excuse me? would you mind standing still while we kill you?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by blackfox, Nov 11, 2004.

  1. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #1
    From NYT...

    Anyone ever paly that game at Chucky Cheese where you try to bop the groundhog/golpher on the head with a mallet? Pops up one place, you strike, but now it's in another place, you strike, still another, etc.

    Fun Game. Pretty Frustrating. Not the best strategy outside of the pizza parlor, however.

    comments?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/11/i...&en=b76e3d2520471f73&ei=5094&partner=homepage
     
  2. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #2
    Whack-A-Mole? Fun game.

    Yeah telegraphing your moves to your opponent is not the best strategy. But what's our other option? Not give the 200,000 or so residents of Falluja a chance to escape before we attack? Not good for PR, which really is a major factor in modern combat.

    Did we ever really expect the resistance to stand and fight? I sure didn't.
     
  3. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    Except they didn't get a chance to escape. All men under 45 were either turned back or arrested. So much for it being down to a couple of thousand "insurgents". The US have guaranteed a numerous and desperate enemy. My signature seems ever more appropriate.
     
  4. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #4
    I spent 3 years in a strategy group for an Admiral in the late 90's. These groups have representatives from special forces to the red cross, yes the red cross. The person giving advice on end game and civil reorganization, they are called a CIVIC, can't remember the anacronym. But the pr and civilian casualty thing is huge, it is a war not chess, innocents get killed-but I am proud to be from a country that not only includes but holds in esteem a position in the strategy group for the humanitarian efforts. This person might be the most powerful in a Haiti type operation, or in the back of the room for a desert storm 1 event till things cool. Do they always get it right, nope, but they are trying to.
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    I believe the cordon has only been in effect for a few weeks now (although I'm not positive about that). The invasion has been on the back burner for months.

    BTW, where are all the people who were claiming Kerry was the guy who let politics dictate his actions? Did Bush not push this invasion off until after the elections here specifically for his benefit and to the detriment of the overall war effort? Sounds like someone is playing politics with our troops....
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    Or in the next room but one when breaches of humanitarian law or Geneva Conventions are being discussed...
     
  7. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #7
    As far as the law goes, every operation has a plethera of JAG officers, you can't sling a buger with out hiting 3. They are always giving briefs from Geneva Convention to Rule of Engagement (who and why you can shoot at people or things). Have their been some lapses? NO QUESTION, is there in every war? PROBABLY. But when your enemy wears no uniform, has no flag, and no government, then all the edges go fuzzy.

    Can you site instances that things were handle wrong? Yes, and you probably will. The prisoner scandal is about the worst thing that could have happened. There are always two sides, sometimes three (is the glass half full, or empty, or twice as big as it needs to be).

    The town was not attacked earlier at the behest of the acting PM if I remember correctly. (could be wrong). I didn't serve in Vietnam, some here did, they may be able to talk about the good and bad of politics and war better than anyone else here.
     
  8. blackfox thread starter macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #8
    While I do not wish to dismiss the obvious humanitarian concerns, I originally posted because of the impression of futulity and subsequently, idiocy, in this policy.

    So you storm one city by force and many of the insurgents rise up in another city, you go there, they rise in a third...so you spend endless time chasing a fluid enemy.

    Even if we had the capacity to occupy every city, then the insurrgents would probably just re-group in the rural areas, or outside of the borders.

    Now, some may say that what choice do we have? I must say, that when something like this is your best choice, you should probably re-assess whether or not you should continue.

    There is no shame in knowing when you are beaten. You can always come back and fight another day.

    Personally, I feel that the US should leave immediately, let Iraq sort itself out between itself, and then we should offer tons of financial and logistical aid and support. Will it be messy and chaotic? Of course, but what is it now? Allow th Iraqis to exercise their right to self-determination, and then deal with that result in a respectful and helpful manner.

    That's just me.
     
  9. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #9
    Interesting you should bring up the Vietnam comparison, since that's another war where the rules of engagement went haywire because it was so difficult tell the good guys from the bad guys. Iraq is very similar in this very important respect, and so might be the outcome. Trotting out a variation on "war is hell" is not an answer to the paramount question of whether US forces are in the right place doing the right thing (a civilian issue, not a military one). It took us more than ten years of death and destruction in Vietnam before we were able answer that question.
     
  10. stubeeef macrumors 68030

    stubeeef

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    #10
    how would you feel if we left, and unspeakable horrors against humanity sprung up Sudan style, would we need to come back then, or were we negligant to leave?
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    I didn't know my feelings had any bearing on this question.

    My point is, this war is clearly a horrible mistake, and flattening major cities is not very likely to end it -- if history is any guide, and it certainly should be. If Iraq turns into another Sudan or something like it, it won't be the fault of the people who thought it was a misguided effort from the start and poorly executed at nearly every step along the way.
     
  12. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #12
    Since we are currently doing more harm then good, we should leave. If things get even worse, a distinct possibility, then we could send troops back in in a non-invasion/occupation manner.

    I'm obviously no military expert, but I would think that there are essential differences between an occupation and a humanitarian mission. If we sent troops to Sudan, would they act they same way, and under the same rules as in Iraq? What if we supplied only logistics/support and humanitarian aid? If other countries supplied only enough troops to protect humanitarian workers (having workers rather than soldiers would be an important difference) it wouldn't seem as if we were trying to occupy the nation and take over, as it seems now.

    It's not a perfect solution, but since there's an obvious defficiency in our current methods, I'll put it forth for discussion.
     
  13. blackfox thread starter macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #13
    excerpt from a NYT Editorial:
    Good Questions, I think.
    Perhaps it is overly hopeful, as "thoughtful" and "deliberative" took a beating at the recent polls.
     
  14. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #14
    Thanatoast, when all you send is food and suchlike to a place like Sudan, where the government is as nasty as any enemy, what happens is that this "duly constituted" government takes the aid for its own folks and everybody else does without.

    Remember all the rock music concerts to raise money for food for Ethiopia? Some $50 million was gathered up. They sent shiploads of wheat to Ethiopia. The government first would not allow unloading. They then allowed the wheat to be unloaded and stored--in government warehouses.

    As far as these attacks in Iraq, it's much like the Tet offensive of 1968. That was the last gasp of an organized Viet Cong. After that, the only effectives were the NVA's people. Prior to Tet, the VC was nearly ready to go to Phase 3+ of Mao's four phases of insurrection. Post-Tet, the VC was back to Phase 1.

    I'm not predicting that a great killing of these "insurgents" will guarantee the same result, but they're certainly easier to kill when they're out in the open and attacking.

    'Rat
     
  15. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #15
    I don't know if there are any really "good" choices right now, but leaving is definetly a bad one. If we leave, not only will it look like we cut and run, but if we come back the obvious Q will be, "Why the hell did you leave in the first place?" Plus, the role of the U.N. Peace keeper is a joke (unless the rules of engagement have had a major overhaul). And, as 'Rat mentioned, sending aid only helps those in power (food for oil anyone?). The situation in Iraq has crumbled into a catch-22. The only way I see it calming down is if Iraqi's who want a "free Iraq" stand up and actively help pacify their country. Of course any Iraqi who helps coalition forces instantly puts a big, fat bull's eye on their forehead. The fighting needs to go down so the common citizen will feel comfortable (safe) helping the coalition/new Iraqi government, but the fighting won't go down unless the common citizen feels comfortable (safe) in helping the coalition/new Iraqi governmnet. Chicken/egg, Chicken/egg.

    As odd as it may sound blowing up their own country men is a very sound tatic for the militants. Not only does it deter people from helping the coalition and new Iraqi government but it also builds resentment. The common reaction is to blame the troops for not stoping the attackers instead of blaming the attackers themselves.


    Lethal
     
  16. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    It's called a civil war, and we started it. I don't think it makes sense to decide what the US should do next in Iraq until we've come to grips with this basic fact.
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    Lethal, you just described one of the main objections myself, and a large number of those opposed to the Iraq invasion, voiced before it took place. We were roundly shouted down at the time, although that fear has now largely come true.

    Now I realize that we can't go back and refight that battle, but it drives me crazy that those who were right about the results of an Iraq invasion are not being listened to now. The same people who were wrong about the WMDs and the likelihood of a civil war erupting are still in charge and dictating policy. To me that seems insane. Listen to the people who long ago said we needed another 100,000 to 150,000 troops to effectively control Iraq. Or the ones who predicted chaos within Iraq's factional groups. Or the ones who said it would take far more than a year to get Iraq's oil output to fund any portion of it's reconstruction and that America would be footing a very large bill until that happened. But the current leadership refuses to do so.
     
  18. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #18
    I"m not at all saying that the situation in Iraq is all wonderful, but it seems like there's a lack of perspective: Fallujah is but one city. There are some 25 million Iraqis. Yeah, there are other trouble spots, but nowhere near the magnitude of Fallujah.

    The country's infrastructure is being rebuilt and/or improved. Away from the trouble spots, life is getting better for "Joe Iraqi"--according to various reports from either returned GIs or from guys who are now there.

    Hell's bells, at least now they have the freedom to bitch about anything that doesn't suit'em. That's one helluvan improvement, considering that bitching used to carry a death penalty...

    'Rat
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    Hey 'Rat, how come the US hasn't met the level of resistance we were expecting to find in Falluja?

    Could the answer to that have anything to do with the recent surge in violence outside Falluja?
     
  20. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #20
    mac, damfino. I've seen some theorizing that some of the "Fallujahns" bailed out ahead of the attack, moving elsewhere. Lord knows, we sat around talking about the attack long enough...

    However, Custer discovered that it's unwise to split your forces, as the hostiles have done.

    'Rat
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    Custer wasn't hiding amongst friendlies now, was he?
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    Custer wasn't the one whose land had been invaded.
     
  23. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #23
    This from the same country that has supported dictators around the globe? Only because those countries offer something like oil or more? THe US is nothing more than a whore in the streets. No wonder there is so little world respect for the US. Trie to defend that...
     
  24. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #24
    I wish I had the Parade Magazine list of the worst "dictators". Many are supported by your (our) government. We choose our "enemies" for what the "winner" can give us. That makes us a whore of a country IMO.
     
  25. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #25
    And we left as the "loser" just 4 years later as I recall. The Tet Offensive was a moral victory for the enemy. It was anything but a "last gasp". It showed the US and the world that they were here to stay. And in the end they "won". Tet broke the "spirit" of the US military.
     

Share This Page