Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Palomar · 2005-07-13 13:13:14

What we need is good police psychological work, also called profiling

*And that'll bring up charges of "racism."

Back to square one on that issue.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-13 13:19:41

It seems you think that since ‘these people’ are used to being ruled forcefully, we need to mimic such roles. This of course undermines the very reason we went there in the first place, remember? We went in precisely because ‘these people; were being ruled forcefully.
Now you're being just as unrealistic as the neo-con post-war planners. There is a timeframe for these things to occur. For all the citing of Germany and Japan done from the Right they miss a crucial point. In both cases, while we did eventually build a free democratic nation, when we first went in we told people what to do with guns in our hands. Only after order was imposed did we start with all the pie-in-the-sky democracy stuff.
In Iraq we may get lucky and it'll work. But we still would have been better served not skipping that impose order phase.

I agree with Cobra on this point.

I have read that Saddam was astonished we actually invaded because he knew better than anyone how hard it was to keep all the tribes in line. Sunni / Kurd / Shia just begins to descibe the complex web of tribal relations.

Some say that only Saddam-like tactics could keep Iraq together as a single nation - - a nation created out of thin air by some Brits drawing lines on a map.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

That said, whacking Saddam and giving the keys to Sistani and then leaving might have worked. But no, Bush wanted empire.

= = =

Weak Roman is very bad yet we Americans are not up to being strong Roman - - therefore we should not even attempt empire building in the Roman style.

Edited By BWhite on 1121282489

BWhite · 2005-07-13 13:23:09

What we need is good police psychological work, also called profiling
*And that'll bring up charges of "racism."
Back to square one on that issue.
--Cindy

No, we need to employ nuance. :;):

The really hard part will be to have the confidence to stay the course when Karl Rove types bash Democrats for wanting to use "therapy" and to mock any strategy that is deemed insufficiently macho.

Edited By BWhite on 1121282751

clark · 2005-07-13 13:34:50

ude, I specifically said on at least two occasions that the pig-bullet idea wasn't practical. I never defended it. I'm not talking about bloody bullets, merely using the already raised example as a starting point to open a discussion of a wider issue.

What wider issue? You want the US military to take a harder stance in Falluja? Invade again? They left because they couldn’t hold it without inflicting serious damage to civilians and increasing the US body count. They have enough problems dealing with just Baghdad.

There are too few troops to be everywhere at once.

That's the question isn't it. From an American perspective it depends on who you ask and who they want to blame for failures, real or imagined.
But from the perspective of both terrorists and the average MidEast civvie, the "we" is the US in its entirety. Drawing dinstinctions doesn't matter from that angle. "We", meaning you, me, Cindy, Bill, George Bush, Harry Reid, and the entire cast of the Muppets invaded.

Oh please, to assume that we have to walk in lock step on these issues lest we show weakness in the face of our opposition is unrealistic and unwarranted. We are a democracy witch usually means a range of expressions and opinions can be espoused freely.

Viewpoints are made, but I once again point out that our actions are more in line with how you would like things than those with an opposite view point.

Now you're being just as unrealistic as the neo-con post-war planners. There is a timeframe for these things to occur. For all the citing of Germany and Japan done from the Right they miss a crucial point. In both cases, while we did eventually build a free democratic nation, when we first went in we told people what to do with guns in our hands. Only after order was imposed did we start with all the pie-in-the-sky democracy stuff.

To impose order takes more troops to effectively impose order. The Right and the Left are either calling for a reduction of force level, or maintenance of inadequate forces. You make democracy with the military you have, not the one you wish you had. You want a more effective force, well, force alone will not do it. We cannot suppress all areas, and as such, we will constantly be chasing after those who oppose us for a generation.

Uhm, no. They're a combination of bad US planning (firing the entire Iraqi army) and a lingering wussiness (wavering at Fallujah). If we had a million foreign troops and led them as we are now it wouldn't matter, if we had no foreign troops and struck in force at the first sign of local rallying against us we'd be doing better.

If we had a more troops we could secure more areas. The violence continues because the insurgents are able to operate in areas we do not control. This should be easy to understand because it was one of the justification for invading Iraq in the first place- the whole safe haven concept.

It dosen’t matter how good we are if we are not big enough for the job.

Yes, after years of being even wussier. But merely invading a couple countries and blowing some stuff up does not a hardass make. We still tread too clumsily when we should tiptoe through but shuffle about too slowly and carefully when we should be stomping things.

Quote, the armchair quarterback. Where are we supposed to stomp? You just said we shouldn’t target civilians. We may not target them, but a greater number of civilians will die as the result of stomping.

Reference the "weak Roman" position Bill used to use as an example of current policy. It's not a good approach.

Anything Roman is a bad approach. The Romans are gone. Maybe there is a lesson there.

Palomar · 2005-07-13 13:35:32

What we need is good police psychological work, also called profiling
*And that'll bring up charges of "racism."
Back to square one on that issue.
--Cindy
No, we need to employ nuance. :;):
The really hard part will be to have the confidence to stay the course when Karl Rove types bash Democrats for wanting to use "therapy" and to mock any strategy that is deemed insufficiently macho.

*And that cuts to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?

Dems accuse Republicans of being imperialistic macho thugs.

Repubs accuse Dems of being soft, ineffectual weaklings.

::shakes head::

Then there are all the Americans who are against any sort of pro-activeness -- wherever and whenever -- because of the lingering specter of Vietnam.

Will be interesting to see how this all turns out. :-\ Hopefully mutually beneficial all around (and I suppose that's a nice little daydream...).

--Cindy

clark · 2005-07-13 13:51:59

Then there are all the Americans who are against any sort of pro-activeness -- wherever and whenever

Fucking Quakers.

clark · 2005-07-13 14:13:02

There's something. Why don't we see terroists attacking quakers?

srmeaney · 2005-07-13 19:49:03

Should have just nuked Saudi Arabia while you had the chance.

Now they are going to double the market price of oil and charge the US interest on the Billions of Dollars it invests into the US economy.

Do you know what a client state is? You do now!

clark · 2005-07-13 20:16:05

A client state? Isn't that what the Common Wealth makes Earth? :laugh:

okay, I will stop now before it gets out of hand.

clark · 2005-07-13 20:21:45

Weak pansy liberal democrats:

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/T … .html]Dems aim to increase army size

I await the caricature response from the right.

srmeaney · 2005-07-13 20:43:38

"Mommy! there's a Democrat on my shoe!"
"Wipe it off and walk away, sweety!"

Client State Comes to the aid of its OPEC Masters. News at eleven.

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-14 07:44:36

Oh please, to assume that we have to walk in lock step on these issues lest we show weakness in the face of our opposition is unrealistic and unwarranted. We are a democracy witch usually means a range of expressions and opinions can be espoused freely.

To point out that people in other parts of the world see every action undertaken by the US government as a collective American action is not the same as demanding lockstep from the American people. You know this.

Osama bin Laden is not sitting in a dank hole saying "kill Americans, but not the whiney liberal ones because they'll cave to us and leave us alone."

Viewpoints are made, but I once again point out that our actions are more in line with how you would like things than those with an opposite view point.

And the point is? Sure, invading a country but doing it halfassed is closer to what I would advise than not invading and doing a halfassed job of security while pretending we can appease and negotiate with religious wackjob fanatics. So what?

Unless we now think it makes sense for Righties to say things like "the country is already more like what you socialists want than it was meant to be so shut up."

Yeah, sounds kinda silly when you look at it from the other angle doesn't it.

If we had a more troops we could secure more areas. The violence continues because the insurgents are able to operate in areas we do not control.

If we hadn't alienated the entire Iraqi military and driven them into the arms of the insurgency we could have used them. If we regularly struck at budding opposition we wouldn't have the problems we do. Example, we'd have done well to snuff out Sadr and his militia at the first sign of trouble. We would not have required more troops to do this, only by wasting time negotiating ceasefires with terrorists do we allow them to grow into a greater menace.

Quote, the armchair quarterback. Where are we supposed to stomp? You just said we shouldn’t target civilians. We may not target them, but a greater number of civilians will die as the result of stomping.

We stomp wherever organized resistance crops up. We could have hit Fallujah early on and it wouldn't have required leveling the place. Sure we can't get every lone RPG toting terrorist, but we can keep them from congregating. Unfortunately any military operation in a population entails some civilian casualties, however it is worth noting that lately the majority of civilian deaths have been at the hands of the terrorists who specifically target them in many cases.

Lone terrorists are hard to stop, but when they start organizing and basing themselves in a city we must deal with that much faster than we have been. No waffling around with ceasefires or worrying how an attack will make people feel. Go in, kill the bad guys, try not to spill the blood of civilians and don't quit if it gets hard.

This can't be stated enough. If this enemy perceives us as weak and unable to keep up a fight they'll only be encouraged to hit us harder.

Anything Roman is a bad approach. The Romans are gone. Maybe there is a lesson there.

Yet they persisted as a prime-power entity for a vast span of time and are the foundation of much of the dominant culture of the world even today. There's a lesson there too.

Dems aim to increase army size
I await the caricature response from the right.

While I can't offer you the Right caricature, I can say this:

When I see the specifics of the plan, then I'll comment. It's easy to say "get more troops" and make people clap like seals, but the details. . .

Now where'd I put that bucket of bullets and pig blood? :hm:

BWhite · 2005-07-14 08:07:24

Bolsheviks! Our foreign policy is being run by Bolsheviks!

Only Ayn Rand (and John Wayne movies) are the text of choice rather than Marx or Lenin. Or maybe Sylvester Stallone. John Wayne had more class.

Just shoot the bad guys? Sure, fine no problem.

Uh, who are the bad guys?

THe MOTHER of one of the British bombers had no effing clue her son was on his way to martyrdom.

Palomar · 2005-07-14 08:07:49

Yet they persisted as a prime-power entity for a vast span of time and are the foundation of much of the dominant culture of the world even today. There's a lesson there too.

*They're gone yet definite remnants remain; same for other previously dominant cultures as well. We borrow from the past, for good or ill...unless we can come up with an entirely/completely new system of doing things. Which doesn't seem likely, for whatever reason.

--Cindy

P.S.:

THe MOTHER of one of the British bombers had no effing clue her son was on his way to martyrdom.

Maybe. Parents don't sometimes cover for their children, to protect them? ??? [::edit:: Or, in this case -- since the guy's dead -- to protect the family name/honor?]

How old was this guy? Was he "out of the nest" and they lost a former closeness? Maybe she wasn't all that attuned to her kid(s) to begin with? Too many possibilities, speculation is pointless.

What, we're supposed to be entirely NON pro-active and just sit around waiting for the next bomb? No thanks.

::EDIT:: There could also be a cultural component to the mother's alleged cluelessness, no? What are the chances he was bouncing home every day keeping her informed of his doings, plans, finely detailed points of his life, etc.? Probably not much, considering how women are generally viewed in that culture.

BWhite · 2005-07-14 08:17:51

Measure (preferably twice) then cut. Spraying weapons fire randomly might feel good, but. . .

Again, HOW do we identify potential terrorists?

= = =

How many of the Baath insurgents are global al Qaeda terror-types and how many are "Abdul the Mope" types pissed that we have elevated the Shia and Kurd to social equality with the Baath?

Answer? Cindy and Cobra, we just DO NOT KNOW yet you still advocate stomping and stomping and more stomping.

= = =

The need to just do something, anything may salve our emotional wounds but is not helpful to the big picture.

Edited By BWhite on 1121351307

BWhite · 2005-07-14 08:21:32

The problem is that the heart of AL Qaeda lies within Saudi Arabia and we DARE NOT go in there. (Oil)

Therefore, we stomp others to compensate.

= = =
Porter Goss (head of CIA) says he knows where bin Laden is. The mountains of Pakistan - - but we DARE NOT go get him because the Pakistanis haven't given permission and they have A-bombs.

So, lets go stomp some Iraqis instead.

Edited By BWhite on 1121351040

Palomar · 2005-07-14 08:28:11

Answer? Cindy and Cobra, we just DO NOT KNOW yet you still advocate stomping and stomping and more stomping.

*Hmmmm...does someone here dislike being disagreed with?

No, I'm not advocating "stomping and stomping" and neither is Cobra IMO -- though I won't presume to speak for him.

Cobra is a lot more fair and even-handed than most folks are willing to give him credit for. He's also very rational, IMO. I wish I had his level of keen adroitness in this regard.

The kid gloves sometimes and the mailed gauntlet at other times.

As for identifying terrorists/bombers beforehand, there could be ways of ferreting them out. But then attempts at it are locked down with screams of "racism" and the like.

--Cindy

So, lets go stomp some Iraqis instead.

You've missed the times I've pointed out I -continue- to question the validity of the Iraq war?

It's been going on for well over 2 years now. Trying to unscramble eggs?

Let's try and unscramble Vietnam while we're at it.

BWhite · 2005-07-14 08:29:46

Nice dodge of the question.

Measure twice (cut once).

Edited By BWhite on 1121351427

BWhite · 2005-07-14 08:32:09

The kid gloves sometimes and the mailed gauntlet at other times.

Agreed,

BUT without the wisdom to know when to use which, and on who this advice is woefully incomplete.

Palomar · 2005-07-14 08:36:48

Nice dodge of the question.
Measure twice (cut once).

*Did I? I thought I'd tried to address the issue.

1) Crystal balls probably won't work.
2) Profiling would likely work, but people want to disallow it on the basis of "racism!" charges.

We can foresee some potential terrorists, but probably not others. Hit and miss.

Yet some folks want us to be entirely NON-proactive. Just sit around and wait for it to happen, apparently.

Back to square one.

As for a question of mine you seem to have dodged before: What about all those terrorist incidents in the 1970s and 1980s, i.e. Western airplane hijackings by Islamic terrorists -- cold-blooded murders of civilian pilots, rapes of stewardesses, innocent passengers terrorized and sometimes murdered?

All this stuff didn't start in January 2001. The Islamic terrorists have been targeting Westerners for a very long time. But no, it's only because of Bush and Blair -- and just very recently. (Not).

?

We were supposed to continue turning the other cheek indefinitely?

I'm -not- referring to Iraq here. I'm referring to the problem of Islamofundie terrorism overall.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-14 08:37:33

Again, HOW do we identify potential terrorists?

Identifying potential terrorists isn't the issue. Every human being on the planet is a potential terrorist.

The problem is that when faced with full-on, out of the terrorist closet rocket launching bomb toting active terrorists we have a tendency to not hit them as hard or as quickly as is warranted.

So how do we find them? We need the two pronged "Roman" approach I've talked about before. Don't humiliate the locals, don't give them reason to hate us. Reward those who help us, protect them from retribution. Kill with swift brutality those who oppose us and our collaborators. They may never love us, but if we can keep them from hating us while making them respect us we'll have all we need. This has been done numerous times before, we are not undertaking anything unprecedented here.

If we do it this way, the average Iraqi will be more inclined to give us information about the terrorists because they'll know that we can protect them, we will reward them, and we're even nastier than the "bad guys" are if crossed. The fact that these insurgents run around blowing up Iraqis and are fighting not only us but an elected Iraqi government makes it that much easier to turn the people against them.

Greet with a smile but carry a rifle.

Palomar · 2005-07-14 08:46:26

The kid gloves sometimes and the mailed gauntlet at other times.
Agreed,
BUT without the wisdom to know when to use which, and on who this advice is woefully incomplete.

*Yeah.

But humans are in charge.

Doesn't excuse foolishness or lack of wisdom, of course.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-14 09:07:30

Again, HOW do we identify potential terrorists?
Identifying potential terrorists isn't the issue. Every human being on the planet is a potential terrorist.
The problem is that when faced with full-on, out of the terrorist closet rocket launching bomb toting active terrorists we have a tendency to not hit them as hard or as quickly as is warranted.

Examples?

If this is true, why is it true?

So how do we find them? We need the two pronged "Roman" approach I've talked about before. Don't humiliate the locals, don't give them reason to hate us. Reward those who help us, protect them from retribution. Kill with swift brutality those who oppose us and our collaborators. They may never love us, but if we can keep them from hating us while making them respect us we'll have all we need. This has been done numerous times before, we are not undertaking anything unprecedented here.
If we do it this way, the average Iraqi will be more inclined to give us information about the terrorists because they'll know that we can protect them, we will reward them, and we're even nastier than the "bad guys" are if crossed. The fact that these insurgents run around blowing up Iraqis and are fighting not only us but an elected Iraqi government makes it that much easier to turn the people against them.
Greet with a smile but carry a rifle.

Again, agreed.

But what is the objective for being in Iraq in the first place?

Palomar · 2005-07-14 09:15:18

But what is the objective for being in Iraq in the first place?

*What difference does it make now? We've been in for approximately 2 years, 4 months.

Can't undo it, can't just walk away now.

Dicktice mentioned something (this thread or another) about dispensing with continued incriminations, picking up the pieces and moving forward.

Isn't that our only option now?

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-14 09:40:09

But what is the objective for being in Iraq in the first place?
*What difference does it make now? We've been in for approximately 2 years, 4 months.
Can't undo it, can't just walk away now.
Dicktice mentioned something (this thread or another) about dispensing with continued incriminations, picking up the pieces and moving forward.
Isn't that our only option now?
--Cindy

Agreed, up to a point - - but to decide on where to go now, we need to agree on where we are.

Going forward in Iraq, badly, harms our efforts against al Qaeda.

Going forward in Iraq, well, will require increased commitment and a willingness to acknowledge to the other participants that significant mistakes were made. If a stockbroker sells you a bad stock and asks for more money to salvage the situation, an explanation of the earlier error seems appropriate.

Frankly, I would support the appropriation of many billions of US taxpayer dollars to support real reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure. But if we are to stay we need more soldiers.

I saw one report asserting we have 16 battalions now but only 9 will be available, for rotation by the summer of 2006.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2005-07-13 13:13:14

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#202 2005-07-13 13:19:41

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#203 2005-07-13 13:23:09

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#204 2005-07-13 13:34:50

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#205 2005-07-13 13:35:32

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#206 2005-07-13 13:51:59

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#207 2005-07-13 14:13:02

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#208 2005-07-13 19:49:03

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#209 2005-07-13 20:16:05

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#210 2005-07-13 20:21:45

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#211 2005-07-13 20:43:38

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#212 2005-07-14 07:44:36

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#213 2005-07-14 08:07:24

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#214 2005-07-14 08:07:49

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#215 2005-07-14 08:17:51

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#216 2005-07-14 08:21:32

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#217 2005-07-14 08:28:11

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#218 2005-07-14 08:29:46

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#219 2005-07-14 08:32:09

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#220 2005-07-14 08:36:48

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#221 2005-07-14 08:37:33

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#222 2005-07-14 08:46:26

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#223 2005-07-14 09:07:30

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#224 2005-07-14 09:15:18

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#225 2005-07-14 09:40:09

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Board footer