Yes, the parallel with Viet Nam, in this regard, is a good one. The Vietnamese government which came out of the US withdrawal has done fine for itself. Did the US leave a vacuum? Yep. Did the Vietnamese people sort themselves out without US help? Yep.xarir said:
The Truth On Iraq: It's Devastated
- Thread starter Mcluhan
- Start date
The International Court of Justice, The Hague, in 1986 found the US guilty of "unlawful use of force" (international terrorism in lay terms) against Nicaragua.onthebottom said:Really, can you send me a link on that?
http://hnn.us/articles/1465.html
This doc references the event. The "World Court" found the US guilty and asked them to pay reparations to Nicaragua.
The US ignored the verdict.
This doc references the event. The "World Court" found the US guilty and asked them to pay reparations to Nicaragua.
The US ignored the verdict.
did the vietnamese people sort themselves out? sure- the viet cong took over purged the govenment, took everyone's personal property, set up education camps- it was a paradiseRanger68 said:Yes, the parallel with Viet Nam, in this regard, is a good one. The Vietnamese government which came out of the US withdrawal has done fine for itself. Did the US leave a vacuum? Yep. Did the Vietnamese people sort themselves out without US help? Yep.
Actually, I think everybody, including the uS government, agrees that it worked out quite well.red said:did the vietnamese people sort themselves out? sure- the viet cong took over purged the govenment, took everyone's personal property, set up education camps- it was a paradise
As usual, the ones who will have a hard time in Iraq are the collaboraters, who as usual will be abandoned by the occupiers without any scruples.
I'm sure it *was* a paradise compared to when the fighting was occuring. That's the point.red said:did the vietnamese people sort themselves out? sure- the viet cong took over purged the govenment, took everyone's personal property, set up education camps- it was a paradise
the US govt agrees? who cares- I don't think those who enjoyed the hospitality of the north agree that it went well.danmand said:Actually, I think everybody, including the uS government, agrees that it worked out quite well.
As usual, the ones who will have a hard time in Iraq are the collaboraters, who as usual will be abandoned by the occupiers without any scruples.
as for iraq- the ones trying to rebuild their country are collaborators? nice. so you support civilian iraqis being killed by the "insurgents"?
Ranger68 said:I'm sure it *was* a paradise compared to when the fighting was occuring. That's the point.
no - its not the point. people are killed during a war- and no it was not a paradise. whether you support the war in iraq or not or in viet nam or not - lets not pretend that the north vietnamese were a bunch of nice guys and that everyone in the south wanted to live in a communist wonderland
No guys, the point is that there was an advanced organization in Vietman able to fill the vacuum. In Iraq all you have are disorganized gorrilla's/freedom fighters. There are to many groups who will want control if there is nothing viable in place. If you do not like the comparison to the Lebanese situation, then think of the Sudan. Another mess.
Ranger, as regards paradise, the war was no where near as hard on the general populace as the hard transition which followed but with no resisting civil groups the transition did work out. That is not the case here.
Ranger, as regards paradise, the war was no where near as hard on the general populace as the hard transition which followed but with no resisting civil groups the transition did work out. That is not the case here.
Well, Senator McCain does, but he is of course a commie in your book.red said:the US govt agrees? who cares- I don't think those who enjoyed the hospitality of the north agree that it went well.
as for iraq- the ones trying to rebuild their country are collaborators? nice. so you support civilian iraqis being killed by the "insurgents"?
As far as killing anybody, I am against it. You obviously are not.
I was merely pointing out that history will name the insurgents "freedom fighters" and the ones helping the occupiers "collaborators".
Actually, I think *you* need to brush up on your history. The Germans were NOT fanatical foes. The Nazis were. By the end of the war, few live Germans supported their government, and although there WAS fanatical fighting, it was either sparse (on the western front), or totally overwhelmed (on the eastern front). The German people were done fighting. Had the Allies invaded Japan, you would have seen truly FANATICAL fighting, and Allied casualties well over a million. - Ranger68
Holy Ranger68.
I hope you don't have a wife or girlfriend. You must argue with her on how she cooks your scrambled eggs!!
Alright alright, the Nazis were fanatics and the German people were done fighting. And the war didn't end with the death of Hitler. There were still groups of die-hards that fought the US after the war. Don't forget about the Werewolfs.
A populace with *large* segments violently opposed to a foreign invader often has good success fighting them off, over time. Reread *my* post. - Ranger 68
Please reread my post about the effects of time on this discussion. All of your examples are badly flawed, however - especially in light of the arguments made in my post - the Irish and Scottish achieved measures of independence (when the British became a more liberal democracy), the Tibetans quickly adopted pacifist tactics (against an authoritarian invader), and the French fought against the British on almost equal terms and were defeated in open battle, after which they were integrated into the rest of the country. - Ranger 68
Blah Blah Blah!!!
My point was the invaders can win on foreign turf. A sucess is a sucess. Whether you want to put a time limit on a victory and how long that time limit should be is another debate altogether.
Holy Ranger68.
I hope you don't have a wife or girlfriend. You must argue with her on how she cooks your scrambled eggs!!
Alright alright, the Nazis were fanatics and the German people were done fighting. And the war didn't end with the death of Hitler. There were still groups of die-hards that fought the US after the war. Don't forget about the Werewolfs.
A populace with *large* segments violently opposed to a foreign invader often has good success fighting them off, over time. Reread *my* post. - Ranger 68
Please reread my post about the effects of time on this discussion. All of your examples are badly flawed, however - especially in light of the arguments made in my post - the Irish and Scottish achieved measures of independence (when the British became a more liberal democracy), the Tibetans quickly adopted pacifist tactics (against an authoritarian invader), and the French fought against the British on almost equal terms and were defeated in open battle, after which they were integrated into the rest of the country. - Ranger 68
Blah Blah Blah!!!
My point was the invaders can win on foreign turf. A sucess is a sucess. Whether you want to put a time limit on a victory and how long that time limit should be is another debate altogether.
Posting this in 2 parts.. there is some relevent info here...to this discussion.
U.S. mulls strikes on Syria
By Richard Sale
UPI Intelligence Correspondent
New York, NY, Jan. 11 (UPI) -- Bush administration hard-liners have been considering launching selected military strikes at insurgent training camps in Syria and border-crossing points used by Islamist guerrillas to enter Iraq in an effort to bolster security for the upcoming elections, according to former and current administration officials.
Pressure for some form of military action is also coming from interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, these sources said.
Some former and serving U.S. intelligence officials who have usually been opposed to any expansion of U.S. military activities in the region are expressing support for such strikes.
A former senior U.S. intelligence official told United Press International, "I don't usually find myself in sympathy with the Bush neo-cons, but I think there is enough fire under this smoke to justify such action."
Referring to the escalating attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq by Iraqi insurgents, he added, "Syria is complicit in the (anti-U.S.) insurgency up to its eyeballs."
"Syria is the No. 1 crossing point" for guerrillas entering Iraq," Gary Gambill, editor of the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, said. He added that Damascus "does nothing about it."
An administration official said Syria has "camps in which Syrians are training Iraqis for the insurgency and others where Iraqis are training Syrians for the same purpose" which could be hit by U.S. air strikes.
Gal Luft, a former Israeli military official with ties to Israeli and U.S. intelligence, said, "I have heard of the same thing about the camps."
Recently, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said that senior Baath Party officials from Iraq are operating from Syria where they provide financing and direction to the cells of Iraqi insurgents killing Americans, sparking new discussions within the administration about possible measures against Syria.
"There are all sorts of discussions going on, the White House, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs," said former CIA counterterrorism chief, Vince Cannistraro.
He felt the talk of strikes "is part of a general plan of intimidation."
The White House did not return phone calls.
U.S. officials told United Press International that money, direction, weapons and personnel are flowing into Iraq from Syria, ending up in Iraqi cities such as Iskanderiya, Baqouba, Latafiya and Fallujah.
Damascus is also home to associates of a top insurgency commander now affiliated with al-Qaida, Jordanian Abu Musab Zarqawi, who is responsible for many major suicide bombing attacks in Iraq, U.S. officials said.
The presence of a Zarqawi branch in Damascus, discovered last summer, was said to have acted as a major spur in uniting France and the United States in supporting U.N. Resolution 1559 that demanded Syria withdraw from Lebanon and that elections be held in April 2005, U.S. officials said.
Gambill charged that a major Zarqawi deputy lives in Damascus.
In addition to Syria being used as a rear area for insurgents, it is a key center of finance for former Saddam Hussein officials who are leading the insurgency, thanks to stashes of Iraqi cash that could run as high as $3 billion, which is all in the Syrian banking system, according for former and serving administration officials.
There are also allegedly "many millions of dollars" from Palestinian groups flowing into Syria that are also being used to help finance anti-American guerrilla groups in Iraq, these sources said.
The Bush administration has applied increasing pressure on Syrian President Bashar Assad to halt the activities of militant groups inside Syria, and to arrest and extradite former Saddam Hussein officials who are the leading financiers, according to several U.S. government sources.
So far there has been no positive response, they said.
What especially worries U.S. former and serving intelligence analysts is the seeming weakness of Assad to act against these groups. According to these sources, Assad is "well aware of the U.S. Army on its border to the east," and does not want to antagonize the United States, in the words of one.
Part II U.S. mulls strikes on Syria
In fact, Bashar's inner circle of key advisers consists of reformist, "smart, streetwise young technocrats" who are urging Bashar to yield to U.S. pressure and begin to shut down some of the anti-U.S. activity, one U.S. official said.
But Bashar is also surrounded by "the old guard" -- rogue members of the ruling circle, "various people who are making millions and millions of dollars" by allowing former Baath officials to shelter in Syria, this source said.
"If something goes wrong, they can pack up and go and live in Geneva," he said.
Because of the rogue elements, after the technocrats (who are also pro-reform) give Bashar their views, they often find themselves visited the next day by hard-line members of Syria's Mukhabarat, or secret police, who tell them to keep their mouths shut, according to this official.
"Bashar is trapped," this U.S. government official said. "He's the prisoner of Zenda."
Luft agreed, saying, "The Mukhabarat and some of the old guard are known to be pressuring Bashar's senior confidents to ignore U.S. demands."
One former senior CIA official, usually an administration critic, said, "We should send a cruise missile into south-side Damascus and blow the Mukharbarat headquarters off the map. We should first make clear to them that they are the target."
But are the hawks likely to get their strikes?
Former CIA Syria expert, Martha Kessler doesn't think so. "I don't think the administration can afford to destabilize another country in the region," she said.
Kessler pointed out that Syria has tried, often in vain, to cooperate with the United States, only to be either snubbed or ignored.
According to Kesssler, Syria offered to station U.S. forces on its soil before the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The Syrians have also opened their intelligence books that identify assets in Europe, including front companies, to the administration in an attempt to help track down al-Qaida.
But Kessler said a chief reason for not moving against Damascus is that any strikes would "destabilize Lebanon," where the Lebanese Hezbollah movement awaits orders from Iran before launching retaliations against Israeli attacks.
"Damascus is not the heartbeat of this Iraqi insurgent movement," she said.
However, one administration official said, "We have got one hell of a problem."
The operation to take Fallujah was not designed to make friends. It was designed to take and pacify the city and elminate/capture insurgents.
The US military knew going in that Iraqis in Fallujah were going to hate them more than ever after the siege. The military can live with that as long as the citizens of Fallujah are incapable of assisting the insurgency.
The best the US can hope for after this operation is that by providing relief and reconstruction projects the people of Fallujah will be more preoccupied with living their lives then fighting the Americans.
The US military knew going in that Iraqis in Fallujah were going to hate them more than ever after the siege. The military can live with that as long as the citizens of Fallujah are incapable of assisting the insurgency.
The best the US can hope for after this operation is that by providing relief and reconstruction projects the people of Fallujah will be more preoccupied with living their lives then fighting the Americans.
When did I call Mr. McCain a commie? - no where - you are putting words in my mouth to stay away from the point.danmand said:Well, Senator McCain does, but he is of course a commie in your book.
As far as killing anybody, I am against it. You obviously are not.
I was merely pointing out that history will name the insurgents "freedom fighters" and the ones helping the occupiers "collaborators".
when did I say I was for killing anyone? - never- again -putting words in my mouth in an attempt to attack someone whose views you disagree with
your point re how history will name people- well maybe they will and maybe they won't- I don't know who will write the history of this conflict. in my mind the ones killing the iraqis trying to rebuild their country are fuckin assholes- whatever their motivation
Too bad the Cambodians weren't quite so lucky once the US decided to cut and run.Ranger68 said:I'm sure it *was* a paradise compared to when the fighting was occuring. That's the point.
Are you not in support of the war on Iraq? In case you missed the news, in the order of 200,000 have lost their lives as a direct result of the war on Iraq.red said:when did I say I was for killing anyone? - never- again -putting words in my mouth in an attempt to attack someone whose views you disagree with
I don't think you know what "most of the Iraqis" are thinking.
We'll see what happens to the violence, over time. If you are right, it will slacken off considerably.
The problem with all of these operations is that civilian casualties can't be avoided - this FOMENTS opposition to the US occupation, even among moderates. Over time, the only thing that is likely to happen is that the US creates more opposition to their stay, and to representation by entities who came to power while the US was there. - Ranger 68
And you know what the Iraqis are thinking?
The opposition against the United States is already there but most of these Iraqis rather use non-violent actions to decide the fate of Iraq and their people.
Some of you people are making it seem that these Iraqi are violent and hate-filled creatures who rather forget about taking care of their families and go out kill Americans?
Put yourself in their shoes. What would you do? Would you make the best of a bad situation and provide for your family?
Or would you go grab an AK and run out and fight the Americans with the high probability of getting your ass blown off?
Somehow, Ranger; I don't think you would even leave your house to shake your fist at the Americans much less shoot at them....
We'll see what happens to the violence, over time. If you are right, it will slacken off considerably.
The problem with all of these operations is that civilian casualties can't be avoided - this FOMENTS opposition to the US occupation, even among moderates. Over time, the only thing that is likely to happen is that the US creates more opposition to their stay, and to representation by entities who came to power while the US was there. - Ranger 68
And you know what the Iraqis are thinking?
The opposition against the United States is already there but most of these Iraqis rather use non-violent actions to decide the fate of Iraq and their people.
Some of you people are making it seem that these Iraqi are violent and hate-filled creatures who rather forget about taking care of their families and go out kill Americans?
Put yourself in their shoes. What would you do? Would you make the best of a bad situation and provide for your family?
Or would you go grab an AK and run out and fight the Americans with the high probability of getting your ass blown off?
Somehow, Ranger; I don't think you would even leave your house to shake your fist at the Americans much less shoot at them....
where did you read that?danmand said:Are you not in support of the war on Iraq?
