15

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#203 2004-05-19 09:29:44

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#204 2004-05-19 10:11:42

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#205 2004-05-19 10:12:54

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#206 2004-05-19 10:25:00

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#207 2004-05-19 10:27:49

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#208 2004-05-19 10:28:33

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#209 2004-05-19 10:38:46

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#210 2004-05-20 11:13:49

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#211 2004-05-21 09:47:14

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#212 2004-06-01 22:39:47

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#213 2004-06-02 06:16:42

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

#214 2004-06-02 10:54:08

Re: What if we lose #2 - Further thoughts

Board footer