Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Americans must respect Islam
salaam al-aqaaid    5/13/2004 10:18:35 AM
The outrageous atrocities commited by Americans at the Abu al-Grayyib prison complex speaks to a need for the United States Americans to give sensetivity training to its entire military so that they will no longer offind Muslims with the contemptious use of women as prison guards and unsavery adiction to homosexual pornographies. These things are offinsive to the Muslims community. Have you no shame? You must remove all women and homosexuals from contact with Muslim prisoners. This is offinsive.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
elcid    RE:This will make it , well, less complicated-uchiita   10/3/2004 1:08:44 AM
I am not persuaded George Bush is good at making strategic decisions. Ronald Reagan, as a new governor, once told a personal friend of mine "I know I am not a smart man. But I know how to identify smart men, and I listen to them." Bush the Second seems like that to me. He certainly has a much better staff than many Presidents of our time (Clinton, Bush the First, or Carter for example). He also seems to listen to them. This is acceptable to me, and maybe better than if he was a great strategist, and listened to know one?
 
Quote    Reply

rbrooku    Thank You All   10/3/2004 8:03:35 PM
Like a thunderbolt, the obvious strikes me. I wanted some logical discourse to dissuade me from conclusion that my country is on a collision course with real disaster. I simply could not believe all the talk of the Bush Administrations Grand Strategy. But, after months of optimism that I would hear some logical arguments we are not headed off a cliff, everything I have heard hear has simply buttressed the conclusion that we are, indeed, headed for big trouble. The Grand Strategy, according to its defenders and in a nutshell, is to occupy Iraq and from there to “proactively” threaten neighboring countries. These countries include, but are not limited to, Iran, Syria, the countries of the Saudi Peninsula, Pakistan and any other country in the region, which may be deemed to be insufficiently cooperative. This list includes ostensible and treaty allies. To accomplish this will, at all of the best guesses, take ten years or more. The “or more” seems likely. The American people generally are under the impression that the Iraq Mission will have the vast bulk of forces pulling out of Iraq as soon as the new government has electoral legitimacy and solid military control. They are under the impression that will happen within six months to two years, but the “Grand Strategy” envisions no such thing. The American people are under this impression because it has been deliberately created with phrases like, “We’ll only be there as long as we need to be to bring peace” being given in a context of questions that are being asked with the intention of finding out how quickly we can withdraw. But, the Bush Administration is cleverly making a legalism of this by not technically lying about, a sort of “it depends on what the definition of is, is”. The American people, on the whole, do not support a long term occupation, and in order to achieve the “Grand Strategy” must be misled. All of this one could dismiss as simply politics, except for the fact that the Grand Strategy is not technically Imperialism and Colonialism, but has the same aim. It is a mistaken idea that the aspects of colonialism and imperialism, the seizing of territory, are the aim of colonialism and imperialism. The aim of those things is the benefits reaped from the colonial and imperial exercise of power that flows from the seizure of territory. So too does the Grand Strategy have the expectations of benefits from the temporary seizure of territory. Invasion and subsequent establishment of “military bases”, wherein the boundaries of said bases American law reigns supreme, serves much the same purpose as the seizure and territorial control of an entire country. To those arguments that this is not categorically Imperial, they are right as there is no Monarchy and only limited seizure of national territory from other countries. In all other aspects it will ideally serve the same purpose. In other words, this Grand Strategy is a New Imperialism, a New Colonialism. So we can dub the Neconservative movement as Necolonialism and it operations as Neoimperialism. How perfect this is, too. Although Iraq had no meaningful connection with 9/11, in the context of Necolonialism, it does. And, although the idea that we must bring the Muslim world to heel seems to be entirely a practical matter of security, with the necessity of financing Neoimperialism we can make sense of the role oil plays in the Iraq invasion. The problem with all of this, is that if the Grand Strategy does not proceed on a faster and more controlled time table, America will not be in a position to simply declare victory and go home, as happened in Viet Nam, without severe and disastrous consequences. At the height of the Vietnam War, America was a net creditor nation and a net oil exporter. Starting with Reagan’s tactic of running up the national debt to keep a booming economy while bankrupting the Soviet Union, and with the ever greater dependency of America on foreign oil reserves and production, we have become much more vulnerable. Considering the minimum timetable for the Grand Strategy also bumps up against other factors, such as the predicted coming “oil shortage”, when demand outstrips supply, and the decreasing pool of foreign capital willing to finance the U.S. national debt, as well as other foreign problems and demographic and other economic factors. In fact, it all looks to be on a future collision point in about ten to fifteen years. The breathtaking recklessness of this Grand Strategy promises to be more dangerous than all of the world’s terrorists combined. I now also understand why the Neoconservatives call themselves Neo-Reaganites. I knew Ronald Reagan, in a peculiar manner, but knew him nonetheless. Before Alzheimer’s set in, he would not have agreed with the recklessness of having an ever-ballooning national debt. But, he did balloon the debt as part of a larger strategy in the cold war, and so it is, at least in part, fitting that the new American Radicals label
 
Quote    Reply

realpolitik    RE:Thank You All - 60 years ago   10/3/2004 8:27:35 PM
And rbrooku left out that the U.S. goal of participating in the defeat of Nazi Germany was really a smoke screen for the seizure of limited areas of land (bases) in Germany, Italy, England and other European countries. The lies about "we'll bring our boys home" was misleading because 60 years on we still have our boys over there. But hey, how about those European colonies of ourse, eh? We have total control over them! .
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Thank You All   10/3/2004 9:04:44 PM
You need to stop blaming the war on us. We didn't want it. We didn't start it. And we did not choose the nature of the enemy. But you are correct. Anyone who thinks this thing is a picnic to end in a few months or years is deluded - unless we get very lucky. There is NO strategy that will change that - and you certainly did NOT propose a better strategy. Taking the offensive materially decreases the enemy forces avaiable to engage us at home, and in fact reduces them in absolute terms to some degree. It is much better to be fighting in Baghdad than in Chicago. But more than that, if we want to win EVER, we must address the dismal situation that bred this situation in the first place. If you think the leaders of Iran, Iraq, Syria or Saudi were going to get together and solve it, you are deluded. This problem is beyond the ability of Arab political institutions to solve. Since we DID wait for decades, and finally the war DID reach US soil, it is completely reasonable to go fix the problems that bred it. It would be much more useful if you suggested better ways to do this than if you complain that we are trying to do it. No criticism is useful if you don't have a clearly better idea to offer in its place.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Thank You All   10/3/2004 9:07:44 PM
I wish you would broaden your horizons a bit. There are more than a hundred nations with military staff at Allied Command. That is, 2/3 of the nations on the planet. The second largest air force in Afghanistan is the French one. We are not fighting for our country alone, but for all countries that do not wish to be ruled by radical Islamic fundamentalists. There is not the slightest trace of imperial intent in our motives. And IF you have the power to call it all off - to get the enemy to stop attacking worldwide - FINE - do it and we will pack up and go home.
 
Quote    Reply

rbrooku    RE:Thank You All - 60 years ago   10/3/2004 11:48:38 PM
“And rbrooku left out that the U.S. goal of participating in the defeat of Nazi Germany was really a smoke screen for the seizure of limited areas of land (bases) in Germany, Italy, England and other European countries.” There are so many differences with WWII and the Grand Strategy the comparison is a false analogy with no value except to distract. However, it does bring up the comparison with the subsequent Cold War and the Grand Strategy. The Marshal Plan and Containment were too different from the Grand Strategy so we must look elsewhere’s for a better comparison. And, were do we find that? Why, in the hegemonistic strategy of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, where the Soviet Union did not annex Eastern Europe, but only established military bases after invading such countries as Poland, while also establishing acceptable “independent” governments. So, thank you for making the point.
 
Quote    Reply

rbrooku    RE:Thank You All   10/3/2004 11:52:18 PM
“You need to stop blaming the war on us. We didn't want it. We didn't start it. And we did not choose the nature of the enemy.” In the world of the Grand Strategy that is true, because Iraq is part of the “enemy” that attacked the United States. In reality, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but Grand Strategies and reality are not the same thing.
 
Quote    Reply

rbrooku    RE:Thank You All   10/3/2004 11:56:04 PM
"I wish you would broaden your horizons a bit. There are more than a hundred nations with military staff at Allied Command. That is, 2/3 of the nations on the planet. The second largest air force in Afghanistan is the French one." The French are not sold on the Grand Strategy and are not in Iraq, so the point is pointless.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    America: World Police?   10/4/2004 12:01:02 AM
Not ripping the title off a coming comedy (or am I?), but this War on Terror argument seems to be very similar to a more domestic issue: Putting more cops "on the street" to put an end to crime. One can argue: certainly, there are primary crime bosses we are interested in. But we must also continue to protect other areas and aspects, not just put all our resources into toppling a small handful of bad guys. And as more cops are on the street in the name of justice, naturally that is more opportunity for some videocam-toting media pig looking for any reason to condemn the police for brutality (often, without even knowing the FULL story of the "suspect" in custody at the moment.) Certainly, OBL could be comparable to a crime boss. And Hussein, even if his country was "not necessarily under our jurisdiction", was no halfweight wannabe, either. Just as our police need to go after local car thieves and scam artists just as much as drug kingpins, so too did the US need to bring down Hussein at the same time as toppling OBL. Since the "local constabulary" (other, more regional member nations of the UN) didn't want to commit their resources into bringing down the guilty parties (WMDs aside, what about all the other horrors Hussein was guilty of? WMDs was just an excuse to get him once and for all, like going after a perp who has a psych profile that fits the crime under investigation... or like having the Feds nail Capone on income tax evasion... anything to get them off the streets)...but since the local "bumpkin sheriffs" couldn't do the job of policing their locality, the "big boys", US forces, had to be brought in. And before some media pigs report on the brutality of the US "police", they need to realize the mentalities of the "bandits and thieves" we are pursuing. Some perps need more than a slap on the wrist to subdue them. Besides, it's better to nab a bad guy on his home turf, rather than risk him coming into your neighborhood and trashing it all up before he's caught red-handed. People who have chosen to forget Sept 11 even happened have obviously chosen to not see the necessity of policing around the world. And those people, who chose to stand for nothing of importance, are often the first to fall for anything of insignificance. So naturally, the uneducated will continue to condemn the US's actions abroad (even though, in all possibility, the US's actions abroad have certainly prevented even more Americans, and people of other nations, from being victimized by those ruffians (no, not Russians!). I sleep better at night knowing the "cops" are doing their job, even if in another neighborhood. Because that means the bad guys are being kept out of my nieghborhood. One of the saddest things about all the freedoms in America that men and women have fought and died for over the years, is that some Americans, even people the world over, can chose to live in ignorance of how the world REALLY functions, and of knowing just what those criminals are capable of doing. And I'd prefer to see more cops patrolling the streets of my hometown, as well as the rest of the world. And since many nations of the world have neither the resources nor compassion (or cajones?) to do the job themselves, it once again falls onm the US to maintain the peace, even if at times our frontline "policemen" seem brutal in the job their doing. As of late, it seems a good portion of the UN (mayor's office) is more sympathetic for the crime lords (terrorists) than they are for the general populace (the average citizens of the world.) We need to be thankful we have "cops" like the US, who have serious enough compassion to go after the crime lords, even at the condemnation of the UN/mayor's office. Some have argued the US "cop" is "in on the take" (after Iraq's oil), but obviously those ignorant people are unaware that US gas prices are NOT, repeat, NOT reflecting that take at the pumps. And the only way the US is going to profit from Iraqi oil is by getting into the world market, which isn't happening as much as the people on the crime bosses' payroles are accusing us of doing. So anybody who is against the US playing World Police, b*tch, whine, and fuss all you want. Just be thankful we're chasing them down BEFORE they bomb your neighborhood. (Too bad God doesn't step in and show those pacifists and anti-war protestors, "This is the world you'd be living in if enough people in the US didn't care to take preventitive measures and police up the world." But of course, maybe I'm just ranting wildly again...) .
 
Quote    Reply

realpolitik    RE:Thank You All - 60 years ago   10/4/2004 4:21:16 AM
rbrooku, I sort of understand when you are in a mindset to view every action of your own government with suspicion. That is generally a good thing, but you can go too far - ascribing your own government with the same motivations as countries which historically were lead and motivated by entirely different leaders and ideologies, and methods. There are so many differences with WWII and the Grand Strategy the comparison is a false analogy with no value except to distract. Well, I think you misread this one. The analogy offered is the peace and stability and economic integration brought about in Europe after WW2 by the presence of U.S. military bases on the front lines of the cold war. U.S. footprint in Europe was not a colonial effort, and the countries "occupied" were not stooges of the U.S. (perhaps you disagree?) - in fact, one country eventually demanded the withdrawal of U.S. forces from its land... However, it does bring up the comparison with the subsequent Cold War and the Grand Strategy. The Marshal Plan and Containment were too different from the Grand Strategy Why were they different? What is different about nation building and reconstruction in Iraq, and with the permission of whatever becomes the democratically elected government in Iraq, the granting of U.S. bases that will bring a strong U.S. footprint to the region, alleviate the concerns caused by troops in Saudi Arabia, and create a situation where Iran and Syria are under pressure to reform? so we must look elsewhere’s for a better comparison. And, were do we find that? Why, in the hegemonistic strategy of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, where the Soviet Union did not annex Eastern Europe, but only established military bases after invading such countries as Poland, while also establishing acceptable “independent” governments. The Iraqi people are not stupid. The very level of dissatisfaction with U.S. troops "occupying" their country, and the extreme suspicion of the interrim government gives proof to the lie that the eventual government elected will be a sham government which is only a stooge of the U.S. Furthermore, you seem to suggest that the U.S. will be responsible for setting up a Stasi like organization, and a one party system of rule, and ruthlessly persecuting the local population to keep them under our thumb. This is what I mean by the irrational assignment of U.S. motives and methods to historically very evil organizations. The Grand Strategy, if it works, and there is no guarantee, will not only put the U.S. in a position to influence the Middle East to reform their governments, and create a better life for their peoples (and we want this not just because we're the good guys - but because it will give people less reason to be terrorists - (funny how being a good guy tends to win friends and influence people for good - while increasing the power of the good guy...) If the pressure cooker that is Iran boils over and the people overthrow the Mullahs, then Syria will cut a deal, and most of the sponsorship of terrorism in Israel will dry up, which will help bring about a resolution of the peace process, and the Middle East will begin to resemble Europe. Then, the U.S. will turn to China and say, "ok, your move..." --- Now, we're still waiting for your ideas on how to address the root causes of terrorism. Hopefully it does not involve the semi-annual launching of a few cruise missiles. .
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics