So the government knows the will of the people even if the people don’t know it ? When are you attacking Oceania ?
Apparently you didn’t learn the lesson of vietnam did you ? Political and final victories will not be acheived by military victories alone… welcome to the rerun session: Iraq.
how do u figure?
Just a brief nitpick
From ElvisL1ves
[QUOTE]
Not every Vietnamese who carried a rifle also held a rank, either, but they doubtless pretty much all thought they were defending their country from invaders and were thought of that way by their countrymen, weren’t they?
QUOTE]
I was unaware that the US ever ‘invaded’ Viet Nam. When was that, exactly?? I seem to recall that North Viet Nam was trying to over throw South Viet Nam, which requested UN and US assistance to…well, to not be over thrown. I seem to recall that North Viet Nam used insurgents in South Viet Nam, where, to my knowledge, the majority of the fighting actually took place. Maybe I have this all wrong though…enlighten me, ElvisL1ves. 
Other than this brief hijack, I have nothing to add to this debate. To be honest I’m unsure what the debate IS. Is it that casualties are too high, too low, or what?
As to the attacks against American soldiers, no, I wouldn’t consider them ‘terrorist’. But then, I’d say that, to their minds, attacks on the UN, Red Cross, and also assassination of Iraqi’s willing to work with the US or in their provisional government are also legitimate targets…not terrorist incidents. Right or wrong, the US is IN their country…and based on the limited means they have of fighting back, I’d say any attack they do in their country, reguardless of the target, is legidimate, IMO. Now, if prior to the war, for no appearent reason, they decided to deliberately target civilians, then I’d say yes…thats a clear terrorist act.
Personally, I think they should pack up and go home…its all over by the dieing at this point, at least in Iraq. As far as I know, no major power is supporting their efforts, and for something like this to actually work, its essential that one does (see Viet Nam, Afghanistan, etc). The US is pretty much committed now in Iraq. Its pointless struggle at this point, with no hope of winning (IMO)…all it will do is continue to cost lives, destroy property, cost money, and push back the time for Iraq to get back on its feet. All for what? To humiliate Bush? Even one death isn’t worth that, IMO.
-XT
-XT
Who are these 2 000 000 Cambodians who died as a result of US withdrawal?
I’m aware that US bombed Cambodia during the Vietnam war and that it resulted in many civilian deaths, but probably not 2 000 000 and anyway, it would have been the result of the US staying in Vietnam, not of the withdrawal, so you’re obviously refering to something else.
I thought for an instant you were thinking of the Red Khmers, since the death toll could well have been 2 000 000 but of course, it can’t be that, since they were ousted by the communist Vietnameses while the US tried to oppose this intervention, and apparently you’re refering to some event where the US could have been on the “good” side, and the Vietnamese on the “bad” side.
I don’t understand…Care to explain?
clairobscur: No, he doesn’t care to explain.
The great gobear addresses Milum’s cautionary fable on the danger of listening to hippies in this jolly little Pit thread.
A couple of sites that are counting civilian cassualties in Iraq:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm
-> min 7776
-> max 9587
http://www.iraqometer.com/ (includes other stats)
-> civilian 7768
-> coalition 407
-> wounded GIs 1846
Not that you asked, but here’s what I think will happen:
The Bushiviks will repent of thier decision to dissolve the Iraqi army. They will, of course, purge the uppermost ranks of Baathists, but will have to be rather forgiving of junior to middling senior officers. Gotta have officers. The regular soldiers will be “rehired”, if that is the correct word. After all, they’ve already been “trained”. We will make noises about retraining them, but the schedule constraints of dying American soldiers and a looming election will keep that brief.
This Army will prove its worthiness and reliability by crushing America’s enemies. Since we know diddly-squat about Iraq, we’ll end up taking thier word for it. They’ll pull a head out of a bag, say “Baathist dead-ender”, and we’ll salute and write them a check.
Having “secured” Iraq for the Iraqi’s, we will leave whatever Ad Hoc committee we have currently assembled to ratify our wishes to the tender mercy and nurture of the New! Improved! Iraqi army. With any luck, our troops can be home in time for the October Victory Parade. And of course, the election.
What are the odds there isn’t a bright-eyed, ruthless and ambitious Iraqi, say a colonel or major, who is pondering this. How long before Donald Rumsfeld is shaking his hand.
Milum, I am still waiting for evidence that
All the evidence I have seen so far shows support for Bush and his war in Iraq has steadily declined. Can you show otherwise? Or are you just spouting BS?
Yeah, the President appreciates their sacrifice so much that he’s now banning news coverage of dead soldiers’ homecomings on all military bases. :rolleyes:
Are you posting this from Iraq? If you are in favour of this war GET OVER THERE AND HELP!
One thing lacking in all of the time-path statistics quoted that relate to deaths is any indication of the locations involved. This is needed to put the over simplified chronological/death record in perspective.
If the deaths are not spread out uniformly all over Iraq, or even one big city of Iraq, perhaps it might be more sensible to get additional facts before making any attempt to draw firm conclusions.
If the killings are taking place in just a small number of areas, then it is probably invalid to consider it to be a nation wide problem.
I am not suggesting that there is no problem. I am merely suggesting that all aspects of the big picture should be considered separately, not all of the big picture in one big gulp.
The population of Iraq isn’t “spread out uniformly all over Iraq.” A large chunk f Iraq is (relatively) uninhabited desert. Something like a quarter of the population is in Baghdad alone. Nearly half of the pop of the entire country is found inside the “Sunni Triangle.” So, it would be amazing if the attacks were evenly distributed through the geography of Iraq.
Saen Somehow I missed the “-5000” part of your statement. (actually I think an accurate chronology would be: I read it, missed the 5000 part, wrote my post, reread your post, saw it, modified my post, reread it again, misread it again, modified my post and posted it). Sorry
I agree.
But the violence appears to be taking place in a small number of “hot spots”.
Killings are happening a lot in one concentration of population in Iraq, but not in a number of others.
That is what I meant by “nation wide.” I’m aware that the situation is definitely dangerous in the “hot spots” but everyone discussing it seems to assume that the problem is widespread throughout Iraq, which is quite a large country, and this is not, in my opinion, valid.
Well, didn’t take long for that prediction to come true: Bush in a Hurry to Train Iraqis in Security Duty
Reading entrails, 'luce? Or was there an earlier story I missed?
When McNamara was using “body count” as a metric of success in Vietnam, the soldiers on the ground knew how to count to please their commanders: “If it’s dead, it’s Cong.”
Quoth elucidator, “This Army will prove its worthiness and reliability by crushing America’s enemies. Since we know diddly-squat about Iraq, we’ll end up taking thier word for it. They’ll pull a head out of a bag, say “Baathist dead-ender”, and we’ll salute and write them a check.”
xtisme, you need to brush up on Vietnam before commenting further. The war for independence was going on long before the US sent troops over there, against China, Japan, France, even Britain for awhile, France again, then the US (and note I didn’t say which, if any, I was referring to). The North-South division of a single nation was short-lived and not based on history. The attitudes I was referring to as the ones that mattered were those of the people who lived there, just as the attitudes that will control the future of the Iraq situation are those of the Iraqis. It does no good to just tell them we really do mean well when their family members are being killed - that sounds like Groucho’s “Who are you gonna believe - me or your lying eyes?”. If you really want to convince anyone of anything, you first have to respect their basic intelligence and humanity - your approach does not and will fail.
Alan, how many “hot spots” covering how much of the population do there have to be for the word “widespread” to be applicable?
???
Cite?
Hey flonks,
Try thinking with your mind and not your brain.
Excerpt from Mekong Media Cambodia
There is nothing unique about government-sponsored violence. There is, in fact, nothing especially unusual about widespread killing, or even genocide. The rallying cry heard in the wake of World War II – “Never again!” – is a noble sentiment, and not a reflection of reality. Ask the Indonesians, or the Timorese, or the Palestinians, or the Salvadorans, or the Rwandans, or the Albanians… or the Cambodians.
The reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia ranks as one of the most disastrous in modern history. It could be persuasively argued that it was, in fact, the worst.
It is important to understand the Cambodian revolution in context. Scholars currently investigating mass graves in Cambodia now estimate Pol Pot’s three-and-a-half year reign led to the deaths of approximately two million people. There were no precise statistics on the population of the country when the Khmer Rouge came to power in 1975, but it is likely that the number of deaths represented between fifteen and twenty percent of the entire population. [end]
The Armed Forces of the United States withdrew from Viet Nam in 1974. John Foster Dulles was right… /////__ <-- (dominos)
From ElvisL1ves
Thanks for the advice, but I know quite a bit about the conflict. I’m quite aware that the war for independance had been going on for quite some time. The North/South phase of the conflict had nothing to do with ‘independance’ though, as both countries were soveriegn, but had to do with the North wanting to re-unify the country through military conquest. Its too complex a subject to get into here as a hijack though, no?
All I said was:
From xtisme
What part of what I said here is wrong, from the US involvement (granted it was fairly light on detail…it was just a quick blurb to tweak your nose a bit)? As I said, it was just a brief nit pick…we didn’t invade anyone…we came there to assist the South AT THIER REQUEST (and the UN’s), which WAS being ‘invaded’ by the North. Yes yes, I’m aware of the artificial nature of the division (same in Korea, Germany, etc), but the fact remains that the South WAS a soveriegn nation by then, same as the North. It was acknowledged by the UN after all, no? The North was definitely in the process of attempting to re-unify Vietnam through military means.
I ASSUMED you meant simply the US involvement, though if you were refering earlier history, ok, yes there were several invasions of Vietnam. You are also correct in the attitude of the people on the ground, at least from the perspective of the North, during say the French second period. I’m sure the attitude of the folks in teh North shifted somewhat when they pretty much went on the offensive IN South Vietnam though. I’d say that the attitude of those in the South varried. Certainly there were some that were for the rebels…and some against…and some that basically lived in fear and supported them because of that…and some that lived in fear of the US and supported them for the same reasons.
I agree with you on the last part of your statement, that we have to win the ‘hearts and minds’ in Iraq, though I for one, don’t see a clear way to do so this thing is such a fucking mess. I think we could be doing better, though its a complex situation, without any easy answers now. Do we bring the Iraqi military back to life? That would solve some of the massive unemployment and disassociation that they are feeling, as well as assist the US military in seriously dampening the current resistance, but it would also open up a whole now can of worms. Do we use more Iraqi civilians to do the work over there? Again, there are serious pros and cons to doing that. And in the midst of all this, there are attacks daily, sabotage, murders, assassinations, etc etc. Its a fucking mess over there, and I’m starting to seriously lose my earlier optimism about our prospects there in the future.
-XT
Milum, where is your proof about the “brink of victory”?