The shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes
POSTED BY: citizen
UPDATED: Sunday, August 21, 2005 01:05
VIEWED: 5229
PAGE 4 of 4
Rue:
Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
I propose that if insurgents are mostly non-Iraqi extremists, controlling the border and currency should be sufficient to starve them out (metaphorically speaking). Sooner or later they will run out of money and hardware and personnel. The US should bring to bear all it has on controlling the border and currency.
It has been noted on numerous occasions that it would be practically impossible to control the entire Iraqi border.
Consider the resistance in continetal Europe. Without British support from SOE they would have collapsed within weeks. The Germany military knew this but were still unable to stop it.
Furthure more even if the US could bring all she has to bear on border control, the troops are currently needed elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
And yet it is using a tactic completely different, which seems to be more about chasing insurgents from city to city. Do you think the US military is basing its strategy on different assumptions from yours?
To be honest I think the US military command is incompetent, in so much as they are playing right into the hands of the Insurgents. The Insurgents want to drag them from city to city. That is classic Gorilla warfare, drag your enemy from engagment to engagment while preventing them from obtaining a desisive victory.
The US Military seems to be incapable of fighting a non-conventional war, and unable to get the existing population on side.
Contrast this with the British. British troops are being trained in Iraqi language and culture, and the standing attitude is to attempt a healthy and friendly dialog not just with the officials but the everyday man on the street. This is an attitude brought about from years of dealing with similar situations, and one the US military would do well to study.
I'm not saying the British are getting it all right. Nor am I saying that the only reason that the British controlled areas of Iraq are more stable than US controlled areas because of this 'dialoge'. But it helps.
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ah.
That is why I propose the US get the Egyptians to guard the Iraq/Iran border, the Iranians to guard the Kuwaiti border etc. Or whichever combination of political/religious interests you can come up with to ensure that the guards have a vested interest in the job. And I think it requires different hardware, deployment etc. For example IR cameras on helicopters for night duty.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
For example IR cameras on helicopters for night duty.
I thought they already had that...
Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
That is why I propose the US get the Egyptians to guard the Iraq/Iran border, the Iranians to guard the Kuwaiti border etc.
First problem, can the Egyptians, Iranians or whoever field the resources to guard their piece of the border? Take a look at a map of Iraq, most of the Iran/Iraq border is mountainous...
difficult to guard/patrol, easy to hide in.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/iraq.html
Besides that, look at America or Britain for that matter, both have thousands of illegal assylum seekers crossing their borders.
If we can't adequetly protect our own borders can we protect Iraqs?
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As to why the US doesn't adequately secure its borders, it's b/c the will isn't there. As a prime example of that fact, the Border Patrol is chronically underfunded (hence the Minutemen). And the reason for that is, rhetoric aside, the US likes its cheap labor too much to give it up in fact.
It's not necessary to secure 'the border' per se. At some point those mountains meet the plains where most of the people live. That interface is able to be secured.
Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia have large modern militaries courtesy of US aid and trade. Iran has a large and fairly modern military by shear population and bootstrapping.
I see the worst problem as diplomatic - getting agreement that no one wants to see a different vested interest getting ahead of their own in Iraq; selecting the proper force/border combinations; and getting Iraq to agree to foreign presence inside its borders (aside from the US); and also getting the US to admit the situation is out of control and something different needs to be done.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok guys – sorry to jump back but have had work and family sh*t to deal with and not much head space – but I said I’d come back mainly ‘cos citizen puzzles me – if you thought something i.e. occupation of iraq was morally wrong 3 years ago – how can it be right now?
So apologies if this is now out of sink or of topic and a bit long if it bothers you skip it
You seem to have a belief that somehow the British and American ruling classes will change – they lied to us over the war and you think they’re not lieing now or that they really have a ‘humanitarian’ interest
To counter your Washington post quote – hows this from a senior US military official quoted in the Los Angeles Times ‘They say these guys are flowing across [the border] and formenting all this violence. We don’t think so. What’s the main threat? It’s internal.’
If you’re only reading the mainstream press then you’re probably only getting one side of events
You see its media spin that the resistance in Iraq is made up of die hard Saddam supporters, Al Qaida members of Arab foreigners – nearly all the reports I’ve read that I believe to be from reputable (ie not embedded) journalists, serving soldiers, letters from those soldiers who have lost their lives and folks with contacts on the ground sound like this resistance is just that a resistance to occupation as ever has been – when imperialist forces take over the folks that live their don’t tend to like it – take Algeria, Palestine, Spain, Native Americans or the Viet Cong
And of course I’m not naïve enough to think that religious fanaticism in opposition the blatant western imperialism doesn’t grow – I just don’t see this as the only alternative to occupation in a country that for much of its history has been avowedly secular. Which country has the most fanaticism – Saudi Arabia but you won’t hear much about that in the mainstream
In the January elections the overwhelming majority of those standing where unequivocally against the occupation so if those running the show in Iraq really believed in democracy they’d get out as this was what people voted for (those who could actually get to the ballot boxes that is)
I’m not a great thinker – I do tend to go on my gut class instincts of whats right – Naomi Klein writing in the Nation puts well the argument I think I’m trying to make:
‘There is no question that Iraqis face a mounting threat from religious fanaticism, but US forces won’t protect Iraqi women and minorities [becs: remember what happened to the Kurds after the first gulf war] from it any more than they have protected Iraqis from being tortured in Abu Ghraib or bombed in Fallujah and Sadr City. Liberation will never be a trickle-down effect of this invasion because domination, not liberation, was always its goal. Even under the best scenario, the current choice in Iraq is not between Sadr’s dangerous fundamentalism and a secular democratic government made up of trade unionists and feminists. Its between open (my emphasis) elections – which risk handing power to fundamentalists but would also allow secular and moderate religious forces to organize – and rigged elections designed to leave the country in the hands of Iyad Alawi and the rest of his CIA/Mukhabarat-trained thugs, fully dependent on Washington for both money and might.’
And it not just armchair liberals try this – www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html
Oh and about cops the police are not on my side, they protect the privileged status of the people who oppress us and I am not in the ruling class – ergo not on my side – you ever been on strike or a demo? – you’ll see whose side the police are on – and its not about individual cops it’s the gorram system
smile pretty and watch your back
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
cos citizen puzzles me – if you thought something i.e. occupation of iraq was morally wrong 3 years ago – how can it be right now?
I never said, nor do I think, that the occupation is morally right, then or now
.Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
You seem to have a belief that somehow the British and American ruling classes will change – they lied to us over the war and you think they’re not lieing now or that they really have a ‘humanitarian’ interest
Nope. I think as I have always thought that this war was part securing the second confirmed (possibly largest?) oil fields in the world, part securing lucrative rebuilding contracts for Bush supporters, and possibly part simple revenge. I beleive that that the offical line was part deception part convenient excuse. Its not without precedent that a war is fought for reasons other than the offical line, even in modern times, just think of the Falklands.
Our goverments have to rebuild Iraq and work on helping install a democratic goverment. Believe it or not this is a democracy, and if no attempts to install a democratic goverment, or a purely western puppet goverment is installed, the labour goverment will be very lucky to have a chance of being voted back in within the next fifty years.
Your assertion of American and British 'ruling classes' confuses me somewhat though. Are you saying that we live in a facade of democracy controlled behind the scenes by some shadowy ruling class?
Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
To counter your Washington post quote – hows this from a senior US military official quoted in the Los Angeles Times ‘They say these guys are flowing across [the border] and formenting all this violence. We don’t think so. What’s the main threat? It’s internal.’
My assertion was not that foriegn fighters make up the bulk of the insurgency, but that they are there. It is unlikly, however, that the 'insurgency' could continue without foriegn aid.
Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
If you’re only reading the mainstream press then you’re probably only getting one side of events
No, not at all, I have a number of sources of information
. Beyond that just remember who our mainstream sources are. Not to harp on about it but the BBC is the only truly independent news service in the world (independent in so much as those that fund it (the gov) can't tell it what to report and what not to). Thats why I don't like it when people grumble about paying a TV licence fee.FYI:
http://vitw.org/
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtml
Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
And it not just armchair liberals try this – www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html
He says nothing that I haven't more or less said myself elsewhere in this thread. Except his assertion that seems to suggest that the Iraqi's liked the oppressive Baath regime?
Further more he makes an assertion that he knows more than your average soldier.
His position as a reservist and a NCO makes this fairly unlikely...
My point was never we are doing the right thing. Indeed we need to drastically change what we are doing in Iraq. No one less than the Americans, whos attitudes, at least from the troops, largely is of a conquering power. As I said earlier the British troops are schooled in Iraqi language and culture, the US troops are not. More over they have a policy of shoot first, check targets later. British units have come under fire from American troops while driving British army Landrovers flying a Union flag.
If an American infantry man has insufficient training to distinguish British army units from 'the enemy', how can they distinguish 'the enemy' from civilians?
What I ask is do you believe that the situation in Iraq will improve without the coallition forces?
Q: What do you have when you are holding two little green balls in your hand.
A: Kermit's undivided attention.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:- if it isn't right we should go
Originally posted by citizen:
I never said, nor do I think, that the occupation is morally right, then or now
Quote:
Our goverments have to rebuild Iraq and work on helping install a democratic goverment. Believe it or not this is a democracy, and if no attempts to install a democratic goverment, or a purely western puppet goverment is installed,
sure they should but i don't believe they will - or at least not without a great deal of pressure at home and in Iraq
Quote:
Your assertion of American and British 'ruling classes' confuses me somewhat though. Are you saying that we live in a facade of democracy controlled behind the scenes by some shadowy ruling class?
they're not that shadowy really, we live in a class society (you may have guessed by now i'm a marxist) - i'd say a deomcracy is a facade when (in US) only half the electorare votes, once in four years
Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
My assertion was not that foriegn fighters make up the bulk of the insurgency, but that they are there. It is unlikly, however, that the 'insurgency' could continue without foriegn aid.
was trying to answer this point
Quote:
Leaving now will end with an extremist religous regime taking over Iraq to fill the power vaccuum,
by suggesting that most Iraqis wouldn't want this kind of regime but the real answer is in Naomi Klein's exposition of what would happen without occupying forces and i agree with her that the coalition forces are no protection against extemism - in fact there's a whole lot of stuff on the way the forces are playing divide and rule and introducing sectariainism into Iraq when is barely surfaced before - bit simarly to the Balkans really
Quote:genuinely pleased about that
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
I have a number of sources of information
Quote:
BBC is the only truly independent news service in the world
Its not bad - but the BBC is 'advised' and the people i know who work in the news have told us of very deliberate campaigns to silence certain voices that are not in keeping with what the government wants - have you heard on the BBC about the long and vicious anti-union campaign that led to the gate gourmet staff walking out (lets leave this for another day but its just to make a point that the BBC is not completly impartial)
Quote:
Except his assertion that seems to suggest that the Iraqi's liked the oppressive Baath regime?
not really sure how you read that - assertion to me seems to be that iraqis are angry that they keep getting killed see no mention of Ba'athists (it is late and i'm tired though - may have missed it)
Quote:
Further more he makes an assertion that he knows more than your average soldier.
i think he just saying his not a 17 year old fresh into battle
Quote:
Indeed we need to drastically change what we are doing in Iraq. If an American infantry man has insufficient training to distinguish British army units from 'the enemy', how can they distinguish 'the enemy' from civilians?
exactly - and are 'we' gonna change, is there gonna be that training? - and seeing as the civilian death toll (along with the deaths of our troops) keeps rising there seems to be no evidence they're getting better at that - shouldn't we leave and stop that toll rising?
Quote:
What I ask is do you believe that the situation in Iraq will improve without the coallition forces?
Yes, because i don't believe they will change and do the things you quite rightly think they should - the counter question seeing as you agree the war is wrong, that the military leadership is incompetent and given a sense of history that occupying powers generally don't help is - what good are the coalition forces actually doing?
smile pretty and watch your back
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
if it isn't right we should go
The fact that the current action is wrong does not make the alternative action morally right.
For instance:
An argument made on these boards recently is that the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was ok because the alternative of conventional bombing and invasion would have resulted in greater civilian and military casualities. This is not the case, all that it indicates is that the bombings may have been the lesser of two evils, not that they are morally right.
Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
they're not that shadowy really, we live in a class society (you may have guessed by now i'm a marxist) - i'd say a deomcracy is a facade when (in US) only half the electorare votes, once in four years
Arguably the upper class has less say in state affairs than the lower classes, simply because they are fewer, low turnout not withstanding. My views on Marxism can wait till another time.
Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
Its not bad - but the BBC is 'advised' and the people i know who work in the news have told us of very deliberate campaigns to silence certain voices that are not in keeping with what the government wants - have you heard on the BBC about the long and vicious anti-union campaign that led to the gate gourmet staff walking out (lets leave this for another day but its just to make a point that the BBC is not completly impartial)
No news source is, the BBC is one of the best, even non-affliated independent news sites, such as www.whatreallyhappened.com will be coloured.
Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
not really sure how you read that - assertion to me seems to be that iraqis are angry that they keep getting killed see no mention of Ba'athists (it is late and i'm tired though - may have missed it)
Quote:
It might have even been possible to foist democracy on these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an institution.
The mention of the Ba'ath party was my own, as an indication of how the above read to me. It seems he is suggesting that Iraqis want to live in a dictatorship.
Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
i think he just saying his not a 17 year old fresh into battle
Quote:
I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.
I can speak only of the British Army but NCO's would not be given that level of information about the wider tactical situation of the country. Anyother meaning to his words would mearly mean he has access to the same data that you and I do, in which case so what?
Quote:
Originally posted by Becsthebeast:
Yes, because i don't believe they will change and do the things you quite rightly think they should - the counter question seeing as you agree the war is wrong, that the military leadership is incompetent and given a sense of history that occupying powers generally don't help is - what good are the coalition forces actually doing?
Germany, again, after the second world war. I use this analagy as it is, to my knowledge, the only comparable situation. In Germany free elections were not held until four years after the beginning of the occupation. We've been in Iraq for two.
This quote can say my position as well as I can (although it is a little simplistic in places):
Quote:
Jeffrey Herf:
A firm and powerful occupation in Iraq is essential not only to defeat terror, rebuild and protect the infrastructure, establish elementary law and order, get the electricity turned on and the oil industry back on its feet.
I would put it better myself perhaps but its late and I'm tired...
My question was incorrectly phrased, more pertinent question would be what do you see happening in Iraq if the occupation were to end tommorrow?
As a side note you may find this link interesting:
http://riverbendblog.blogsp
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME