THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

None of what you highlighted actually supports your position.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And how do we do that, exactly?

Details, please.

Cycloptichorn

By killing as many rotters as we can, while warning the non-combatants of the dangers to their own lives of continuing to tolerate rotters in their midsts, or allowing themselves to continue to be ignorant of the rotters in their midsts.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

None of what you highlighted actually supports your position.

Cycloptichorn

I do not believe you are so obtuse as to actually believe that!

So, how do you determine which people know who is a terrorist, and which people don't know that terrorists live among them, because - and this is a key part that you seem to miss - there is no good way to tell who is a secret terrorist, and who isn't.
...
Cycloptichorn

You have several times written something like: it is the responsibility of the Iraqi people to defend themselves against the rotters. Many are doing that now. Many more will do that in future if we become and remain relentless and successful in our offensive attacks against the rotters.

Quote:

You have several times written something like: it is the responsibility of the Iraqi people to defend themselves against the rotters. Many are doing that now. Many more will do that in future if we become and remain relentless and successful in our offensive attacks against the rotters.

You think more will do that, if we tell them 'we're going to kill anyone who doesn't do what we say, and turn in those who are against the US, or are shi'ite militia members/sunni militia members/al qaeda agents/other?

You don't think that the threat of using violence against those who won't name names to a country that they don't even like, will make them like us more and convert them to our side?

No f*cking way. You're living in a fantasy world if you think we can threaten people into joining the side of freedom.

Cycloptichorn

Your interpretations of what I've advocated are irrational.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2006/09/
September 2006
"Freedom and Justice in Islam"
Bernard Lewis
Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies, Princeton University


...


The Iranian Revolution and Al-Qaeda
...

The third and most recent phase of the Islamic revival is that associated with the name Al-Qaeda--the organization headed by Osama bin Laden.

...

Thanks to modern communications and the modern media, we are quite well informed about how Al-Qaeda perceives things.

...

As Osama bin Laden puts it: "In this final phase of the ongoing struggle, the world of the infidels was divided between two superpowers--the United States and the Soviet Union. Now we have defeated and destroyed the more difficult and the more dangerous of the two.

Dealing with the pampered and effeminate Americans will be easy."

...

They can't take it. Hit them and they'll run. All you have to do is hit harder.

...

The response to 9/11 came as a nasty surprise. They were expecting more of the same--bleating and apologies--instead of which they got a vigorous reaction, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq.

... It is no accident ... that there has been no successful attack in the United States since then.

... the debate in this country since then has caused many of the perpetrators and sponsors to return to their previous diagnosis.

...

What we see as free debate, they see as weakness, fear and division. Thus they prepare for the final victory, the final triumph and the final Jihad.

...

Conclusion

...

there are encouraging signs at the present moment--what happened in Iraq, for example, with millions of Iraqis willing to stand in line to vote, knowing that they were risking their lives, is a quite extraordinary achievement. It shows great courage, great resolution.

...

There is a bitter anti-Western feeling which derives partly and increasingly from our support for what they see as tyrannies ruling over them. It's interesting that pro-American feeling is strongest in countries with anti-American governments.
...

one of the greatest dangers is that on their side, they are firm and convinced and resolute. Whereas on our side, we are weak and undecided and irresolute. And in such a combat, it is not difficult to see which side will prevail.

...

Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us.

Dealing with the pampered and effeminate Americans will be easy

They can't take it. Hit them and they'll run. All you have to do is hit harder.

The response to 9/11 came as a nasty surprise. They were expecting more of the same--bleating and apologies--instead of which they got a vigorous reaction, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq.
... It is no accident ... that there has been no successful attack in the United States since then.

... the debate in this country since then has caused many of the perpetrators and sponsors to return to their previous diagnosis.
... What we see as free debate, they see as weakness, fear and division. Thus they prepare for the final victory, the final triumph and the final Jihad.

there are encouraging signs at the present moment--what happened in Iraq, for example, with millions of Iraqis willing to stand in line to vote, knowing that they were risking their lives, is a quite extraordinary achievement. It shows great courage, great resolution.

There is a bitter anti-Western feeling which derives partly and increasingly from our support for what they see as tyrannies ruling over them. It's interesting that pro-American feeling is strongest in countries with anti-American governments.

one of the greatest dangers is that on their side, they are firm and convinced and resolute. Whereas on our side, we are weak and undecided and irresolute. And in such a combat, it is not difficult to see which side will prevail.

Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us.

Quote:

Your interpretations of what I've advocated are irrational.

Bull.

You state that any innocent who does not move away from the area, or who does not turn in any insurgent/terrorist that lives in their area, will be considered to be an insurgent/terrorist themselves, in terms of our level of caring about protecting their lives. This isn't what you are saying?

Cycloptichorn

from CNN :
"BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The Interior Ministry has removed a police brigade from the streets of Baghdad because of a brazen kidnapping this week of 26 people, a ministry spokesman said Wednesday.

...

Well, back to the question: how do we know if someone knows a terrorist lives nearby, or not?

How do we determine who is innocent, and who is helping the enemy?

Cycloptichorn

ican wrote :
"Any person who does not move away from an area they know contains a rotter (i.e., deliberate, etc. ... killer of non-combatants) , or who does not turn in any rotter whose location in that area that person knows, will be considered to be a rotter themselves, and the USA will not care about such person's life. "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so the person should go to the police and report "the rotters" to the very same people who are in cahoots with the insurgents (see my earlier post) ?
...
No!

Such persons should go to the American or British military and report the locations of rotters or their ordnance, in order to reduce the risk of such persons and those they love being killed in the effort to kill rotters.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
having lived in germany after WW II , i'm glad the allies (i lived in the british occupied zone) provided for law , order and security while at the same time helping to re-build a german police force (one , that one didn't have to mistrust) .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is my understanding that the occupying force has responsibilities towards civilians in occupied terretory and to provide them with a measure of law , order and safety .
or am i mistaken ?

I think you are not mistaken.
...
hbg

So, you are advocating that we win the war as soon as possible - and what this means is that we start killing civilians who live in the same areas as the terrorists or insurgents.

Speak plainly. If this is what you believe the best course to be, don't dance around it, admit it.

Cycloptichron

makes the welfare and protection of civilians a bedrock element of military strategy.

ican wrote :
...

it is my understanding that the occupying force has responsibilities towards civilians in occupied terretory and to provide them with a measure of law , order and safety .
or am i mistaken ?

I think you are not mistaken.
...
hbg

Of course I get it. I got it long ago, if you recall.

You seem to think that unrestricted warfare is the way for us to win this war on terror. You are 100% wrong, because you still believe deep down that there will be a military solution to this problem, and there simply will not be.

There you go again distorting what I believe. I do not believe in "unrestricted warfare." I believe in the following, no more no less:

Quote:

Rotters are currently deliberately waging war on Iraqi civilians. To adequately protect the civilians in Iraq, it is imperative that the rotters in Iraq be exterminated by the military even if that extermination occurs at the cost of some civilians as well as some military.

There will be no decisive battle.
There won't be a major offensive campaign that wins it.

You need to face the fact that the battle against Terrorism encompasses far more than just a military solution.

While not sufficient the following is necessary:

Quote:

Rotters are currently deliberately waging war on Iraqi civilians. To adequately protect the civilians in Iraq, it is imperative that the rotters in Iraq be exterminated by the military even if that extermination occurs at the cost of some civilians as well as some military.

Then we must help rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure including its civilian defense. Together, they are sufficient.

In fact, your recommendations are the exact opposite of the strategy which has been announced by the military:

Quote:

Military Hones a New Strategy on Insurgency

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 — The United States Army and Marines are finishing work on a new counterinsurgency doctrine that draws on the hard-learned lessons from Iraq and makes the welfare and protection of civilians a bedrock element of military strategy.

The doctrine warns against some of the practices used early in the war, when the military operated without an effective counterinsurgency playbook. It cautions against overly aggressive raids and mistreatment of detainees. Instead it emphasizes the importance of safeguarding civilians and restoring essential services, and the rapid development of local security forces.

The current military leadership in Iraq has already embraced many of the ideas in the doctrine. But some military experts question whether the Army and the Marines have sufficient troops to carry out the doctrine effectively while also preparing for other threats.
...

It seems that those who run the military believe that my point of view - that protecting the civilians of Iraq from uneccessary harm - is far more important than your point of view.

It seems that you are correct.

But what do they mean or what do you mean by protecting ... from unnecessary harm? I think that what I propose will do a far better job of that than what you or those running the military propose.

Cycloptichorn