Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 2787/7006
(11-Jun-2007 at 13:27)


US arms insurgents

As the surge that was to solve all has failed to give results, the next solution is to arm the Sunnis.

Is this beginning to look desperate?



BAGHDAD, June 10 — With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 158/1971
(11-Jun-2007 at 13:45)


for fuck's sake...

someone remind me, who have they armed in the past and then it turned out to be a bad idea??

bin laden... saddam... barre... pinochet... just off the top of my head

when will they learn?? jesus christ, its like Bart in that episode where Lisa compares him to a hamster, and he keeps touching the electrified cupcake...

FUCKING LEARN

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1758/2825
(11-Jun-2007 at 14:15)


I thought that pretty much everybody in Iraq was already armed(i heard that they have almost as many weapons per person as USA).Do they mean providing them with heavy weapons.RPG's,tanks and so on?

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views

Last edited by DHoffryn, 11-Jun-2007 at 14:16.
#3  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3919/4829
(11-Jun-2007 at 14:41)


First off, even your Commie Times acknowledges modest success with the surge and its only just started.

That said, using this strategy of arming sympathetic militias as well is probably the best thing we could do in Iraq for two reasons.

1. We have hamstrung our own forces and the Iraqi forces by forbidding the ruthless tactics needed to win wars, while at the same time we gain no good will for doing so because of the traitors at home trumping up every mistake for political purposes.

The insurgent groups don't suffer from those restrictions. If they catch a suspected terrorist they can lop off fingers until he talks. If they ambush a car filled with terrorists no one hears about it, but if we did that the media would cite the terrorist sympathizer who labels the victims as civilians killed by the evil America. They can even use terror to counter terror by saying things like "If you are caught consorting with Al-Queda we will kill you and your family". You'd never hear the end of it if we or the Iraqi army did such a thing.

2. They are Iraqi. Thus they gain informants easier and can't be used as an excuse for insurgents to hate America when they attack. They can also infiltrate terror cells as spies easier.

Plus, every one of our troops that dies gets trumpetted across our media further eroding the war effort, while no one will care if the Iraqi militia suffers casualties. In fact, it could even be a good thing if they both kill each other if the militia is one likely to be hostile again once the terrorists are dead.

3. Fighting a common enemy creates allies and builds trust. Better to have them on our side killing the terrorists than in the middle killing us both.

4. Failing to arm sympathetic militias creates a power imbalance. It's no secret that Iran and other foreign sources are arming terrorists and anti-American insurgents. If those who oppose such groups are to survive they must be able to fight back, er else they end up one of the hundreds of bodies shot execution style with no resistance.

5. It works.

At best, they kill off Al-Queda and greater stability ensues. At worst, they kill off Al-Queda and then turn on each other in civil war. But since there is no shortage of arms in Iraq its not like our guns would make it any more likely, and heck according the the liberal spin Iraq's already in civil war.

Plus the former seems more likely. Years of constant bloodshed does tend to wear people down in regards to the glory of combat.

Quote:
The strategy of arming Sunni groups was first tested earlier this year in Anbar Province, the desert hinterland west of Baghdad, and attacks on American troops plunged after tribal sheiks, angered by Qaeda strikes that killed large numbers of Sunni civilians, recruited thousands of men to join government security forces and the tribal police. With Qaeda groups quitting the province for Sunni havens elsewhere, Anbar has lost its long-held reputation as the most dangerous place in Iraq for American troops.
Sounds pretty good to me.

EDIT: Interesting addition I found in your article on measures to help ensure the weapons are used properly:

Quote:
One of the conditions set by the American commanders who met in Baghdad was that any group receiving weapons must submit its fighters for biometric tests that would include taking fingerprints and retinal scans. The American conditions, senior officers said, also include registering the serial numbers of all weapons, steps the Americans believe will help in tracing fighters who use the weapons in attacks against American or Iraqi troops. The fighters who have received American backing in the Amiriya district of Baghdad were required to undergo the tests, the officers said.

Last edited by Royal Assassin3, 11-Jun-2007 at 14:49.
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Royal Assassin3 Add Royal Assassin3 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6762/8194
(11-Jun-2007 at 14:43)
Re: US arms insurgents

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
— With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.
It seems the US government is stupid enough to believe it's own propaganda that most of the attacks in Iraq are performed by Al Quaeda. It's not the first thing that happens, and is one good reason to be very careful about what lies you spread.
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2788/7006
(11-Jun-2007 at 15:04)


Quote:
We have hamstrung our own forces and the Iraqi forces by forbidding the ruthless tactics needed to win wars, while at the same time we gain no good will for doing so because of the traitors at home trumping up every mistake for political purposes.
Presumably you mean the ruthless tactics that terrorists use, like demolishing the WTC, right? Or Saddam's ruthless tactics, that the US uses as an excuse for starting a war they can't win?

There is a very strong hint of desperation here!


Quote:
They are Iraqi. Thus they gain informants easier and can't be used as an excuse for insurgents to hate America when they attack. They can also infiltrate terror cells as spies easier.
They are Iraqi and Sunni. You know, Sunni, like Saddam. Most of the police and military are Shiite - see the problem? The good old US of A is arming both sides again!


Quote:
Fighting a common enemy creates allies and builds trust. Better to have them on our side killing the terrorists than in the middle killing us both.
They were the terrorist until you read this. They were the insurgents that you condemned for killing the Iraqi military and police.

Now, because your government says so, they are not terrorist any more! It is amazing how fast some people change their tune.


Quote:
Failing to arm sympathetic militias creates a power imbalance.
These 'sympathetic' militia have killed about 3,000 US troops.


Quote:
Sounds pretty good to me.
Yep. Exporting the problem to another part of Iraq sounds like a good, solid, long-term solution to me. I guess we can add it to the list of other good, solid, long-term solutions that have made Iraq the haven of peace we see today.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3920/4829
(11-Jun-2007 at 15:54)


Re: US arms insurgents

Quote:
Presumably you mean the ruthless tactics that terrorists use, like demolishing the WTC, right? Or Saddam's ruthless tactics, that the US uses as an excuse for starting a war they can't win?
Who was it idealizing life under Saddam, wishing that we had never dethroned him in the first place?

In any case, if there's one point we do agree on it's that brutal methods work. And I don't think you need go so extreme as Saddam's methods to get some benefit.

Right now, Al-Queda is a trigger for the sectarian strife. It was them who blew up that first mosque that started the sectarian violence, it is they who are carrying out daily attacks on civilians to keep the militias at each other's throats. If brutal methods can weed out Al-Queda, then there is a much greater chance that the democracy will survive and that the sects will be able to make peace.

Quote:
There is a very strong hint of desperation here!
Again you repeat that taunt, but it doesn't make sense.

The arming of militias experiment began before the troop surge even started so it isn't the case as you imply that we are trying this because our latest strategy isn't working.

And in terms of the big picture, casualties have been minimal, our goals are almost fully accomplished, and funding is secure. If Bush cared about politics I'd say he might be desperate to get peace so he can start the withdrawl before the '08 elections so that the dems don't have a leg to stand on anymore. However, Bush isn't that keen on politics.

I'd say its more likely that he just wants to destroy Al-Queda and sees this as a good way to accomplish it.

Quote:
They are Iraqi and Sunni. You know, Sunni, like Saddam. Most of the police and military are Shiite - see the problem? The good old US of A is arming both sides again!
A classic military strategy. Get your enemies to fight each other instead of you.


Quote:
They were the terrorist until you read this. They were the insurgents that you condemned for killing the Iraqi military and police.

Now, because your government says so, they are not terrorist any more! It is amazing how fast some people change their tune.
We screen these groups (however loosely) for those involved in attacks on our troops, and I would imagine that would extend to Allied/Iraqi troops and civilians as well:

Quote:
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the Third Infantry Division and leader of an American task force fighting in a wide area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers immediately south of Baghdad, said at a briefing for reporters on Sunday that no American support would be given to any Sunni group that had attacked Americans.
Quote:
These 'sympathetic' militia have killed about 3,000 US troops.
Nice made up number there. There are no tallies of whether it is militias or Al-Queda responsible for troop deaths.

But in any case, even if militias wer responsible for the majority of U.S. deaths, that's even more reason to get them on our side.


Quote:
Yep. Exporting the problem to another part of Iraq sounds like a good, solid, long-term solution to me. I guess we can add it to the list of other good, solid, long-term solutions that have made Iraq the haven of peace we see today.
Seeing as it has worked in Anbar (the most violent province in Iraq) I am shocked by your resistance to try it elsewhere. Not only did they purge Al-Queda and drastically reduce violence, but they joined the police and army in the area afterwards thus bolstering the Iraqi government. It's clearly not perfect, but heck it used to be the most deadly part of Iraq and now its somewhat livable.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...qramadi29.html

Quote:
Anbar province, long the lawless heartland of the tenacious Sunni Arab resistance, is undergoing a surprising transformation. Violence is ebbing in many areas, shops and schools are reopening, police forces are growing and the insurgency appears to be in retreat.

"Many people are challenging the insurgents," said Anbar Gov. Maamoon Rahid, though he quickly added, "We know we haven't eliminated the threat 100 percent."

Many Sunni tribal leaders, once openly hostile to the American presence, have formed a united front with American and Iraqi government forces against the group al-Qaida in Mesopotamia. With the tribal leaders' encouragement, thousands of local residents have joined the police force. About 10,000 police officers are now in Anbar, up from several thousand a year ago. During the same period, the police force here in Ramadi, the provincial capital, has grown from fewer than 200 to about 4,500, American military officials say.

At the same time, American and Iraqi forces have been conducting sweeps of insurgent strongholds, particularly in and around Ramadi, leaving behind a network of police stations and military garrisons.
I'd say its common sense to spread a successful model like that, not desparation.

Last edited by Royal Assassin3, 11-Jun-2007 at 15:56.
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Royal Assassin3 Add Royal Assassin3 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6763/8194
(11-Jun-2007 at 17:07)
Re: US arms insurgents

Originally Posted by Royal Assassin3: View Post
The insurgent groups don't suffer from those restrictions. If they catch a suspected terrorist they can lop off fingers until he talks. If they ambush a car filled with terrorists no one hears about it, but if we did that the media would cite the terrorist sympathizer who labels the victims as civilians killed by the evil America.
So you want to set up death squads in Iraq, just like USA used to do in Latin America. Now that you've stated this, please never again write anything about bringing democracy to Iraq. You've just stated that you don't care one bit about democracy, all you care about is power by any means available. Pretending that it is any better just because the torture and murder is performed by groups supported by US forces rather than directly by them is just dishonest. I have no idea how you is in your private life, but in your political views you are strictly evil.
Quote:
2. They are Iraqi. Thus they gain informants easier and can't be used as an excuse for insurgents to hate America when they attack.
You really think the Iraqis are stupid enough not to blame USA when US armed death squads ravage the land? If some foreign power started to arm militants in USA encouraging them to torture and kill anyone they didn't like, wouldn't you get pretty pissed at that country?
Quote:
In fact, it could even be a good thing if they both kill each other if the militia is one likely to be hostile again once the terrorists are dead.
So you *want* a civil war in Iraq! That is truly evil, but then what do you expect from a man who labels himself 'assassin'.
#8  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3921/4829
(11-Jun-2007 at 19:17)


Re: US arms insurgents

Quote:
So you want to set up death squads in Iraq, just like USA used to do in Latin America. Now that you've stated this, please never again write anything about bringing democracy to Iraq. You've just stated that you don't care one bit about democracy, all you care about is power by any means available. Pretending that it is any better just because the torture and murder is performed by groups supported by US forces rather than directly by them is just dishonest. I have no idea how you is in your private life, but in your political views you are strictly evil.


Since when is democracy incompatible with fighting terrorists? You are mixing up amnesty international ideals of civil rights with democracy. Iraq isn't going to become an Amnesty International Democracy any time soon. However, so long as it remains a democracy it will eventually drift in that direction. If we do nothing and Iraq slips into dictatorship or theocracy, not only will the dictators commit worse atrocities to secure their power, but the Iraqi people will be oppressed and freedomless indefinately and all of our toils will be for naught.

And as typical of the left, you assign morality to the methods but it is not methods that are necessarily good or bad (some are), but the targets that determine morality. Purposefully, torturing and killing innocent civilians as Al-Queda does is wrong and evil. Harshly interrogating and killing Al-Queda members is acceptable and necessary.

You will never convince Al-Queda to stop fighting by holding their hands and singing cumbaya. Nor will you do it through police action because it is very difficult to convict someone on intent to commit a crime, and a suicide bomber who commits his crime isn't eligable for prosecution.

Finally, I'm not advocating death squads, and the U.S. never set up "death squads" in Latin America. We support those people who are willing to fight against the forces of evil and stand up for their rights. But I guess that is considered "evil" these days.

As for evil. I'd say the evil people are those who side with the terrorists against the Iraqis and Americans who want to live in peace.


Quote:
You really think the Iraqis are stupid enough not to blame USA when US armed death squads ravage the land? If some foreign power started to arm militants in USA encouraging them to torture and kill anyone they didn't like, wouldn't you get pretty pissed at that country?
A. We aren't encouraging anyone to kill "anyone they don't like", only Al-Queda and we aren't advocating torturing anyone. Are you saying that we shouldn't encourage people to fight Al-Queda? Because that's what your implying when you call that evil.

B. If our government had disolved with terrorists butchering innocent people everywhere, I would be quite grateful to a foreign country (even France) that provided arms to militias with the encouragement to fight the terrorists. Plus it gives a sense of national pride to be fighting for your country rather than having some foreign nation killing the terrorists for you.

C. Far from "ravaging the land" they are freeing the land from those who ARE ravaging the land. Namely the terrorists. Just look how successful the campaign has been in Anbar province.

D. We are tracking the weapons we give out so that we can recognize and confiscate them if they are used against civilians, Americans, or Iraqi police/military.


Quote:
So you *want* a civil war in Iraq! That is truly evil, but then what do you expect from a man who labels himself 'assassin'.


Sunnis insurgents fighting Al-Queda is not a civil war.

As for the name, "Fuzzy Care Bear" doesn't seem to have the same effect as "Royal Assassin" in a war simulation game like Utopia.
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Royal Assassin3 Add Royal Assassin3 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 301/325
(11-Jun-2007 at 20:01)


and so itīs one, two, three what are we fighting for? donīt ask me because I donīt give a damn, next stop is vietnam...

RA3 thereīs a thin line between optimism and stupidity as well as between facts and fiction or al quaeda and the boogeyman. Iīd say watch your step, but you dancing on intellectual landmines is always hilarious.

at least we agree that the situation is developing. Iīd say it gets more and more bitter.

God is dead and no one cares - NIN
There will never be justice on stolen land
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Domingo THM Add Domingo THM to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 8194
(11-Jun-2007 at 20:24)
Re: US arms insurgents

Originally Posted by Royal Assassin3: View Post
Since when is democracy incompatible with fighting terrorists?
Are you really that stupid that you think they will only target terrorists? That no one will get killed because they happened to be political opponents of those sunni militias or just be innocent and be caught by mistake. Of course, given sufficient torture they would confess being Al Quaeda anyway so in your mind they probably would be guilty.
Quote:
You are mixing up amnesty international ideals of civil rights with democracy.
You can't have democracy if you have private death squads running around determining who to kill. A government that doesn't have monopoly on the justice system isn't a working government. The fact that those militias you want to arm actively oppose the "democratic" government only makes it worse.
Quote:
And as typical of the left, you assign morality to the methods but it is not methods that are necessarily good or bad (some are), but the targets that determine morality.
"The ends justify the means" as you support has led to any number of atrocities throughout history. Do you think any dictator consider himself evil? Of course not, he is just doing what he thinks is necessary, just like you.
Quote:
Purposefully, torturing and killing innocent civilians as Al-Queda does is wrong and evil. Harshly interrogating and killing Al-Queda members is acceptable and necessary.
Torture and murder is *always* wrong. Even if you call it "harsh interrogation" and pretend it will only happen to terrorists.
Quote:
You will never convince Al-Queda to stop fighting by holding their hands and singing cumbaya.
And look at what fighting them your way has done so far: they or similar groups are only getting stronger!
Quote:
Finally, I'm not advocating death squads, and the U.S. never set up "death squads" in Latin America. We support those people who are willing to fight against the forces of evil and stand up for their rights. But I guess that is considered "evil" these days.
Sure, and the "School of Americas" never existed either Supporting terrorists and death squads is evil, even if it is your own country doing it and even if you call those they kill and torture "forces of evil".
Quote:
As for evil. I'd say the evil people are those who side with the terrorists against the Iraqis and Americans who want to live in peace.
If the Americans want to live in peace, why do they keep attacking other countries all the time?
Quote:
B. If our government had disolved with terrorists butchering innocent people everywhere, I would be quite grateful to a foreign country (even France) that provided arms to militias with the encouragement to fight the terrorists.
Even if it was France that had invaded your country, "dissolved" its government and through its incompetence and brutality had let those terrorist group flourish in the first place? Even if the people they armed happened to be some group that was just as eager to kill you as any terrorists?
Quote:
C. Far from "ravaging the land" they are freeing the land from those who ARE ravaging the land. Namely the terrorists. Just look how successful the campaign has been in Anbar province.
If that is success, I'd truly hate to see what you call a failure.
Quote:
D. We are tracking the weapons we give out so that we can recognize and confiscate them if they are used against civilians, Americans, or Iraqi police/military.
You have radio transmitters on them? Otherwise, how the hell are you going to know where they end up?
#11  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 21
(Post has been warned)
(11-Jun-2007 at 21:13)
lightbulb

:\

Here, I'll give you someone else to sling your liberally biased opinions at...

Let me preface my response by saying, I served in the desert three times before I retired from the military and I pray to God I never see that part of the world again.

And EVERY soldier/marine/airman/sailor who takes a turn over their will be the first to tell you it truly sucks.

BUT... BUT... we will also tell you that you aren't getting even 1/3rd of the story from the national and world press. The only things you get here in the states are the body counts (and actually only the U.S. and civilian body counts, not the bad guys). The only other things you will ever hear from the media are the mistakes that are made and the dirt on a few individuals who do something stupid.

I get it. Alot of the folks that have been overseas get it. I want to believe that there are still alot of folks in the states that get it. Whatever it takes to prevent another 9/11. Kill the enemy on his own soil. Protect OUR homes by fighting them in THEIR homes. Become the target in Iraq so that our parents, spouses and children don't become the target in America. WE are not the bad guys in this affair. Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten or twisted events to make it seem so.

It's sucks to be home reading about troops dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would have been worse to be in Baghdad reading about the enemy ramming planes into towers, or slaughtering folks at Ft. Dix or blowing up JFK.

So, now, go ahead and regurgitate all your tired invective against the U.S. government and how this war is illegal and evil and costing us the lives of young troops. You have that right. When you're done, though, do something about it other than write a response in some obscure post. Call your congressman and tell him what you think. Write an editorial for your local paper. Shoot, go see your local recruiter. Until you do something PERSONAL, make some sort of sacrifice, whether it's in time, energy, blood or life, you aren't part of any solution. You're just a blurb on the UtopiaTemple forum that will eventually be lost to anonymity.
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by mardigan Add mardigan to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Uzgadra)
Posts: 531/663
(11-Jun-2007 at 21:36)


Re: US arms insurgents

Originally Posted by mardigan: View Post
:\

Here, I'll give you someone else to sling your liberally biased opinions at...

Let me preface my response by saying, I served in the desert three times before I retired from the military and I pray to God I never see that part of the world again.

And EVERY soldier/marine/airman/sailor who takes a turn over their will be the first to tell you it truly sucks.

BUT... BUT... we will also tell you that you aren't getting even 1/3rd of the story from the national and world press. The only things you get here in the states are the body counts (and actually only the U.S. and civilian body counts, not the bad guys). The only other things you will ever hear from the media are the mistakes that are made and the dirt on a few individuals who do something stupid.

I get it. Alot of the folks that have been overseas get it. I want to believe that there are still alot of folks in the states that get it. Whatever it takes to prevent another 9/11. Kill the enemy on his own soil. Protect OUR homes by fighting them in THEIR homes. Become the target in Iraq so that our parents, spouses and children don't become the target in America. WE are not the bad guys in this affair. Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten or twisted events to make it seem so.

It's sucks to be home reading about troops dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would have been worse to be in Baghdad reading about the enemy ramming planes into towers, or slaughtering folks at Ft. Dix or blowing up JFK.

So, now, go ahead and regurgitate all your tired invective against the U.S. government and how this war is illegal and evil and costing us the lives of young troops. You have that right. When you're done, though, do something about it other than write a response in some obscure post. Call your congressman and tell him what you think. Write an editorial for your local paper. Shoot, go see your local recruiter. Until you do something PERSONAL, make some sort of sacrifice, whether it's in time, energy, blood or life, you aren't part of any solution. You're just a blurb on the UtopiaTemple forum that will eventually be lost to anonymity.

Im with you mate as are a number of others who get on these boards who have actually been there, it dosnt matter what you say most of them will still belive Aljazhera over eye witness accounts

I sense a whiff of hypocracy from our liberal chums on this one though nothing is said about Iran and Syria flooding the area with weapons and HE as long as its aimed at coalition forces the instant we get some of the insurgants onside then its us being evil you really cant win

. R.I.P. Millie you took our hearts with you
. 26th Feb 2002- 4th June 2007
#13  
View Public Profile Find more posts by BouffantBob Add BouffantBob to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3923/4829
(11-Jun-2007 at 23:28)


Re: US arms insurgents

Quote:
Are you really that stupid that you think they will only target terrorists? That no one will get killed because they happened to be political opponents of those sunni militias or just be innocent and be caught by mistake. Of course, given sufficient torture they would confess being Al Quaeda anyway so in your mind they probably would be guilty.
Sure, its possible that some of the militias may turn their guns on us or their political opponents. But at the moment they are fighting Al-Queda and Al-Queda is the one responsible for much of the sectarian strife. If you recall, at the beginning of the war it was mostly just Baathists and Al-Queda fighting against us. However, then Al-Queda triggered the sectarian fighting through targeting civilians and blowing up mosques. That's when things went to hell real quick.

Without Al-Queda instigating the violence there is a much greater chance that Sunnis and Shiites will be able to tolerate each other.

Quote:
You can't have democracy if you have private death squads running around determining who to kill. A government that doesn't have monopoly on the justice system isn't a working government. The fact that those militias you want to arm actively oppose the "democratic" government only makes it worse.
Vigilante justice is often synonymous with early democracies. In Athens and in the U.S. in particular there is a strong history of private justice. A democracy is first and foremost a government of the people, by the people, for the people, and it often lies to the people to make the judgments. The vestiges of this are seen even today as many of our trials are decided by juries of the common man.

It takes time for a government to grow large enough and credible enough to leave all matters of the law in its hands. And quite frankly, if Al-Queda were in the U.S. in the same numbers as in Iraq our justice system wouldn't be sufficient to deal with them.

As for the militias we are arming, I'd suggest you read that article again. It isn't just us and the militias dealing. They are working with the government of Iraq signing up their members in the police and military in large numbers. Sure there are some militias that oppose the government but we aren't dealing with those ones.

Quote:
"The ends justify the means" as you support has led to any number of atrocities throughout history. Do you think any dictator consider himself evil? Of course not, he is just doing what he thinks is necessary, just like you.
This isn't an issue of the ends justify the means. It is an issue of the means are justified by who it is used on. Like the difference between shooting your neighbor and shooting the serial killer attacking your wife.

Quote:
Torture and murder is *always* wrong. Even if you call it "harsh interrogation" and pretend it will only happen to terrorists.
Semantics matters a lot. Murder would indeed be wrong. But in Iraq it is lawful to kill an Al-Queda member so it is not murder.

Likewise torture for revenge or for pleasure is wrong. Torture as punishment for a crime is not wrong. Torture as a means of interrogation is not wrong so long as the subject's guilt is certain, but is flawed in that it can lead to false information very easily (which is why I used the term "harsh interrogation" to describe interrogations that fall short of inflicting extreme physical pain (aka. torture) to illustrate an ideal level of coercion). On the other hand it is harder to resist talking in response to true torture.


Quote:
And look at what fighting them your way has done so far: they or similar groups are only getting stronger!
On what basis do you make up that assertion. By all the figures I've seen of recruitment numbers and confirmed kills they are constantly getting weaker. Their vicious tactics of targetting civilians have finally backfired and now dozens of our former enemies are allying with us against them. Indeed now that we got Sunni help they have been all but purged from Anbar.

Quote:
Sure, and the "School of Americas" never existed either Supporting terrorists and death squads is evil, even if it is your own country doing it and even if you call those they kill and torture "forces of evil".


What's wrong with the School of Americas. Seems like an upstanding organization to me.

In any case, helping private citizens to fight against Al-Queda is no different than helping the Iraqi government fight Al-Queda or one of our other allies to do so. Al-Queda is an evil outlaw organization and thus people who attack them are not terrorists or death squads.

Quote:
If the Americans want to live in peace, why do they keep attacking other countries all the time?
Aside from the Americans Indians (who technically didn't have a country) we haven't attacked anyone who didn't deserve it. Saddam invaded his neighbor and then violated the terms of his cease fire, we attacked Japan because they attacked us, we attacked the Barbary States for their piracy of our vessels, we attacked Yugoslavia for committing genocide, we attacked Afghanistan for harboring terrorists.

Thanks to our willingness to fight for what is right, the world is in one of its most peaceful and prosperous periods ever.


Quote:
Even if it was France that had invaded your country, "dissolved" its government and through its incompetence and brutality had let those terrorist group flourish in the first place? Even if the people they armed happened to be some group that was just as eager to kill you as any terrorists?
I wouldn't be blaming France because a bunch of wackos crossed our border and started killing lots of people. Heck we can't even control our own borders with a fully functional government much less expect anyone else to do it for us. Same thing with Iraq. There was nothing that could be done. No level of brilliance would have prevented terrorists from coming across the borders and killing people.

In any event, the Sunni tribesmen were going to be victorious against Al-Queda with or without our help. Best to take advantage of the situation to ally with them and gain their good will than ignore or fight them and have a sure enemy after they push out Al-Queda.

Quote:
You have radio transmitters on them? Otherwise, how the hell are you going to know where they end up?
We have serial numbers of the rifles and pictures/biometrics of those who use them. If we catch someone using one of our rifles in a terrorist attack we will instantly know which sunni group is acting out of line. Then we can use the Iraqi police to arrest those individuals or possibly the whole group.

Although putting transmitters in the guns would be a pretty good idea. I would hope the government wouldn't leak such info to the media.
#14  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Royal Assassin3 Add Royal Assassin3 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 21
(11-Jun-2007 at 23:30)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:
— With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.

To which Bernal responded:

It seems the US government is stupid enough to believe it's own propaganda that most of the attacks in Iraq are performed by Al Quaeda. It's not the first thing that happens, and is one good reason to be very careful about what lies you spread.
And YOU, Bernal, you have PROOF to the contrary? Are you like the minister of information for the super-power that is Sweden, with a direct line to all the governments of the world? Are you the man who can clear up this entire mess by providing proof that the U.S. government is lying and generating all this false "propaganda" about Al Quaeda being in Iraq? You are very fond of quoting the press about anything negative about the U.S. If you are going to take their word for how ate up the U.S. Government is, doesn't it stand to reason that you would have to believe them when they report what the Al Quaeda leadership has been saying all along? They ARE there and they ARE responsible for many of the attacks that are being perpetrated. Look it up genius, it's all over the internet, in news magazines, tabloids, Al-Jazeera. Or, wait, shhhhh... Maybe GWB is behind a conspiracy to fill the world with press about an organization that never existed and there really is NO Al-Quaeda, no islamic jihad, no insurgency in Iraq! All of these "warriors" that are flooding into Iraq at the behest of (wink-wink) "Al-Quaeda" leadership are actually CIA plants sent in to help GWB create the illusion that Al-Quaeda in Iraq really exists. It's all just a big "Wag The Dog" spin-off! Yeah! That's it, I think you are really on something, Bernal!! Crack maybe

Do you just spout stuff to be spouting stuff or are you inhaling a good deal of this year's bumper crop of marijuana in Sweden?
#15  
View Public Profile Find more posts by mardigan Add mardigan to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2789/7006
(12-Jun-2007 at 09:30)


Originally Posted by RA3:
Al-Queda is a trigger for the sectarian strife. It was them who blew up that first mosque that started the sectarian violence, it is they who are carrying out daily attacks on civilians to keep the militias at each other's throats.
Quote:
Without Al-Queda instigating the violence
Al-Qaeda instigated the violence? Al-Qaeda started the war?

If my memory serves me right, there was no Al-Qeda in Iraq prior to the USA invading, no violence, no civil war. In fact, there was peace - until the invasion.


Originally Posted by RA3:
In any case, if there's one point we do agree on it's that brutal methods work.
Quote:
it is not methods that are necessarily good or bad (some are), but the targets that determine morality.
Quote:
the means are justified by who it is used on
I am sure OBL agrees with you, and sees flying planes into the WTC in exactly the same way.


Originally Posted by RA3:
I'd say its more likely that he just wants to destroy Al-Queda and sees this as a good way to accomplish it.
Quote:
A classic military strategy. Get your enemies to fight each other instead of you.
Finally, you agree that invading Iraq had nothing to do with helping the Iraqis. The USA is wrecking another sovereign country for US political ends. Congratulations...


Originally Posted by RA3:
Nice made up number there. There are no tallies of whether it is militias or Al-Queda responsible for troop deaths.
We are discussing Sunnis. The police and military are predominantly Shiite, the people fighting the Shiites (and the US troops) are predominantly Sunni.


Quote:
Seeing as it has worked in Anbar (the most violent province in Iraq) I am shocked by your resistance to try it elsewhere. Not only did they purge Al-Queda and drastically reduce violence, but they joined the police and army in the area afterwards thus bolstering the Iraqi government.
It is a strange use of the word 'worked', but I guess when you have nothing else to show as a success, even a fake 'success' will have to do.

Look at the quote:-

'attacks on American troops plunged after tribal sheiks, angered by Qaeda strikes that killed large numbers of Sunni civilians, recruited thousands of men to join government security forces and the tribal police. With Qaeda groups quitting the province for Sunni havens elsewhere, Anbar has lost its long-held reputation as the most dangerous place in Iraq for American troops.'

See the bold bit? This wonderful model hasn't stopped the violence, it just happens on another street. The 'insurgents' haven't been stopped, they have just been moved on. The killing hasn't been reduced, it has just been relocated.

In my world, moving a problem to another place is not a solution, and not a success, though I do understand that from your narrow, nationalist viewpoint only one phrase from there matters - "attacks on American troops plunged ".

You confirm this by an earlier comment in your post - "casualties have been minimal". Clearly, in your world, Iraqi deaths don't count and Iraqis don't matter.


Originally Posted by RA3:
Harshly interrogating and killing Al-Queda members is acceptable and necessary.
I am sure OBL holds the same principles as you on this too - you two really should get together. Harshly beheading American troops on TV was clearly acceptable and necessary.


Originally Posted by RA3:
I'd say the evil people are those who side with the terrorists against the Iraqis and Americans who want to live in peace
The problem here is that actions speak louder than words. When a country that has invaded two others with no good reason claims to want to live in peace, people tend to laugh rather than believe them.


Originally Posted by RA3:
If our government had disolved with terrorists butchering innocent people everywhere, I would be quite grateful to a foreign country (even France) that provided arms to militias with the encouragement to fight the terrorists.
Once again, your White House inspired rhetoric is miles away from reality. You make it sound as though the terrorist where killing Iraqis everywhere, and the the USA marched in to help the Iraqis against the terrorists.

Unfortunately, we all know what bullshit this is. There were no terrorist butchering innocent people, and the government did not just mysteriously dissolve. The USA removed the government and failed to replace it, and the USA let the terrorists in. The Iraqis know that, so it is no surprise that they are not grateful. I wouldn't be either.


Originally Posted by RA3:
Torture as punishment for a crime is not wrong. Torture as a means of interrogation is not wrong
There speaks a very evil man. You must be a great admirer of Saddam, and I will remind you of this next time a US soldier is tortured, burned, hung on a bridge, or decapitated on TV.


Originally Posted by RA3:
Aside from the Americans Indians (who technically didn't have a country) we haven't attacked anyone who didn't deserve it.
I see. It is right because the USA says it is right. I understand your point of view now.


Originally Posted by RA3:
Thanks to our willingness to fight for what is right, the world is in one of its most peaceful and prosperous periods ever.
Bullshit. Here is a time line of post-WW2 wars., and here it is as a list in alphabetical order:-
Abkhazian Rebellion
Albanian Civil War
Algerian Civil War
Angola war of National Liberation
Bangladeshi Independence War
Bosnian Civil War
Cambodian Civil War
Chechen Uprising
Chinese conflicts in Quemoy and Matsu
Chinese Invasion of Tibet
Congo post independance war
Djibouti Civil War
Enitrea War of Independence
Ethiopia Civil War
Ethiopia Revolution
Ethiopian-Somalia War
Falklands War
Fijian Military Coup
First Indochina War
Greece Civil War
Gulf War
Hmong Guerrilla War: Loas
India-Pakistan War
Intifada
Iran-Iraq War
Israel War of Independence
Jordan Civil War
Khmer Rouge Insurgency
Korean War
Kosovo War
Lebanon's Civil War
Liberia's Civil War
Libya's war with Chad
Libyan-Egyptian War
Moldovan Civil War
Mozambique War of Independence
Nambia's War of National Liberation
Nigeria Civil War
Saharan War
Sierra Leone Civil Conflict
Sinai War
Six Days War
Somalian Civil War
Sudan Civil Wars
Togolese Civil War
Ugandan Civil War
Vietnam: Second Indochina War
Yom Kippur War
Yugoslavian Civil War

For those who are not in denial, here are details, including the number of deaths, of the 37 victims of US help since WW2.


Originally Posted by RA3:
I wouldn't be blaming France because a bunch of wackos crossed our border and started killing lots of people. Heck we can't even control our own borders with a fully functional government much less expect anyone else to do it for us. Same thing with Iraq.
You are quite right. In Iraq, a bunch of wackos did indeed cross the border and start killing lots of people. They said something about removing WMD.

The USA is maintaining world peace? What a joke...


Originally Posted by mardigan:
I want to believe that there are still alot of folks in the states that get it. Whatever it takes to prevent another 9/11. Kill the enemy on his own soil. Protect OUR homes by fighting them in THEIR homes. Become the target in Iraq so that our parents, spouses and children don't become the target in America.
This is exactly the sort of nauseating shit that gives the USA such a bad image.

A quick reminder: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

Here is a challenge for you, genius - tell us exactly how many Americans had been killed by Iraqis before the invasion.

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.

Last edited by Voice of Reason, 12-Jun-2007 at 09:35.
#16  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Uzgadra)
Posts: 532/663
(12-Jun-2007 at 11:33)


Still picking your arguments I see Im still waiting for you to prove your claimed 1000 year family history

Any sign of a condemnation for Iran or Syria?

So got any figures for how many Iraqis have been killed by Iraqis?

Care to explain how its ok for one side to arm insurgents and not the other?

I mean we all know your hatred for the US its well documented but not even you in your rabid anti americanisum can truley be so hypocritical

. R.I.P. Millie you took our hearts with you
. 26th Feb 2002- 4th June 2007
#17  
View Public Profile Find more posts by BouffantBob Add BouffantBob to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 199/742
(12-Jun-2007 at 13:49)


Re: US arms insurgents

Originally Posted by Uzgadra: View Post
Any sign of a condemnation for Iran or Syria?
I condemn their actions just like i condemn many of the US's actions. I find it hard to believe how many of you shove aside criticism of the US by pointing to what Iran and Syria do, how exactly does that justify anything? Weren't both those countries evil because they arm insurgents? Then how in God's name can you ask a question like this with a straight face:

Quote:
Care to explain how its ok for one side to arm insurgents and not the other?
You went from Iran and Syria deserve to be attacked for arming insurgents, to Iran and Syria arm insurgents so it's ok for us to do as well. And then you have the nerve to call somebody else a hypocrit? I can hardly believe what i'm reading..

Your brain is unique in the history of the universe. Use it wisely.

Last edited by Dusk Illz, 12-Jun-2007 at 13:49.
#18  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Dusk Illz Add Dusk Illz to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Uzgadra)
Posts: 535/663
(12-Jun-2007 at 14:05)


Re: US arms insurgents

Originally Posted by Dusk Illz: View Post
I condemn their actions just like i condemn many of the US's actions. I find it hard to believe how many of you shove aside criticism of the US by pointing to what Iran and Syria do, how exactly does that justify anything? Weren't both those countries evil because they arm insurgents? Then how in God's name can you ask a question like this with a straight face:



You went from Iran and Syria deserve to be attacked for arming insurgents, to Iran and Syria arm insurgents so it's ok for us to do as well. And then you have the nerve to call somebody else a hypocrit? I can hardly believe what i'm reading..
Dude I havnt actually said that Iran and Syria deserve to be attacked and I sure as hell havnt said that its ok to arm insurgents

What I am saying however is sauce for the goose is also good for the gander if you attack the US for arming the militants then you have to also do the same for Iran and Syria surley


The US gets attacked for everything it does in Iraq right or wrong they are there and are trying there best in shit situations to do the right thing

hell 6 months ago they were being blasted for not talking to the militias now they have obviously come to some form of deal thats wrong as well

I understand that Iraq is a very emotive subject for a lot of people but that really shouldnt allow total blindness to the situation because it dosnt agree with your world view

No the US shouldnt be arming anybody they should be trying to get weapons of the streets but then again neither should Iran/Syria

and no two wrongs dont make a right but you have to start building relations somewhere and surely its better to have locals helping you rather than trying to kill you

. R.I.P. Millie you took our hearts with you
. 26th Feb 2002- 4th June 2007
#19  
View Public Profile Find more posts by BouffantBob Add BouffantBob to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 200/742
(12-Jun-2007 at 14:56)


Re: US arms insurgents

Originally Posted by Uzgadra: View Post
Dude I havnt actually said that Iran and Syria deserve to be attacked and I sure as hell havnt said that its ok to arm insurgents
What you did say was "the instant we get some of the insurgants onside then its us being evil you really cant win", and since the getting the insurgents on our side comes with the arming of them which this entire thread is about, forgive me for believing you did in fact condone it?

Quote:
What I am saying however is sauce for the goose is also good for the gander if you attack the US for arming the militants then you have to also do the same for Iran and Syria surley
Which is exactly what I do. Conversely, i see a ton of people in this thread attacking Iran and Syria for it, and not doing the same for the US. Your goose/gander talk suggests the two have to be treated equally, yet you only attack the 'liberal chums' for being inconsistent, and don't say a single word about the exact same inconsistency in RA's reasoning for example..

Perhaps then, you can understand why I feel it's not your place to call others hypocrites?

Quote:
The US gets attacked for everything it does in Iraq right or wrong they are there and are trying there best in shit situations to do the right thing

hell 6 months ago they were being blasted for not talking to the militias now they have obviously come to some form of deal thats wrong as well

I understand that Iraq is a very emotive subject for a lot of people but that really shouldnt allow total blindness to the situation because it dosnt agree with your world view

No the US shouldnt be arming anybody they should be trying to get weapons of the streets but then again neither should Iran/Syria

and no two wrongs dont make a right but you have to start building relations somewhere and surely its better to have locals helping you rather than trying to kill you
I'll be the first to admit that it's a ridiculously difficult situation, and it bothers me as well when people jump on every single thing the US does in a reactionary manner, when they in turn don't hold their own to the same standard. I already see that way too much among my fellow Europeans, and it's a fair thing to call people out on, ONCE YOU HAVE FIRST MADE SURE YOU'RE NOT DOING THE EXACT SAME THING YOURSELF!

Unfortunately, you did fall victim to the exact same thing you called them out on; condemning one side while not holding your own to the same standard. Hence my frustration.

Your brain is unique in the history of the universe. Use it wisely.
#20  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Dusk Illz Add Dusk Illz to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Right to bear arms - a differnent question Grashnak Respectable General Discussions 54 14-Mar-2005 04:37
380 Tons of deadly explosives dissapear in Iraq Henry Returns Respectable General Discussions 99 04-Nov-2004 19:42
Beheadings in Iraq Fanfare Respectable General Discussions 160 11-Oct-2004 18:27
Arms vs Banks jimmyjames Utopia Discussions 2 27-Dec-2003 03:27
20% Arms = 30% Elites, 0% Arms = ? MooManX Utopia Discussions 7 21-Aug-2002 13:10


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 22:07.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.