Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on April 19, 2007, 01:35:11 PM
-
Good God, here we go again. With friends like this guy who needs insurgents to beat the most capable military on earth......
Im ashamed to share the same nationality with this man.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070419174958.d2ni8f1d&show_article=1
-
breaking news, december 14 1944
the mighty germany army that everyone thought was defeated has broken through the allied lines in the Ardennes and is driving hard to the port of Antwerp to cut the allied forces in half, thousands of allied prisoners have been taken, american troops are surrounded at Bastogne, the germans are using a new super tank that is unstoppable,
The american congress has advised FDR to accept the cease fire terms hitler has offered.
-
Originally posted by john9001
breaking news, december 14 1944
the mighty germany army that everyone thought was defeated has broken through the allied lines in the Ardennes and is driving hard to the port of Antwerp to cut the allied forces in half, thousands of allied prisoners have been taken, american troops are surrounded at Bastogne, the germans are using a new super tank that is unstoppable,
The american congress has advised FDR to accept the cease fire terms hitler has offered.
:rofl Surely you jest?
-
the first part is history, the last line is what would have happened if Reid had been in congress.
-
I don't know what the big problem is...
I mean to clean up Bagdhad, all we need is some bomb control legislation...
-
We have planted the seed of democracy which means political choice in the Middle East.
We have drawn al-Qaida onto a battlefield not of their choosing.
The Iraqi people have conducted 3 democratic elections.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could not defeat the coalition soldiers, so he turned to spread his terror on the Iraqi Civilian population. That is not "caused" by America, unless of course that we are guilty of trying to free peeple from a tyrannical government.
Zarqawi understood that the only way al-Qaida can claim a defeat of the west is by creating an Islamic sectarian war between Shia and Sunni's.
al-Qaida has literally bet the bank that they would break the Iraqi people. So far that has not happened.
Americans have learned that earning liberty and victory pays a high price in blood, sweat and hardship, as the Iraqi people are learning at this moment. They will need patience, nothing comes fast or without the cost of lives when dealing with democracy.
-
Sorry. Although I agree we can't leave Iraq in the condition it's in now (especially since it's been American policies since 2002 that have created this mess in the first place), I can't hang idealistic goals and good intentions to the effort either. We need to stay, because should we pull out altogether, and the region collapses under all the power plays going on, then all the western economies will collapse under $150 per barrel oil prices.
Planting the seed of democracy in the middle east was arrogant and short sited on the part of us Americans in regards to the social-political realities that is the middle east. For democracy to take hold, there would need to be a national identity.... there is no national identity in Iraq. They do not see themselves as Iraqi so much as they see themselves members of their religious sect, clan, tribe, or their power base in relation to others. That's were their loyalties lie.
I know the official grand plan was to spread the joy of Democracy (ironic, since we've been sliding from a Republic to a Oligarchy for years now), but that was an unrealistic goal from the beginning.
We'd have been better off chasing al Qaida to the countries they fled to from Afghanistan: Pakistan, Philippians, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and so forth to keep them hounded and off balance rather then allowing them to regroup, reorganize, and retrain unmolested. That's not what we did, and we have to pay for those mistakes in treasure and blood.
It has not just been al Qaida causing terror and trying to break up Iraq. Everyone has a stake in the power play in the region. The Arab countries would benefit from the Sunni's coming out on top. The Persians have an interest in the Shii coming out ahead. The Turks seem to be getting over their distrust of the Kurds and developing ties to them and their region. Syria has no interest in closing it's borders to allowing it's own troublemakers to cross to Iraq to make mischief. The Sunnis are trying to hold or regain the power they once had. The Shii want to take revenge on the Sunnis for decades of oppression. Iranian arms smugglers enjoy the business opportunities in Iraq, using the same smuggling routes that Iraqis use to deliver alcohol and porn to Iran.
This was never about bringing liberty to Iraqis. This was about geographical location. The dream was a democratic Iraq, in the middle of the world's primary oil regions, in which to permanently locate American military bases from which to project power and influence over the region. It was seen as a middle east version of South Korea. It was about gaining direct access to Iraq's oil. It was about turning a democratic and western friendly middle east country into the front line of the "Long War" and keeping it away from America's shores. But, due in a large part to very stupid decisions made along the way by American leadership, the effort has so far failed and ground down to what we have now.
We can't realistically pull out, without huge consequences. Those in power are unable and unwilling to come to grips with the mistakes that have been made to date. And I'm not sure there is the political or national will to see this whole mess through to at least an acceptable conclusion.
About as close to a no-win situation as I can think of now. It's now down to salvaging as much as possible and lose less badly. So, although I agree with the "can't win" sentiment, we can't leave.
-
tedrbr. you give up too easy. No one ever said it was not going to be difficult.
almost everyone living now in Iraq has lived under a dictatorship, they do not know how to govern themselves, we must show them how.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
This was never about bringing liberty to Iraqis. This was about geographical location. The dream was a democratic Iraq, in the middle of the world's primary oil regions, in which to permanently locate American military bases from which to project power and influence over the region. It was seen as a middle east version of South Korea. It was about gaining direct access to Iraq's oil. It was about turning a democratic and western friendly middle east country into the front line of the "Long War" and keeping it away from America's shores. But, due in a large part to very stupid decisions made along the way by American leadership, the effort has so far failed and ground down to what we have now.
I agree with the last statement that stupid decisions were made, however from the very beginning, this action was presented as necessary because of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in the region and globally.
The solution envisioned and repeatedly stated by the administration was that regime change (per existing US policy) and the seeding of democracy in Iraq would lead to long term stability. In particular, Iraq would represent the second democracy in the region (after Afghanistan). Democracy was viewed loosely as the idea of self-determination.
The reasons why Saddam was considered a threat that required action were:
1. Violations of the treaty signed after the 1991 war.
2. History of destabilization in the area (invasion of Kuwait)
3. Violations of UN sanctions
4. WMD (in possession, prior use and desire for more).
All of these ideas were regularly presented by the Administration. The goal of democratization and long-term stability were out front from the start.
It drives me nuts that people keep saying the admin changed their story. They haven't! All this was in the open from the beginning. The 4 areas mentioned were widely held beliefs among Reps. Dems. and their counterparts in other countries. Not all agreed that war was the right solution but the prevailing belief about the facts was widely held. WMD received the most emphasis since that's were the crux of the debate was at the time. When the WMD intel turned out to be bad, the argument shifted emphasis to the other reasons that were part of the original argument.
The idea of stabilization via democracy is questionable but it was never a hidden agenda.
And it drives me nuts when folks say "its about oil!" Just look who got the 3 biggest contracts for oil export out of Iraq. NONE were US based companies and my gasoline bill isn't smaller today than it was 3 years ago!
-
You have lost. The terrorists have won a tremendous victory. It's only a matter of time.
-
john9001 tedrbr. you give up too easy. No one ever said it was not going to be difficult.
almost everyone living now in Iraq has lived under a dictatorship, they do not know how to govern themselves, we must show them how.
Of course, they've went from a dictatorship, to being ruled by a military government from a foreign nation, to being led by a government put in place by said same nation.
Do you believe, for one second, that the Iraqi's are going to happily accept this?
If they did, We would not be continually sustaining casualties. There would be no more bombings. They would already be standing on their own, rather than having the bulk of the U.S. military there.
Ted is spot on with this.
We can't just leave, now. It was this sort of scenario that the Elder Bush hoped to avoid at the end of Desert Shield, and which is why he did'nt pursue Hussein's removal at the end of that conflict.
Our intrusion into Iraq was simply oppurtunism. It had nothing to do with 9/11. There were no terrorist ties. Even the administration finally admitted that the WMD's were wind and smoke.Wanna go after a real terrorist country? Why did'nt we go after Syria? Or Iran first?
-
Originally posted by Viking
You have lost. The Emporer has won a tremendous victory. It's only a matter of time.
Signed,
Tokyo Rose.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Our intrusion into Iraq was simply oppurtunism. It had nothing to do with 9/11. There were no terrorist ties. Even the administration finally admitted that the WMD's were wind and smoke.Wanna go after a real terrorist country? Why did'nt we go after Syria? Or Iran first?
1. Violations of the treaty signed after the 1991 war.
2. History of destabilization in the area (invasion of Kuwait)
3. Violations of UN sanctions
4. WMD (in possession, prior use and desire for more).
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
We have planted the seed of democracy which means political choice in the Middle East.
We planted a democracy seed in that area once, the Shaw, which sprouted into the Iran that hates us today. Nobody remembers our politicians 1st spectacular failure at democracy gardening in the mid east?
Killing every enemy fighter wont stop the US installed govt from being undermined similar to the Shaw...
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Do you believe, for one second, that the Iraqi's are going to happily accept this?
they accepted dictatorship under saddam for 35 years.
-
As an amateur historian, totally disregarding my political affiliation as a Republican, or my education from a liberal institution (a university *gasp*), it is my opinion that the senate majority leader is right.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
We planted a democracy seed in that area once, the Shaw,
:rofl :rofl
PS : lookup Savak.
-
This war is the biggest foriegn policy mistake in the history of our Country. Anyone who can't see that is blind. Anyone who speaks the truth about it is a patriot.
-
Originally posted by Viking
You have lost. The terrorists have won a tremendous victory. It's only a matter of time.
This must really make you happy. I bet you gleefully chant this before you go to bed at night.
Too bad for you, you are wrong.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This war is the biggest foriegn policy mistake in the history of our Country. Anyone who can't see that is blind. Anyone who speaks the truth about it is a patriot.
MT, With all due respect, our biggest foreign policy mistakes were two fold:
A: Not going to Baghdad the first time, and not supporting the Kurds after we incited them to rise up against Sadaam.
B: Not taking a stronger stance against terrorism in the post 92 election to the 2000 election. Had Slick Willy taken Osama back when the Sudanese offered him to us, none of this would be the issue now. Furthermore the issues in Sudan would not be coming such a head as well.
Blame this all you want on Bush Jr, but the administrations of Carter and Clinton dug this hole deeper than anyone else could have. Bush is just the only one to come along recently with the balls to say, "enough is enough" and acted on it.
-
What if when we pull out, the area turns peaceful, just like Vietnam.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
What if when we pull out, the area turns peaceful, just like Vietnam.
PahLeez Louise do not confuse Marxism with Terrorism.
If we leave today I envision us being back there within 10 years trying to regain the same ground that we already hold today. Do you think if we leave then return years later the Iraqi people will love us more?
Wash, Rinse, Repeat....
To ditch on the Iraqi's now and try to return would be like "Fool me once, Shame on you. Fool me twice, Shame on me."
Don't let Liberals and Yellow Journalism fool you.
Mac <----- Refuses to conform to Sheepdom.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
What if when we pull out, the area turns peaceful, just like Vietnam.
Vietnam didn't become peaceful until after the Communists from North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam and reunited the country. The US troop withdrawal just allowed the death of South Vietnam as a sovereign country. Peace didn't happen there for nearly 2 years after our last combat troops left the country as I recall.
-
Everyone kept saying Vietnam would turn into a huge bloodbath when we pulled out. It didn't. Now the same people are saying Iraq will turn into a bloodbath if we pull out (what do they think it is right now?).
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Everyone kept saying Vietnam would turn into a huge bloodbath when we pulled out. It didn't. Now the same people are saying Iraq will turn into a bloodbath if we pull out (what do they think it is right now?).
You need to study history better. If you're unaware of the MILLIONS slaughtered after the U.S. left SouthEast Asia, I suggest you look into a little more reading.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Everyone kept saying Vietnam would turn into a huge bloodbath when we pulled out. It didn't. Now the same people are saying Iraq will turn into a bloodbath if we pull out (what do they think it is right now?).
you so wrong, Vietnam did turn into a bloodbath.
-
Virgil Hilts, quit trying to sneakily change what I said.
I said VIETNAM. Not SOUTH EAST ASIA. The massive blood-bath happened in Cambodia. Ironically, it was communist insurgents who were just waiting for the Cambodian government to become weakened to rise up and strike. The Cambodian government became weakened trying to assist the U.S. by striking the North Vietnamese.
So the massive bloodbath never happened in Vietnam. There were a few executions, but most people, even those that cooperated with the U.S., were allowed to assimilate into the new communist rule.
-
I'm not sneaking about anything. You're just ignoring the truth.
-
Originally posted by john9001
breaking news, december 14 1944
the mighty germany army that everyone thought was defeated has broken through the allied lines in the Ardennes and is driving hard to the port of Antwerp to cut the allied forces in half, thousands of allied prisoners have been taken, american troops are surrounded at Bastogne, the germans are using a new super tank that is unstoppable,
The american congress has advised FDR to accept the cease fire terms hitler has offered.
Saddly enough. Today. that would in all likelyhood be the case.
Of course that would be if we were still there after the Normandy disaster on June 6th of 44
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This war is the biggest foriegn policy mistake in the history of our Country. Anyone who can't see that is blind. Anyone who speaks the truth about it is a patriot.
I can agree in part in this statement
Doing it I dont think was a mistake.
They way went about doing it after the fall of bagdhad was where the greatest mistakes were made.
For as evil as they were
Even the Nazis were better at taking over countries then we have shown
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
There were no terrorist ties.
Liar.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Signed,
Tokyo Rose.
I have to say I think that statement is falsified. Tokyo Rose would have spelled Emperor correctly.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You need to study history better. If you're unaware of the MILLIONS slaughtered after the U.S. left SouthEast Asia, I suggest you look into a little more reading.
The really ironic thing about your statement is that it was the North-Vietnamese who, after winning the war against the US and South-Vietnam, ended Pol Pot’s reign of terror in 1978.
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Liar.
Saddam’s Iraq had far fewer links to “terrorists” than the USA have had. Omega 7 (Cuba), Operation 40 (Cuba), Alpha 66 (Cuba), Contras (Guatemala), Guatemalan "Death Squads", Operation PBSUCCESS (Guatemala), Operation Cyclone (Afghanistan), Chechen terrorists (during the Cold War), Operation Ajax (Iran), Allawi's group (Iraq) … these are just some of the terrorist organizations/actions supported and/or funded by the United States.
The United States is in the incredibly ironic and hypocritical position of being one of the few nations that have supported Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist group with funding and weapons (during the 1980’s war in Afghanistan).
Iraq’s involvement with terrorism is almost negligible in comparison.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Iraq’s involvement with terrorism is almost negligible in comparison.
Liar.
-
What's a real travesty is that the SUCCESSES in Iraq are ignored and not reported. Like all news, only the bad is reported. A great deal of good is going on over there yet its not convenient for the media to report.
Our troops deserve to have their accomplishments reported. Yes, there are still problems to be sorted out...but a great deal of good has ocurred too.
The Democrats are so bent on turning this into a Vietnam, they dont seem to realize how badly they are undermining ou troops efforts. Recall how we view MacNamera's tinkering with the Vietnam war effort as decisively bad and costing military lives? Pilots werent allowed to hit SAM sites which would subsequently down them some time later. The list goes on. The point being this: letting the Commanders do their job, without being tamplered with by 500 "want to be commanders in chief" is the best way to proceed.
Also, last December, the Democrats INSISTED we needed more troops. In January, after much discussion with others, Bush agreed. Once Bush agreed, that turned into an outrage. *Sigh*....so when we stick to our mission, the Dems squeal. When we compromise and do as they suggest...they squeal.
You want that message being sent to our troops??
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Liar.
Coming from you that really doesn't mean much. Personal attacks is all you can offer in defense.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I can agree in part in this statement
Doing it I dont think was a mistake.
They way went about doing it after the fall of bagdhad was where the greatest mistakes were made.
For as evil as they were
Even the Nazis were better at taking over countries then we have shown
The reason there is because we try to be liberators not conquerors. If we lined up 10 people for every one of ours lost and shot them in the street, alot of the trouble would die down. But we dont do that. So really, why try?
-
The reason there is because we try to be liberators not conquerors. If we lined up 10 people for every one of ours lost and shot them in the street, alot of the trouble would die down. But we dont do that. So really, why try?
Filth, I don't know if it's the way it's worded, but...If you're implying that we should randomly pick out, and execute, Iraqi citizens, for acts done by insurgents, I GUARENTEE that our problems would increase 10 fold.
Such a thing would be viewed as an atrocity. Not only would we suffer total world condemnation( We are having problems with support from our allies as it is) We could expect things to really heat up on the terrorism front. We could also expect economic, and political pressure from countries sympathetic to those affected. In short, no, alot of the trouble would not die down.
EDIT: When the Gestapo tried that tactic, it created more insurgents, and a sympathetic populace from which to act as a support base.
-
To think that Harry Reid is trying to tell the "truth" when he says "it is the biggest foreign policy mistake in U.S. history" is failing to understand the realities of U.S. politics. Furthermore, for those of you that enjoy repeating this jingoism, how about posting a top ten list of American foreign policy mistakes so we can at least get some context.
Just as any U.S. foreign policy decision made between 1945 and 1991 cannot be taken out of the context of the Cold War, neither can our decision to invade Iraq be taken out of the context of the post-September 11 era. Armchair politics made with 20/20 hindsight is about as productive as watching paint dry. If they were in the hot seat in late 2002/ early 2003 I bet 99% of all those soothsayers on capitol hill would have made the same decision as Bush did.
So, in sum, I'm looking forward to the Top Ten Biggest U.S. Foreign Policy Mistakes list...
-
The United States is in the incredibly ironic and hypocritical position of being one of the few nations that have supported Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist group with funding and weapons (during the 1980’s war in Afghanistan).
Bin Laden's group weren't considered terrorists then. I don't even know if the USSR considered them terrorists and thats who Bin Laden was fighting then.
-
So the massive bloodbath never happened in Vietnam.
Tell that to the mountain tribes in Vietnam itself. Those people were slaughtered by the Vietnamese.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Coming from you that really doesn't mean much. Personal attacks is all you can offer in defense.
You post lies and incorrect information. You, however are not worth debunking so all you get is the short version.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
What's a real travesty is that the SUCCESSES in Iraq are ignored and not reported. Like all news, only the bad is reported. A great deal of good is going on over there yet its not convenient for the media to report.
With bombs killing 170+ people in a single day, the "successes" are greatly outweighed.
-
SteveBailey quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
There were no terrorist ties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liar.
And this one, too:
SteveBailey quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Viking
Iraq’s involvement with terrorism is almost negligible in comparison.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liar.
Son, you just can't simply fling poo.
You need to add a counterpoint, contradicting info, etc.
Go ahead, try it, dig a little, put something up to prove it.
-
Oh, and BTW, with those previous 2 posts, when you put up something like this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Viking
Coming from you that really doesn't mean much. Personal attacks is all you can offer in defense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You post lies and incorrect information. You, however are not worth debunking so all you get is the short version.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You actually proved Viking right.
You did'nt even try to back up your statement. And by saying something like that, to try to get out of putting up a proper answer, and using a snide remark instead, actually scored a point for Viking.
-
the people that wanted defeat in iraq are those that sent in the troops under the the command of the most inept administration.
it's not that there were 'unknowns' but rather they chose to ignore the best military advice given to them at the time, as a result a lot of innocent people will pay the price.
they played right into bin laden's hands, by removing saddam and invading a muslim country.
probably one of the worst foreign policy mistakes, right up there with the over thrown of the iranian democracy back in '53.
-
Originally posted by Stoney74
To think that Harry Reid is trying to tell the "truth" when he says "it is the biggest foreign policy mistake in U.S. history" is failing to understand the realities of U.S. politics. Furthermore, for those of you that enjoy repeating this jingoism, how about posting a top ten list of American foreign policy mistakes so we can at least get some context.
Just as any U.S. foreign policy decision made between 1945 and 1991 cannot be taken out of the context of the Cold War, neither can our decision to invade Iraq be taken out of the context of the post-September 11 era.
Speaking of context, as terrible awful bad and all that, 911 was, lets put it into context;
911 was one coordinated act of violence by a single group of cave dwellers that killed a bunch of Americans.... live on television.
Meanwhile more US citizens, not killed live, have been killed & victimized thanks to our govts laughable policies at the border.
In a literal sense 911, not taking into account rah rah patriotism of "American soil wuz attacked", was a drop in the dead US citizen bucket. Maybe its just me, but if the #1 killer of US citizens isn't the terrorists, WTF are we doing focusing on them?
I harp on this issue because of my personal experiences of meeting countless murder / rape / kidnapping etc victims committed by a failed border policy.... its almost like these victimized Americans don't count as much as the 911 victims, why is that?... we need to be slaughtered live in color for it to count?
-
The war is actually a huge success.
The domestic arms industry, foreign countries selling arms to the US, shareholders in halliburton and the world-wide oil industries are making a bundle.
:)
-
Originally posted by rpm
With bombs killing 170+ people in a single day, the "successes" are greatly outweighed.
that is why the terriorsts blow up women and children, so people like you and Reid can say "the war is lost". You and Reid and the media are supporting the al qaeda propaganda machine.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Tell that to the mountain tribes in Vietnam itself. Those people were slaughtered by the Vietnamese.
He's probably never heard of the Montonyards (sp?). That's just one group.
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
The reason there is because we try to be liberators not conquerors. If we lined up 10 people for every one of ours lost and shot them in the street, alot of the trouble would die down. But we dont do that. So really, why try?
What I was talking about had nothing at all to do with firing squads or executions.
I was talking about not removing alll the leadership from power. Military, police cheifs etc
Appealing to their own sense of patriotism as well as preservation to maintain order for the best of their country
Soldiers and police officers tend to follow their immediate leaders. Reguardless of whom is actually running the country.
You maintain this leadership untill you can gradually and in an orderly way replace it with another more to your liking
-
Originally posted by john9001
that is why the terriorsts blow up women and children, so people like you and Reid can say "the war is lost". You and Reid and the media are supporting the al qaeda propaganda machine.
And people that support the war are supporting Al Qaeda. Fighting them were they want it the most on their own turf. :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
The really ironic thing about your statement is that it was the North-Vietnamese who, after winning the war against the US and South-Vietnam, ended Pol Pot’s reign of terror in 1978.
Boy to hear you say it. One would think we got our butts kicked in Nam.
Nice spin
You sure you dont work for CNN?
-
I would say tedrbr outlined my beliefs about 100 percent. The fate of Iraq may not be up to chance, but it's certainly not up to us anymore. We can only hope the eventual result is something we can work with down the road, and that has at least some of th flavor of what we were trying to accomplish. And if they ever get around to producing and selling their oil there won't be much choice from a practical standpoint.
Charon
-
I believe that the problem is not the USA or the politic of Bush. The problem is Iraq and how it was created.
Its not an old country like Iran, which exists since 500 BCA.
Instead it was created after WW1 out of the dead body of the Ottoman Empire. The UK took this part and mixed three totally different ethnical and religious groups into one "new nation".
Kurds, sunnites and shi ites.
And from that das - starting as a british protectorate - the sunnite minority was used to suppress the majority of the iraqi people.
This continued all the time, also when Iraq became an independant kingdom, then a republic and finally a Saddam ruled country.
So there was officially a single country Iraq but the different groups never really trusted each other.
This all could be controlled with a massive suppressing system like Saddam had.
So the solution to bring democracy couldnt work.
Or at least not in the naive way as it was tried.
The 3 groups voted mostly within their groups. Or to be more precise - first the sunnites dodnt went to vote. So the majority - the shi ites became the strongest party and political power. And they made an alliance with the kurds. And suddenly the former rulers of Iraq - the sunnites - were without power.
For sunnite fanatic countries like Saudi Arabia a nightmare.
Also for sunnite terrorist organisations like the Al Kaida.
There are ethnical cleanings in Iraq. Formerly mixed areas are now "pure". The minorities have been forced to move away. The kurds kicked out the sunnite arabs from the northern part - the shi ites the sunnites from the southeast and in Bagdad all become worse because now there are ethnical pure districts within the same city.
And the civil war is also going on. Al Kaidfa and other Saudi-Arabia-Supported sunnite terror groups use suicide bombings on shi ite and kurd targets.
The shi ites use their new power as policemen and military of the new iraqi army to kill sunnites. Also shi ite militas, supported by Iran, are operating.
This situation cant be controlled because in my opinion there is no single iraqi people. There was too much hate between the 3 groups and they are now fighting their war. No army in the world can stop them and the best solution would be to cut Iraq in 3 independant countries.
That wont happen, because Turkey cant accept an independant Kurdistan which would destabilize their own country.
Also the shi ite region would become an islamic republic, very much like Iran, which is also not acceptable.
And so the situation will go on - all the fightings, the deaths and no hope for a fast solution.
But its not the fault of the occupation forces. The fault started, when this so called country was created after WW1.
-
Well said babek. I agree with you. It's just so much easier for people to blame Bush when the reality of the situation is that those 3 groups of people have never gotten along.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
He's probably never heard of the Montonyards (sp?). That's just one group.
I don't recall the correct spelling atm either, but how you spelled it is how it is pronounced. :D
-
Montagnards.
-
Originally posted by babek-
Instead it was created after WW1 out of the dead body of the Ottoman Empire. The UK took this part and mixed three totally different ethnical and religious groups into one "new nation".
Kurds, sunnites and shi ites.
how many different ethnic and religious groups live in the USA?
if they can live together in the USA, they can live together in Iraq, or africa or bosina or wherever.
i don't buy this "i have to kill my neighbor because he is different".
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
SteveBailey quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
There were no terrorist ties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liar.
And this one, too:
Liar.
Son, you just can't simply fling poo.
You need to add a counterpoint, contradicting info, etc.
Go ahead, try it, dig a little, put something up to prove it.
How about you prove there were no terrosit ties? You are the one who said it. How can I give a counterpoint to something which you've simply spewed form your mouth with no data/support whatsoever?
Son, you can't simply fling poo. Go ahead, try it, dig a little. Put something up to prove there were no terrorist ties in Iraq.
-
There were ties to terrorists in Iraq. There were at least 2 terrorist training camps and the Sadman was paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel. There just weren't any ties to Al-Qaeada.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i don't buy this "i have to kill my neighbor because he is different". [/B]
While we as Americans find that whole mindset hard to comprehend, folks in other parts of the world seem to be able to embrace it wholeheartedly with no problem at all. Sad really.
-
Originally posted by john9001
how many different ethnic and religious groups live in the USA?
if they can live together in the USA, they can live together in Iraq, or africa or bosina or wherever.
i don't buy this "i have to kill my neighbor because he is different".
Wounded Knee, KKK lynchings, Medgar Evars, slavery, we have our history.... the kill your neighbor mentality is not all that far removed if it has been removed at all.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Boy to hear you say it. One would think we got our butts kicked in Nam.
Nice spin
You sure you dont work for CNN?
First of all you didn’t hear me say “it”, you read what I wrote. Any perceived “tone” in my previous post is purely a figment of your imagination and personal bias. Secondly, you did lose the Vietnam War. How and why you lost the war is a discussion better suited for a separate thread.
Originally posted by SteveBailey
How about you prove there were no terrosit ties? You are the one who said it. How can I give a counterpoint to something which you've simply spewed form your mouth with no data/support whatsoever?
Son, you can't simply fling poo. Go ahead, try it, dig a little. Put something up to prove there were no terrorist ties in Iraq.
Proving a negative is impossible … like proving there were no WMD in Iraq. I believe you possess the intellect to understand this basic truth, so I can only assume it is an attempt at making a straw-man argument. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Proving a negative is impossible … like proving there were no WMD in Iraq. I believe you possess the intellect to understand this basic truth, so I can only assume it is an attempt at making a straw-man argument. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
There are no intelligent people in Scandanavia. I don't have to prove it because it's a negative.
-
Not only do you not have to prove that statement, you can’t possibly prove it. Such a statement is however easily refutable.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
There are no intelligent people in Scandanavia. I don't have to prove it because it's a negative.
You're not intelligent.
no need for a proof ,he ?
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Montagnards.
Thank you very much, sir. My foreign language spelling is somewhat lacking.
-
Originally posted by straffo
You're not intelligent.
no need for a proof ,he ?
Exactly.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Not only do you not have to prove that statement, you can’t possibly prove it. Such a statement is however easily refutable.
I don't have to prove it, It must be true because I can't, and therefore don't have to, support it with evidence. This is per your logic.
-
Originally posted by john9001
that is why the terriorsts blow up women and children, so people like you and Reid can say "the war is lost". You and Reid and the media are supporting the al qaeda propaganda machine.
OR, it could be they are blowing people up because they are religious fanatics. Putting the Bush propaganda machine in high gear will not change the body count.
-
It's a lose lose situation in Iraq and Afghanistan,their will be no winners only losers,the biggest losers will be the Iraqi & Afghan peoples,aqnd Bush will go down as the worst president the USA has ever had,Blair will be remebered only for his ill thought through and mendacious Jolly in Iraq.If only these two had boned up on the history of this region & the British empires attempts at restructering the map to suit it's interests ....History will not be Kind to either....The Ramifications here will be more far reaching and more serious than vietnam due to the strategic importance of the Region.:(
-
The spice must flow! Bring in the Guild Navigator!!!!!
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
I don't have to prove it, It must be true because I can't, and therefore don't have to, support it with evidence. This is per your logic.
Another straw-man argument. I never said it must be true just because it couldn’t be proven. That’s your faulty logic. I was just pointing out the stupidity of asking someone to prove a negative, like you did.
Prove that you’re not a rapist Mr. Bailey. You can’t … but that doesn’t make it true … nor does it make it false. So asking you to prove you’re not a rapist is in itself a misleading fallacy since you can’t prove a negative. It is however a tactic often used by dumb people who doesn’t know better, or by smart people against dumb people who doesn’t know better. Though, I do think I’ve sufficiently proven that it doesn’t work on intelligent Scandinavians.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Another straw-man argument. I never said it must be true just because it couldn’t be proven. That’s your faulty logic. I was just pointing out the stupidity of asking someone to prove a negative, like you did.
Prove that you’re not a rapist Mr. Bailey. You can’t … but that doesn’t make it true … nor does it make it false. So asking you to prove you’re not a rapist is in itself a misleading fallacy since you can’t prove a negative. It is however a tactic often used by dumb people who doesn’t know better, or by smart people against dumb people who doesn’t know better. Though, I do think I’ve sufficiently proven that it doesn’t work on intelligent Scandinavians.
It was your straw man argument and now you are trying to twist your initial implication because your own flawed logic was used against you. You can blabber on all you like but the fact is that you implied that Frode didn't have to prove there were no terrorist ties in Iraq because proving a negative is impossible. Take it! Game, Set, Match and I'm done with you.
You are dismissed.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
It was your straw man argument and now you are trying to twist your initial implication because your own flawed logic was used against you. You can blabber on all you like but the fact is that you implied that Frode didn't have to prove there were no terrorist ties in Iraq because proving a negative is impossible. Take it! Game, Set, Match and I'm done with you.
You are dismissed.
He doesn’t have to prove anything. No one has to prove anything. However his argument is impossible to prove and thus asking him to prove it is stupid. I am however beginning to think Straffo is correct in his statement on your intelligence. You seem to be proving it with every post you make.
And your “take it!” etc. juvenile banter does not work on me either. You cannot anger me; I find your posts far to entertaining for that. :)
-
Originally posted by john9001
almost everyone living now in Iraq has lived under a dictatorship, they do not know how to govern themselves, we must show them how.
How noble of us. And I'm guessing that within every Iraqi is an American waiting to get out?
ack-ack
-
Two years after we pull out of Iraq, Iran will invade and stabilize the region. We wont trade with them for 20 years, then they will become our friends, just like Vietnam.
Anyone willing to take that bet?
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Virgil Hilts, quit trying to sneakily change what I said.
I said VIETNAM. Not SOUTH EAST ASIA. The massive blood-bath happened in Cambodia. Ironically, it was communist insurgents who were just waiting for the Cambodian government to become weakened to rise up and strike. The Cambodian government became weakened trying to assist the U.S. by striking the North Vietnamese.
So the massive bloodbath never happened in Vietnam. There were a few executions, but most people, even those that cooperated with the U.S., were allowed to assimilate into the new communist rule.
No, there was a blood bath afterwards as the NVA took revenge on those that supported the South. Those in the South that had any relationship with the US or the West were either imprisoned and sent to "re-education" camps or executed. I think it was just a few years ago that Vietnam finally released its last South Vietnamese POW that was imprisoned for over 30 years.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Viking
I have to say I think that statement is falsified. Tokyo Rose would have spelled Emperor correctly.
The really ironic thing about your statement is that it was the North-Vietnamese who, after winning the war against the US and South-Vietnam, ended Pol Pot’s reign of terror in 1978.
Don't forget they also went to war with China over Cambodia and won.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
How noble of us. And I'm guessing that within every Iraqi is an American waiting to get out?
ack-ack
to quote the song "people everywhere just want to be free"
-
Ack-Ack, if you want to believe there was a big bloodbath in Vietnam in 1975, go right ahead. But I have it on good authority (along with multiple published sources) that there WASN'T.
The big bloodbath was in Cambodia under Pol Pot's regime. The Vietnamese reunited, and besides a few executions and some standard re-education, things went back to normal.
The biggest complaint I can find is that officers in the South Vietnamese Army claim that there is a 'glass ceiling' that prevented them from rising to the top positions on society in post-war Vietnam. How would they be there to complain if they were supposedly executed as you say?
-
Aqua, how many would it take for you to call the post NV victory a "big bloodbath" then?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Aqua, how many would it take for you to call the post NV victory a "big bloodbath" then?
Technically to bathe in a tub of blood would require what?, 20 or 30 gallons? so a "bloodbath" could be easy to achieve without killing all that many people... see?
-
"besides a few executions and some standard re-education, things went back to normal. "
:rofl oh boy , talk about the spin
-
Originally posted by john9001
"besides a few executions and some standard re-education, things went back to normal. "
:rofl oh boy , talk about the spin
Executions are when they shoot you without asking you to join the Communist Party.
Re-education is when they shoot you after they ask you.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Technically to bathe in a tub of blood would require what?, 20 or 30 gallons? so a "bloodbath" could be easy to achieve without killing all that many people... see?
A shower might take less, unless you are into really long luxurious blood showers.
But a quick douse and rinse, only a couple of gallons, maybe three.
-
So they shot collaborators and a few ”enemies”. So what? Hardly a “bloodbath” compared to the war itself. The French and other European countries also shot collaborators after being liberated in WWII, but I’ve never heard it described as a “bloodbath” before. And comparing it to the killing-fields of Cambodia is just dumb.
-
Aquashrimp, From what i've read about post-1975 Vietnam, was that in the years after the war, the government in the North not only "purged" all of the old SV government from the top, all the way down to teachers in grade schools, they also did in the former Viet Cong allies.
If what I've read is correct, the Northern Government was afraid of a Counter-revolution, which would be spearheaded by many of the former guerillas.
Yes, The genocide of the Pol Pot regime was worse...but there was quite a bit of killing after 1975, in Vietnam.
However, I would point out, that although Vietnam and Iraq are similiar on the outside, they are completely different on the inside. Really, trying to compare the two(other than both resulting in long-term U.S. involvement)is extremely diffucult. Your guess that Iran might Invade is a good one...But they will probably wait until things are favorable. 2 years might be a bit optimistic. However, With our fuel crisis, Not trading with them for 20 years(That would include Iran, as well as any other inclined nation in the region) Would probably be out of the question. We simply could'nt withstand being cut off of that much oil for that long. Especially since it would be fueling the Chinese, N.Koreans, etc. The economic implications are too big.
-
news from the front.
"U.S. officers say a growing number of Sunni tribes are turning against al-Qaida, repelled by the terror group's sheer brutality and austere religious extremism. The tribes are competing with al-Qaida for influence and control over diminishing territory in the face of U.S. assaults, the officers say. The influx of Sunni fighters to areas outside the capital in advance of the security crackdown in Baghdad may have further unsettled the region.
"This is a big turning point," U.S. Maj. David Baker said Friday in the Diyala provincial capital of Baqouba. "If they are fighting against each other, it's better than them fighting against us."
oh yes, we are "losing the war", Reid needs to stop whining and get a pair.
how do these losers get elected?
-
Originally posted by Viking
First of all you didn’t hear me say “it”, you read what I wrote. Any perceived “tone” in my previous post is purely a figment of your imagination and personal bias. Secondly, you did lose the Vietnam War. How and why you lost the war is a discussion better suited for a separate thread.
We "lost" the political will at home. So we quit. We pulled out.
there was no surrender. Bit of a difference between loosing and quitting
NV was on the ropes at one point. It was even admitted so by a NV leader.
thee interview was posted on these boards I beleive some time ago.
This was what forced the NV to the barganing table.
And after we quit the NV didnt just control South Vietnam.
the last american combat troops left Vietnam in March of 73.
The war didnt end for another two years
When the NV captured Saigon in April of 75
A little over two years later.
-
Originally posted by Viking
So they shot collaborators and a few ”enemies”... but I’ve never heard it described as a “bloodbath” before.
Well, since Aqua hasn't answered yet, what would you consider a "few" or how many would qualify in your mind as a "bloodbath"?
Simple question.
-
The war was WON YEARS ago...
Now it's crucial to make sure the peace is not lost.
Politicians can be such a55hats.
68ROX
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Bit of a difference between loosing and quitting
Nope. In war it’s the same thing. In the Vietnam War you gave up and surrendered the battlefield to the enemy. It wasn’t your own territory however, just that of an ally ... which you also lost.
Originally posted by Toad
Well, since Aqua hasn't answered yet, what would you consider a "few" or how many would qualify in your mind as a "bloodbath"?
Simple question.
I’m not going to play a numbers game with you Toad. The definition of “bloodbath” is subjective and also dependant on context. In the context of a peacetime murder a slaughtered family is a “bloodbath”. In the context of war a slaughtered family isn’t even noteworthy.
-
viking, sorry but you failed the test "vietman war", you need to study some more. Reference Paris peace accords.
we will retest next week.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Nope. In war it’s the same thing. In the Vietnam War you gave up and surrendered the battlefield to the enemy. It wasn’t your own territory however, just that of an ally ... which you also lost.
but we werent forced to give up the battlefeild BY the enemy.
but by political movements a home.
Normally when you loose to an enemy it is because they have defeated you.
Which they did not.
The war was lost. some two years later. By the South Vietnamese
-
Originally posted by Viking
I’m not going to play a numbers game with you Toad. The definition of “bloodbath” is subjective and also dependant on context. In
I'm asking for your subjective opinion in the context of the aftermath of the NV takeover of SV post 1975. Surely you can now offer a number.
But I'll wager you won't.
I don't blame you; it's no fun to be embarassed.
Maybe Aqua will stand his ground; never expected you to do so anyway.
-
My subjective opinion is that a bloodbath begins with an execution rate 10X that of the peacetime rate.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
but we werent forced to give up the battlefeild BY the enemy.
but by political movements a home.
Normally when you loose to an enemy it is because they have defeated you.
Which they did not.
The war was lost. some two years later. By the South Vietnamese
You are arguing over semantics. The NVA and VC fought a war of attrition against you and you got tired of it and gave up. Your nation’s will to fight was slowly but surely eroded away. When the Germans lost WWI the front lines were still in France and the low countries, but for economical and political reasons Germany chose to give up.
The North Vietnamese defeated you, just like the Arabs now will defeat you: By destroying your will to fight.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. – Ho Chi Minh
And he was right.
Originally posted by Toad
I'm asking for your subjective opinion in the context of the aftermath of the NV takeover of SV post 1975. Surely you can now offer a number.
It was not a “bloodbath” in my opinion.
Originally posted by Toad
I don't blame you; it's no fun to be embarassed.
Embarrassed is spelled with two R’s, and no … your attempt at goading me into one of your arguments over semantics will not succeed. No matter how many personal attacks you make.
-
Don't forget they also went to war with China over Cambodia and won.
China went to war with Vietnam over Cambodia, not the other way around. As far as who *won*......that depends on what the Chinese goals were to begin with and that still isn't clear.
-
I see,so this war will be lost by the Iraqi's ##yrs down the road.:aok
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
I see,so this war will be lost by the Iraqi's ##yrs down the road.:aok
Just like in Vietnam, you will give up, betray your allies and leave them to fend for themselves. An apt metaphor would be that of a dog running away with his tail between his legs. In Vietnam at least you didn’t start the conflict, but in Iraq you actually invaded a sovereign country and sparked off this whole mess. As usual it will be the local population and your allies that will pay dearly for this folly. You will run away before the inevitable defeat, but you will have lost the war as surely as Italy lost WWII … even if they switched sides at the last moment.
-
maybe... but...
one thing is for sure.. that is what you hope for in the deepest recess of your little liberal socialist heart because....
It makes living in a dying socialist country with no power seem less bleak than it is. It justifies your failure if we fail.
lazs
-
Lol Lasz. Your bait is as stinky as your wooden leg. ;)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Just like in Vietnam, you will give up, betray your allies and leave them to fend for themselves. An apt metaphor would be that of a dog running away with his tail between his legs. In Vietnam at least you didn’t start the conflict, but in Iraq you actually invaded a sovereign country and sparked off this whole mess.
By August 2003, there were about 22,000 troops from 27 countries other than the United States in Iraq
Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); New Zealand (late Sep. 2004); Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004) Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); The Netherlands (Mar. 2005); Hungary (Mar. 2005); Singapore (Mar. 2005); Norway (Oct. 2005); Ukraine (Dec. 2005); Japan (July 17, 2006); Italy (Nov. 2006); Slovakia (Jan 2007).
So Norge supported the cause but later gave up, betrayed its allies and left them to fend for themselves.
Too bad your 20/20 hindsight isn't foresight.
-
laughing through the tears eh viking boy?
You guys give up before you even start.. any glory you once had is long gone... like all the other socialist countries.
lazs
-
I'd like to say that Tedrbr still had it right in his previous posts.
The U.S. has been keeping Plans on scenarios in the middle east since Large deposits of oil were found there. During the cold war, we had plans to counter the Soviets in case they intervened or invaded. Why do you think we've kept such close ties to the Saud's this whole time?
You can't really draw parallels between this and Vietnam on a political level...It's not simply about keeping a country aligned with you politically.
This time, it's a(n) known source of oil, that's what we need for our economy. You guys all know, that if we get cut off of oil, We have massive problems in the U.S. I'm sure that we will never be completely out of the middle east, now that we're there.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
By August 2003, there were about 22,000 troops from 27 countries other than the United States in Iraq
Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); New Zealand (late Sep. 2004); Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004) Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); The Netherlands (Mar. 2005); Hungary (Mar. 2005); Singapore (Mar. 2005); Norway (Oct. 2005); Ukraine (Dec. 2005); Japan (July 17, 2006); Italy (Nov. 2006); Slovakia (Jan 2007).
So Norge supported the cause but later gave up, betrayed its allies and left them to fend for themselves.
Too bad your 20/20 hindsight isn't foresight.
Oh hardly. We never supported your cause, however being allies we sent a small engineering unit and a field hospital to Iraq to offer our “moral support”. Mostly due to your ambassador who rather bluntly called in favors from WWII. Our contribution was completed when our forces went home. I.e. they had completed their assigned engineering tasks and the field hospital was no longer needed by the British. Norway operated in the “British sector”; we did not support US forces in their endeavors.
Norway publically fought against your illegal invasion of Iraq, both politically and in the UN being a member of the Security Council at the time (2001-2002). So I’m afraid we helped the French-German-Russian alliance to defeat your proposed UN resolution to legalize your invasion.
Originally posted by lazs2
laughing through the tears eh viking boy?
You are funny Lazs, but not THAT funny.
-
viking, the only time your country was a "allie" of the USA was when you needed the nazis kicked out.
-
If you say so. That works for me, since you never did kick the Nazis out of Norway. So I guess you owe us now.
-
Thread to long to see if anyone posted this--if so, 1,000 pardons
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgent_split
Iraqi insurgents now fighting each other
By TODD PITMAN, Associated Press Writer Fri Apr 20, 3:28 PM ET
MUQDADIYAH, Iraq - At least two major insurgent groups are battling al-Qaida in provinces outside Baghdad, American military commanders said Friday, an indication of a deepening rift between Sunni guerrilla groups in
Iraq.
U.S. officers say a growing number of Sunni tribes are turning against al-Qaida, repelled by the terror group's sheer brutality and austere religious extremism. The tribes are competing with al-Qaida for influence and control over diminishing territory in the face of U.S. assaults, the officers say. The influx of Sunni fighters to areas outside the capital in advance of the security crackdown in Baghdad may have further unsettled the region.
"This is a big turning point," U.S. Maj. David Baker said Friday in the Diyala provincial capital of Baqouba. "If they are fighting against each other, it's better than them fighting against us."
Even Sunnis who want to cooperate with the Shi-ite-led government are becoming more emboldened to speak out against al-Qaida. In Anbar province, more than 200 Sunni sheiks have decided to form a political party to oppose the terror group, participants said Friday.
The clashes have erupted over the last two to three months, pitting al-Qaida in Iraq against the nationalist 1920 Revolution Brigades in Diyala and Salahuddin provinces north of Baghdad as well as Anbar to the west, U.S. officers said. In Diyala, another hard-line militant Sunni group, the Ansar al-Sunna Army, is also fighting al-Qaida, they said.
"It's happening daily," Lt. Col. Keith Gogas said Thursday in an interview at an Army base in Muqdadiyah, 60 miles northeast of Baghdad. "Our read on it is that that the more moderate, if you will, Sunni insurgents, are finding that their goals and al-Qaida's goals are at odds."
American commanders cite al-Qaida's severe brand of Islam, which is so extreme that in Baqouba, al-Qaida has warned street vendors not to place tomatoes beside cucumbers because the vegetables are different genders, Col. David Sutherland said.
Such radicalism has fueled sectarian violence in Iraq and redrawn the demographics of many mixed Sunni-Shi-ite towns in Diyala, where tens of thousands of Shi-ites have been forced to flee large population centers.
Previously 55 percent Sunni, 45 percent Shi-ite, Baqouba — where rival insurgents also have clashed — is today 80 percent Sunni and 20 percent Shi-ite, Sutherland said.
The rift among insurgents has also been sparked by reports that some militants have been negotiating with the government and U.S. officials, who are trying to draw Sunni groups away from al-Qaida.
Iraqi police and security forces — not Americans — have been negotiating with 1920 Revolution Brigades fighters, who have said "they want some help against al-Qaida," Baker said.
"That's a plus for this place, and we're going to try to exploit that," he said. "We're not making allies with anybody ... but we are monitoring what's going on."
American officers say the clashes have weakened the insurgency. In the last month in Diyala, 1920 Revolution Brigades fighters eased up attacks on Americans, largely turning their guns on al-Qaida, Baker said.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Mostly due to your ambassador who rather bluntly called in favors from WWII.
Originally posted by Viking
If you say so. That works for me, since you never did kick the Nazis out of Norway.
Which was it? Either we helped Norway in WW2 or we didn't.
Norway's coalition to pull troops from Iraq
The Associated Press
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2005
OSLO: The left-leaning coalition preparing to form Norway's next government said Thursday it planned to withdraw Norwegian troops from Iraq and from U.S.-led operations in Afghanistan.
The three-party Red-Green bloc, which is set to take power next week, also said it would raise taxes and allow continued oil exploration in the fragile Arctic ecosystems of the Barents Sea.
Hmmm... seems more political than just a job finished...
-
That report is factually wrong and misleading. We still have troops in Afghanistan. More now than ever before in fact. We DO support your actions in Afghanistan.
-
Source: Deutsche Presse Agentur (DPA)
Date: 16 Sep 2005
Norway to withdraw troops from Iraq
Oslo (dpa) - Norway's incoming premier Jens Stoltenberg has told U.S. President George Bush that he will withdraw the 20 Norwegian soldiers stationed in Iraq, the NTB news agency reported Friday.
Stoltenberg made the announcement when the U.S. president rang him to congratulate him on his tripartite red-green alliance's win in Monday's parliamentary elections.
Stoltenberg, 46, will take over from outgoing Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik, who has governed since 2001, in mid October. dpa tb pmc
Okay, so IHT was wrong. How's the DPA? Seems the election, the withdrawl, and the job finished all happened at once.
-
Norway had a lot more than 20 soldiers in Iraq in 2003. Those 20 where those left to train the Iraqi police force, all the others had already left.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Norway had a lot more than 20 soldiers in Iraq in 2003. Those 20 where those left to train the Iraqi police force, all the others had already left.
I thought you said Norway didn't support the effort? ah... but then you said although you didn't support it, you supported it.
Oh hardly. We never supported your cause, however being allies we sent a small engineering unit and a field hospital to Iraq to offer our “moral support”.
You could run for US president...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I thought you said Norway didn't support the effort? ah... but then you said although you didn't support it, you supported it.
We supported (and still do) your actions in Afghanistan, so did the UN. We have never supported (in the meaning of agreeing with what you do) you in Iraq, but since we are allies (and since you’ve blackmailed us) we have sent a token military contingent to Iraq. Helping a friend even if you don’t agree with what he is doing …. Is what a good friend does.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You could run for US president...
No … I don’t think so.
-
Originally posted by Viking
No … I don’t think so.
Nothing stops you from running, you just couldn't serve.
Accessory to a crime is still a crime... saying you never agreed with robbing the jewelry store, even though you fenced the merchandise doesn't give you much moral superiority.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Nothing stops you from running, you just couldn't serve.
Accessory to a crime is still a crime... saying you never agreed with robbing the jewelry store, even though you fenced the merchandise doesn't give you much moral superiority.
True. I was against any involvement in Iraq. The Iraq support also contributed to the fall of our centrist government at that time leaving the road open for a socialist leftist government. I’ll never forgive Bondevik for that.
-
this thread needs to be closed.
-
Originally posted by john9001
viking, the only time your country was a "allie" of the USA was when you needed the nazis kicked out.
USA intervention just delayed the birth of European Union with 50 years, and created the Red Comunist Empire ,
Hitler was mad and sick ,he wouldn't have last long anyway,but he united Europe mostly peacefully , and now the relations betwen Euro and Russia, are not better than they were in 1941,
-
Originally posted by ghi
USA intervention just delayed the birth of European Union with 50 years, and created the Red Comunist Empire ,
Hitler was mad and sick ,he wouldn't have last long anyway,but he united Europe mostly peacefully , and now the relations betwen Euro and Russia, are not better than they were in 1941,
repeat please, message was garbled.
-
Originally posted by ghi
USA intervention just delayed the birth of European Union with 50 years, and created the Red Comunist Empire ,
Hitler was mad and sick ,he wouldn't have last long anyway,but he united Europe mostly peacefully , and now the relations betwen Euro and Russia, are not better than they were in 1941,
Umm ... :huh
-
Originally posted by ghi
USA intervention just delayed the birth of European Union with 50 years, and created the Red Comunist Empire ,
Hitler was mad and sick ,he wouldn't have last long anyway,but he united Europe mostly peacefully , and now the relations betwen Euro and Russia, are not better than they were in 1941,
I don't care who you are, now THAT'S funny.
Or maybe just a little deluded. Or a lot deluded.
-
I'm with Viking and John on that one, Ghi, that is.....:huh :confused:
-
Could someone on here tell me how the US is going to win this ..err war in Iraq?and when you've finished tell your military leaders they'ed love to know!
The war is already LOST!What bush wants is to get out and somehow save face.NOT going to happen,and History will not be kind to Bush or Blair their lasting legacy to the world will be the mess that is the middle east.OH and it's going to get a lot worse,before it gets better.
-
Wow this thread is a mess.
Tedrbr...well put.
Marine...good thoughts.
John9001...you are clinically retarded.
MBailey...even more so.
Frodo...you are a smelly hippy.
Viking...pwn'd everyone.
-
Originally posted by Viking
If you say so. That works for me, since you never did kick the Nazis out of Norway. So I guess you owe us now.
I hear there are lots of half breeds in Norway > Norwegian mothers, Nazi fathers.
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
Could someone on here tell me how the US is going to win this ..err war in Iraq?and when you've finished tell your military leaders they'ed love to know!
The war is already LOST!What bush wants is to get out and somehow save face.NOT going to happen,and History will not be kind to Bush or Blair their lasting legacy to the world will be the mess that is the middle east.OH and it's going to get a lot worse,before it gets better.
The middle east was a steaming pile of $&!+ before Bush and Blair were born. At worst, all they did is refocus the attention and violence to a different area.
What will prevent things from improving in that region is the lack of willingness to kill enough of the right people. I said 3 years ago that al Sadr was a cancer that needed to be excised. A half dozen of the brilliant people here said we should "establish a dialog" with him. He's REAL good to work with, isn't he?
-
Originally posted by Dadano
Wow this thread is a mess.
Tedrbr...well put.
Marine...good thoughts.
John9001...you are clinically retarded.
MBailey...even more so.
Frodo...you are a smelly hippy.
Viking...pwn'd everyone.
The only thing Viking owns is his own bitterness, hatred, and paranoia. He's become PNG before, and Skuzzy allowed him back. He'll go PNG again, too.
-
Originally posted by Viking
You are arguing over semantics. [/i]
Actually, you are the one arguing semantics. You keep saying it wasn't a bloodbath.
Particulary since you seem unable or unwilling to define the term.
The basic question is really do you have any idea how many South Vietnamese died in the aftermath of the North Vietnamese victory? That would include those sent to re-education camps and those sent to forced labor camps that died as a result of NV action/inaction.
So far, you've shown no indication that you've researched it at all. Rather, you just deny it was a bloodbath without attempting to define the term.
So which is it? Do you have any idea at all or are you just arguing the semantics of bloodbath?
-
Originally posted by Bodhi our biggest foreign policy mistake[/B]
Remaining wedded to Mid-East oil for another generation, so robber barons and their tools can become richer would make my list of global political blunders.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
He'll go PNG again, too.
I highly doubt that. :)
-
It remains yet to be finally seen but I believe, if trends continue, we should later be able to determine the conflict in Iraq ceased to be a viable operation in November of 06.
Whether it is determined to be a total loss will be dependent on events that have not yet happened and the passage of time. If in say 10 years, Iraq has a stable govt. and can exist with the population within it's borders it will be a success. If not then I would state the failure began not so much in 2003 but when the country was first formed. Without a stable beginning nothing later can be counted on to be stable either.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The basic question is really do you have any idea how many South Vietnamese died in the aftermath of the North Vietnamese victory? That would include those sent to re-education camps and those sent to forced labor camps that died as a result of NV action/inaction.
You are correct that I have done no serious study of the aftermath of the South-Vietnamese defeat, but I believe the deaths, including those from long-term incarceration (camps), were in the tens of thousands range. While slow lingering deaths in a prison camp over a number of years is worse than a summary execution, they do not constitute a “bloodbath” in my opinion.
I have found a couple of dictionary definitions of “bloodbath” and they seem to agree with my point of view:
bloodbath
noun
1. A massacre; a savage murder of a number of people, involving much bloodshed.
blood•bath also blood bath(bldbth, -bäth)
n.
Savage, indiscriminate killing; a massacre.
bloodbath : indiscriminate slaughter
From what I have read, and even what you’ve told me, the “purging” done in South-Vietnam after the war was not ”indiscriminate”, nor did it involve much ”bloodshed”. It was more of a cold, calculated and orderly “process”. At least that’s my impression of the events.
-
LOL! Who's indulging in a semantics debate?
It is indeed clear that you haven't done any research. "Tens of thousands" is incorrect. The best research I can find would raise that into the hundreds of thousands range.
This does not count the dead at sea category of the boat people, which is significantly larger than both camp figures combined. I'm sure you'll say the NV did not kill these people, they chose to flee and died because of that decision. Of course...they were fleeing the labor and re-ed camps but that doesn't count, I'm sure.
But that's certainly not enough to merit calling it a slaughter or bloodbath is it? Or whatever semantically correct term you choose for killing people after the fighting has ceased.
-
Toad,
You should recognize, and probably already have done so, that viking (gscholz) is still doing his baghdad bob routine. Reality is irrelevant.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Toad
It is indeed clear that you haven't done any research. "Tens of thousands" is incorrect. The best research I can find would raise that into the hundreds of thousands range.
This does not count the dead at sea category of the boat people, which is significantly larger than both camp figures combined. I'm sure you'll say the NV did not kill these people, they chose to flee and died because of that decision. Of course...they were fleeing the labor and re-ed camps but that doesn't count, I'm sure.
No I don’t count deaths the NVA was not directly responsible for. Just like I don’t blame the Americans for the thousands of civilians on Saipan that committed suicide at the sight of the approaching Americans.
From a brief search on the net:
Hundreds of thousands of former high ranking South Vietnamese officials, particularly ARVN officers, were imprisoned in reeducation camps after the Communist takeover. Tens of thousands died in these camps, and many fled the country after being released. Up to two million civilians also fled the country, and as many as half of these boat people perished at sea, trying to escape the country.
So unless you can provide a different source of information that says otherwise I’m going to believe the “tens of thousands” number.
Originally posted by Toad
But that's certainly not enough to merit calling it a slaughter or bloodbath is it? Or whatever semantically correct term you choose for killing people after the fighting has ceased.
You’ve missed my point (intentionally I believe). “Bloodbath” in my opinion is subjective and contextual, not dependant on numbers. Killing a family might be a bloodbath. Killing a million people might not be.
And yes … this is definitively a semantics debate now. Something that could easily have been avoided if all parties involved used the English language correctly, thus avoiding confusion.
-
Roger that Mav; just highlighting for those that may not be aware.
-
Vietnam Democide (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM)
Most detailed study I've seen so far. Interesting reading; numbers are on table 6.1B, line 671-687.
By the way, nice semantic dodge there. Just what would you call the killing of a few hundred thousand people after hostilities were over? I mean, since you use the English language perfectly and all?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Vietnam Democide (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM)
Most detailed study I've seen so far. Interesting reading; numbers are on table 6.1B, line 671-687.
According to those numbers the “low” category lists 20,000 unnatural deaths in “reeducations camps” over a period of 13 years. The “medium” category” lists 95,000 unnatural deaths.
In “labor camps” the numbers are 20,000 and 48,000 respectively.
The high estimates put unnatural deaths in the hundreds of thousands range over a period of 13 years.
So using the low or medium estimate the number of unnatural deaths were in the tens of thousands range, not hundreds of thousands.
However, these are all just estimates, and I quote: “Assumed 2.5%, 5%, and 7.5% annual death rate of line 669 for first 6 years; 1% of line 670 for the next seven years.”
Those percentage numbers seem very contrived to me, and I don’t know what to believe at this point.
Originally posted by Toad
Just what would you call the killing of a few hundred thousand people after hostilities were over? I mean, since you use the English language perfectly and all?
I would call it “the killing of a few hundred thousand people”.
-
Most other studies give the re-education camp numbers in the 100-160K range and about the same for the forced labor camps.
I guess you would then call the Holocaust "the killing of a few million people", right?
-
Originally posted by Viking
No I don’t count deaths the NVA was not directly responsible for. Just like I don’t blame the Americans for the thousands of civilians on Saipan that committed suicide at the sight of the approaching Americans.
What is this? Gscholz there was no reason for those on Saipan to run from the USM but there sure was a reason to run from the NVA.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Most other studies give the re-education camp numbers in the 100-160K range and about the same for the forced labor camps.
I guess you would then call the Holocaust "the killing of a few million people", right?
I've never been fond of putting emotional labels on murders or killings. I would prefer to call the Holocaust the murder or killing of several million civilians.
I’ve just looked up some statistics on the net. Considering the report you linked to estimated that the rate of unnatural deaths in Vietnamese prison and labor camps were between 2.5% to 7.5% of the total deaths … it interesting that according to the US Bureau of Justice the unnatural deaths in US state prisons in the period 2001 to 2004 were 8% of the total deaths. 6% from suicides, and 2% from homicides.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mcdsp04.pdf
So even using the “high” estimates of 7.5% unnatural deaths in Vietnamese camps (which puts the number in the hundreds of thousands range), the actual unnatural death rate was lower than in US state prisons. Food for thought.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Planting the seed of democracy in the middle east was arrogant and short sited on the part of us Americans in regards to the social-political realities that is the middle east. For democracy to take hold, there would need to be a national identity.... there is no national identity in Iraq. They do not see themselves as Iraqi so much as they see themselves members of their religious sect, clan, tribe, or their power base in relation to others. That's were their loyalties lie.
I know the official grand plan was to spread the joy of Democracy (ironic, since we've been sliding from a Republic to a Oligarchy for years now), but that was an unrealistic goal from the beginning.
Wow, was that well stated Ted.
Then there was the WMD's AND Iraq's hand in 9/11. Well, Halliburton has done well, so I guess it's worth it.
-
Yes, Hap...the Senate voted for it just so Halliburton could make money. That is indeed the sole reason.
Jeebus Cripes.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
What is this? Gscholz there was no reason for those on Saipan to run from the USM but there sure was a reason to run from the NVA.
Yes who wants to live under communism, or poverty, or hunger. Nevertheless, the various national governments of third-world nations are not responsible (not directly anyways) for people risking their lives to make a better life in the west. If you try to cross the ocean in a craft dangerously unsuited for the task you are responsible for the consequences. No one else.
I don't know where you live, but guilt by proxy is a concept that is contrary to western practice of justice.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I've never been fond of putting emotional labels on murders or killings. I the actual unnatural death rate was lower than in US state prisons. Food for thought.
Of course, people in US prisions are there for breaking the law. People in the camps were put there after the war for being on the wrong side during the war.
So I can see where you find solace in making this comparison.
Do your stats tell you how many of the SV were suicides in the camps vs how many were executed? Or is that an inconvenient stat?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Of course, people in US prisions are there for breaking the law. People in the camps were put there after the war for being on the wrong side during the war.
So I can see where you find solace in making this comparison.
Do your stats tell you how many of the SV were suicides in the camps vs how many were executed? Or is that an inconvenient stat?
You provided the statistics in question and called it:
Originally posted by Toad
Most detailed study I've seen so far.
… so you tell me?
I would assume there were at least as many suicides if not more considering the likely conditions of those camps. Then again I don’t really know the conditions of living in those camps; for all I know it might have been better than in US prisons … although I doubt that very much.
-
You're a trip, Scholz.
I find you similar to Boroda when he talks of Stalin.
Although Mav probably puts it best when he likens you to Baghdad Bob.
-
Toad,
I usually dismiss "we're in it for the money" explanations out of hand. Which is what I was implying with my crack about Halliburton. But as crazy as all this is, why not reach for some crazy explanation on that bastion of lucidity, gravity, and precience the BBS on Aces High?
We're not there because of WMD's.
We're not there, today, because of Iraq and Bin Ladin are two peas in a pod and Iraq had a big enough hand in 9/11 to warrant us invading it.
I think we're still there because if we left now those in charge think a greater mess will ensue, also that we bear a great deal of responsibility to try to put things as right as they can be put.
If my supposition be correct, if that's why we're really there, I happen to agree.
At one point, I really wanted to know if Bush/Cheney lied. That is they knowingly over-exaggerated the connection between Iraq and Bin Laden or made it up.
Or, its all so hidden and secret, that after all this the WMD's and Iraq/Bin Laden connection is there, but like the purloined letter we just can't see it. That's seems too much of reach.
Now, its all just tiresome and dissapointing because I had hoped for better things from this bunch of guys. They are the one's with white hats, right? I just read Michael Chertoff's essay -- a new one -- you can read it at Real Clear Politics. He equates the War on Terror to the Cold War. "Limp" was the word that came to mind as I read it.
I think it was stupid to declare "war" on terror. Sound like a speech writer + political advisor + a catchy phrase to help keep our guys in office sort of tactic.
Better to say less, get all the bad guys we can, and if questioned say "we got the guys who did this to us."
Surreal is the only thing I can come up with. Maybe we'll invade Portugal next.
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Fred%20Surr%2C%20Ted%20Page%2C%20Janet%20Tashjian%22
I'm sure a future generation will be astounded that things things have happened. They'll ask, "what were they thinking," and "how could they actually be so obtuse?"
-
Originally posted by Toad
You're a trip, Scholz.
I find you similar to Boroda when he talks of Stalin.
Although Mav probably puts it best when he likens you to Baghdad Bob.
And now … finally … personal attacks are all you have left to offer. Thank you for a fun and educational debate Mr. Toad. :)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Boy to hear you say it. One would think we got our butts kicked in Nam.
Nice spin
You sure you dont work for CNN?
Naw, he just likes to sit on the sidelines and fling poo. Inconvenient
facts are ignored..same ole same ole.
-
Originally posted by Viking
We supported (and still do) your actions in Afghanistan, so did the UN. We have never supported (in the meaning of agreeing with what you do) you in Iraq, but since we are allies (and since you’ve blackmailed us) we have sent a token military contingent to Iraq. Helping a friend even if you don’t agree with what he is doing …. Is what a good friend does.
No … I don’t think so.
We don't need you or want you as a friend.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
We don't need you or want you as a friend.
Your President disagrees with you. Or at least he did when he called us up and asked for more of our troops for Afghanistan. :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
And now … finally … personal attacks are all you have left to offer. Thank you for a fun and educational debate Mr. Toad. :)
Let's see... you confuse a summation of my personal view of your posts here with a personal attack?
What part was an attack?
That I think your way of thinking is a real trip?
Or that I compared Boroda's hero worship of Stalin to what you post here?
Or that I think Mav has it nailed when he compares you to Baghdad Bob?
Which one of those is a personal attack?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let's see... you confuse a summation of my personal view of your posts here with a personal attack?
What part was an attack?
That I think your way of thinking is a real trip?
Or that I compared Boroda's hero worship of Stalin to what you post here?
Or that I think Mav has it nailed when he compares you to Baghdad Bob?
Which one of those is a personal attack?
All of the above. You couldn’t refute my arguments, so you attack my person and my credibility. The last one being the worst of course. But I understand, must be frustrating being so thoroughly proven wrong. :)
-
Yes that's pure classic Baghdad bob there.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Yes that's pure classic Baghdad bob there.
Really? I can’t seem to remember him ever saying something even remotely similar. I think you must be mistaken. :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
I think :)
hhhmmm Viking and "I think" are kind of contradictory. One might consider them to be mutually exclusive even.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
hhhmmm Viking and "I think" are kind of contradictory. One might consider them to be mutually exclusive even.
Now that’s honest! No pretence, no convoluted insults, just a straight up old fashion personal attack! Wtg! :aok
-
Originally posted by Viking
Now that’s honest! No pretence, no convoluted insults, just a straight up old fashion personal attack! Wtg! :aok
It looks as if they cannot argue any further Viking.
By not re-engaging you in any kind of thoughtful debate the only option for them now is to "Tuck and Run".
Bush would be PISSED!
-
Originally posted by Viking
Your President disagrees with you. Or at least he did when he called us up and asked for more of our troops for Afghanistan. :)
I'll put in a call to W. in the morning and get you guys off the hook. I know I'll sleep better.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
It looks as if they cannot argue any further Viking.
By not re-engaging you in any kind of thoughtful debate the only option for them now is to "Tuck and Run".
Bush would be PISSED!
:lol
-
Originally posted by Slash27
I'll put in a call to W. in the morning and get you guys off the hook. I know I'll sleep better.
Would you? On behalf of the Norwegian people I thank you! :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Would you? On behalf of the Norwegian people I thank you! :)
He was only kidding. :D
-
Damn! :mad: (;))
-
I knew that would make your day. :t
-
Originally posted by Viking
All of the above. You couldn’t refute my arguments, so you attack my person and my credibility.
In your view, no one can refute your arguments in the same way that no one can refute Boroda's argument that Stalin was a really good guy that never hurt any of his own citizens.
Another way of putting it is you fully believe your own press releases.
I have not attacked your person and your lack of credibility is your own problem.
I've merely stated my view of what you spew out. How can anyone take seriously someone who has said he'd take more pleasure in seeing the US fail than in the bad guys losing?
That pretty much sums you up as a person and it says a lot about your character. It is not complimentary. So, in my view, you've personally attacked yourself.
-
Originally posted by john9001
how many different ethnic and religious groups live in the USA?
if they can live together in the USA, they can live together in Iraq, or africa or bosina or wherever.
i don't buy this "i have to kill my neighbor because he is different".
You cant compare the different ethnical + religious groups of the USA with those of Iraq.
1. Since the creation of Iraq one group supressed the others. The sunnites -> the shi ites and the kurds.
That didnt happened in the USA.
2. There was NEVER during the short history of Iraq peace and cooperation between these groups.
Just a more and more perfect supressing regime, which could have continued for decades if the US-regime of Bush has not eliminated Saddam and his regime and loyal suppressing forces like the secret police groups and the republican guards.
That also never happened in the USA.
In the USA the different ethnical and religious groups came to this country to build a new future. So they were entering a new country or born into a country with a future and often they also mixed their race and culture.
In Iraq 3 ethnical and racial different groups werde forced to live together in a new country called iraq and nearly after a century they still have isolated themself in their 3 different groups.
So I dont think that you can compare Iraq with the USA or any other traditional multi-ethnical-country.
The best example are the election votes.
There were pure sunnite, pure shi ite, pure kurd parties and also political parties which wanted to build a bridge between the different groups.
Just check how much votes went to the first groups and what remained for the "unification" groups.
The shi ites vote like their mullahs order them in the friday prayer.
The sunnites also - they follow the order of their clan-chiefs and sunnite religious rulers.
And the kurds vote for kurdish parties.
There is no iraqi people. And so the fightings will go on, because the groups are supported by other nations who have their own political interest in the region.
-
You have lost. The terrorists have won a tremendous victory. It's only a matter of time. - Viking
got schadenfreude, Viking? i think its related to envy in your case. we have a hollywood full of it over here, where its more related to a hatred of Bush.
at any rate, we continue to have long-term goals in Iraq and in the region, as we should. The US wants stability, flowing oil and security against terrorism. that isn't going to change.
we may be in Iraq a bit longer than you may think, in spite of what certain US politicians say in public to keep their "progressive" socialist liberal supporters happy.
-
Originally posted by Toad
In your view, no one can refute your arguments in the same way that no one can refute Boroda's argument that Stalin was a really good guy that never hurt any of his own citizens.
Another way of putting it is you fully believe your own press releases.
I have not attacked your person and your lack of credibility is your own problem.
I've merely stated my view of what you spew out. How can anyone take seriously someone who has said he'd take more pleasure in seeing the US fail than in the bad guys losing?
That pretty much sums you up as a person and it says a lot about your character. It is not complimentary. So, in my view, you've personally attacked yourself.
Again you attack my person and character rather than my arguments. You even admit it by saying: “That pretty much sums you up as a person and it says a lot about your character.” :)
Now if we can get back to the real issue you’re so desperately trying to avoid: You were telling us all how the Vietnamese prison camps were “bloodbaths” because they had an unnatural death-rate almost as high as US state prisons. Care to explain? :)
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
got schadenfreude, Viking?
I must admit that being proven right in my predictions of 3-4 years ago, and seeing my bitter opponents here proven wrong does give me a certain amount of satisfaction.
Originally posted by Gunthr
i think its related to envy in your case
Now why of all people would I envy your lot?
Originally posted by Gunthr
at any rate, we continue to have long-term goals in Iraq and in the region, as we should. The US wants stability, flowing oil and security against terrorism. that isn't going to change.
No I guess not. However, having goals is all good and fun, but achieving them is a different matter entirely. And achieving your intended goals in the Middle East is something the United States historically never has been really good at. And it doesn’t seem like that’s about to change in the foreseeable future.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Again you attack my person and character rather than my arguments. You even admit it by saying: “That pretty much sums you up as a person and it says a lot about your character.” :)
Now if we can get back to the real issue you’re so desperately trying to avoid: You were telling us all how the Vietnamese prison camps were “bloodbaths” because they had an unnatural death-rate almost as high as US state prisons. Care to explain? :)
Well, if saying the sun rises in the East is attacking the character of the sun, I could possibly understand your reasoning. I merely see it as stating the obvious.
You've undoubtedly heard the old Harry Truman response to the reporter who shouted "Give 'em hell, Harry"? Harry replied, "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” I think that fits this little exchange between you and I perfectly.
As for the prison camps, please review the thread. I've never taken a position in this thread on whether or not it was a "bloodbath". I merely tried to get the participants in the bloodbath debate to define their terms, something that neither your nor Aqua ever really did. I suspected that neither one of you had the remotest idea how many died and were just playing semantic games.
Which is exactly the way it turned out.
Oh and your comparison to US prisons is another example of your character. You know this is not an apples to apples comparison in the least and you know that.
-
Toad, gscholz is back in his full troll mode. No matter what you say he's just going to disagree with you and nothing to back it up. Stop feeding the troll, it's not worth the effort.
-
Why is this thread still open?
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Why is this thread still open?
why should it be closed ?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, if saying the sun rises in the East is attacking the character of the sun, I could possibly understand your reasoning. I merely see it as stating the obvious.
You've undoubtedly heard the old Harry Truman response to the reporter who shouted "Give 'em hell, Harry"? Harry replied, "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.” I think that fits this little exchange between you and I perfectly.
As long as your argument is about your opponents person or character it is an ad hominem attack … no matter if you are telling the truth or not. If I were to liken you to Professor Goebbels I would be making a personal attack. If I were to say that you are so old that maybe your mental faculties are compromised by age I would also be making a personal attack. Whether those two statements are true or not does not change the fact that they are attacks on your person.
ad ho•mi•nem /æd ˈhɒmənəm‑ˌnɛm, ɑd-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ad hom-uh-nuhm‑nem, ahd-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.
Originally posted by Toad
As for the prison camps, please review the thread. I've never taken a position in this thread on whether or not it was a "bloodbath". I merely tried to get the participants in the bloodbath debate to define their terms, something that neither your nor Aqua ever really did. I suspected that neither one of you had the remotest idea how many died and were just playing semantic games.
So you’re saying it wasn’t a bloodbath and thus proving me right? Or are you saying it was a bloodbath and thus proving your last post a lie? :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
why should it be closed ?
Because the wrong people are winning. ;) (Well … the debate was won pages ago. All that is left is the whining and personal attacks by the sore losers.)
-
The american peoples don"t want to admire the apocalyptic slaughter masterpice of their tax $$ and tacite ignorant acceptance of Iraq war
I been watching , mostly Euro News channels on sattelite, but
i have CNN,Fox also , +Sirius in my car
Last week, most of the news began with >>"Iraq, 1.2 milion of barefoot, starving, refugees heading to Sirya, +1more million to other middle east countries,100+deaths,and other car bombing rich in grafic" Danfur!!
watching on this new wide tvs, killed my apettite for dinner, good for weight lose,"
on BBC last week, they said "the american news crew comes to bombing sittes after they clean up the intestines and other boody parts and wash the blood on the streets, but anyway they show only the "Google earth" position of the bombing sitte"
But, i was tired with this and switched on CNN/Fox,::
>....Breaking News!!! .. a dozen of greedy cats died due to "pet food failure " , and they talk about this all over news/ news talk shows all the week,
diversion or brain wash??!
Lucky pets!
-
what are you talking about?
-
Originally posted by Viking
As long as your argument is about your opponents person or character it is an ad hominem attack …
[/b]
Again, review the thread. I didn't say anything about Vietnam being a "bloodbath" one way or the other.
Thus, I wasn't not arguing with you.
Later, I merely made some observations about you, much in the same way as saying jackrabbits have long ears. This apparently has caused some emotional trauma, or so it would appear.
So you’re saying it wasn’t a bloodbath and thus proving me right? Or are you saying it was a bloodbath and thus proving your last post a lie? :)
I have never taken a position on it; I merely attempted to see if either Aqua or you had the faintest clue about what you were discussing with others. It appears to me from what you have written that you did not.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Again, review the thread. I didn't say anything about Vietnam being a "bloodbath" one way or the other.
Thus, I wasn't not arguing with you.
Really?
Originally posted by Toad
Aqua, how many would it take for you to call the post NV victory a "big bloodbath" then?
Originally posted by Toad
The basic question is really do you have any idea how many South Vietnamese died in the aftermath of the North Vietnamese victory? That would include those sent to re-education camps and those sent to forced labor camps that died as a result of NV action/inaction.
So far, you've shown no indication that you've researched it at all. Rather, you just deny it was a bloodbath without attempting to define the term.
Originally posted by Toad
It is indeed clear that you haven't done any research. "Tens of thousands" is incorrect. The best research I can find would raise that into the hundreds of thousands range.
This does not count the dead at sea category of the boat people, which is significantly larger than both camp figures combined. I'm sure you'll say the NV did not kill these people, they chose to flee and died because of that decision. Of course...they were fleeing the labor and re-ed camps but that doesn't count, I'm sure.
But that's certainly not enough to merit calling it a slaughter or bloodbath is it?
Originally posted by Toad
Vietnam Democide (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM)
Most detailed study I've seen so far. Interesting reading; numbers are on table 6.1B, line 671-687.
By the way, nice semantic dodge there. Just what would you call the killing of a few hundred thousand people after hostilities were over?
Originally posted by Toad
I guess you would then call the Holocaust "the killing of a few million people", right?
Clearly you were arguing against me not calling it a bloodbath.
Originally posted by Toad
Later, I merely made some observations about you, much in the same way as saying jackrabbits have long ears. This apparently has caused some emotional trauma, or so it would appear.
Making an observation about a person is a personal attack if said observation is of a negative nature. It is impolite and against the forum rules. That you have sunk to that level is disappointing, but not unexpected. :)
Originally posted by Toad
I have never taken a position on it; I merely attempted to see if either Aqua or you had the faintest clue about what you were discussing with others. It appears to me from what you have written that you did not.
Actually it seems we did know what we were talking about, unlike you. You demanded that I define what a “bloodbath” is (while not offering your own definition of course). I posted my definition of “bloodbath” and also the definitions from several online dictionaries.
Then you demanded I express how many I thought died at the hands of the NVA in the aftermath of the war. I told you “tens of thousands”. You argued I was wrong and posted a link to “the most detailed study” you had seen yet. Of course that study supported my “tens of thousands” argument. Had you bothered to read the study properly you might have saved yourself this embarrassing defeat.
Just to nail your coffin shut I compared your “most detailed study” to statistics on deaths in US state prisons, published by your government. Calling the Vietnamese camps “blodbaths” would now reflect most badly on your own prison system, so I correctly predicted you would not pursuit this line of argument.
The only avenue of attack left to you was making personal attacks … despite your pathetic denials that likening me to a propaganda minister and known liar is not an attack on my character. :)
Originally posted by Dadano
Viking...pwn'd everyone.
Indeed. :)
-
LOL! You do read your own press reports, don't you?
Nah, sorry bud.
You and Aqua were nattering on in a semantic debate without having defined the terms. As you can see from the quotes I tried to get you to define your terms and make a call. In context, you never really did.
As for reading the study, it has low, medium and high estimates. Your estimate was in the low range and you admitted you didn't really know at all. Most studies put it in the 160k range which would jibe with the medium range in the study, although there are others out there that go beyond the high estimates in that study. I would say it's in the medium range given all that I've read.
So if I call a skunk a stinking little creature it would be a personal attack? I gotta smile.
You've built your own image here Scholz; YOU were the one that defined yourself with your posts over the years.
Again, "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.”.
-
Scholz
not sure i follow what you are trying to say, but here are the numbers and causes for deaths in US prisons.
<Nine in Ten Deaths Due to Illness
WASHINGTON -- The nation's state prison officials reported that 12,129 inmates died while in custody from 2001 through 2004, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The deaths over this four-year period constituted an annual mortality rate of 250 deaths per 100,000 inmates, which was 19 percent lower than the adult mortality rate in the U.S. general population.
Overall, 89 percent of all state prisoner deaths were attributed to medical conditions and 8 percent were due to suicide or homicide. The remainder of deaths were due to alcohol/drug intoxication or accidental injury (1 percent each). A definitive cause of death could not be determined for an additional 1 percent. Two-thirds of inmate deaths from medical conditions involved a problem that was present at the time of admission to prison.
Half of all inmate deaths during this period resulted from heart disease (27 percent) or cancer (23 percent). Liver diseases, including cirrhosis, accounted for 10 percent of deaths, followed by AIDS-related causes (7 percent).
Among cancer deaths, lung cancer was the most common, accounting for 910 deaths from 2001 through 2004, followed by liver (276), colon (171), pancreatic (124) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (114). Deaths due to gender-specific cancer sites varied. Breast, ovarian, cervical and uterine cancer accounted for 24 percent of female cancer deaths. By comparison, prostate and testicular cancer caused 4 percent of male cancer deaths.
State prisoner mortality rates increased steadily with age. The mortality rate of inmates age 18-24
was lowest, at 34 deaths per 100,000 inmates. Among inmates age 55 or older, the rate was 1,973 deaths per 100,000 inmates. Inmates age 45 or older represented 14 percent of state prisoners, but 67 percent of the prisoner deaths from 2001 through 2004.
More than half (59 percent) of inmates age 65 or older who died in state prisons were at least 55 or older when admitted to prison. Only 15 percent of elderly inmates who died were younger than 45 at the time of their admission to prison.
While the leading causes of death — heart disease, cancer and liver disease — were the same for both male and female inmates in state prisons, the death rate of males was 72 percent higher. The only cause of death with a higher mortality rate for females than males was septicemia (e.g. streptococcal and staphylococcal infections).
it seems to be saying that the death rates in prison are lower than in the general population, and 9 of 10 deaths are due to illness.
where is the "blood bath"?
-
Originally posted by Toad
You and Aqua were nattering on in a semantic debate without having defined the terms. As you can see from the quotes I tried to get you to define your terms and make a call. In context, you never really did.
Yes I’m afraid I did …
Originally posted by Viking
You are correct that I have done no serious study of the aftermath of the South-Vietnamese defeat, but I believe the deaths, including those from long-term incarceration (camps), were in the tens of thousands range. While slow lingering deaths in a prison camp over a number of years is worse than a summary execution, they do not constitute a “bloodbath” in my opinion.
I have found a couple of dictionary definitions of “bloodbath” and they seem to agree with my point of view:
From what I have read, and even what you’ve told me, the “purging” done in South-Vietnam after the war was not ”indiscriminate”, nor did it involve much ”bloodshed”. It was more of a cold, calculated and orderly “process”. At least that’s my impression of the events.
… you on the other hand never gave us your definition of “bloodbath”. So why don’t you?
Originally posted by Toad
As for reading the study, it has low, medium and high estimates. Your estimate was in the low range and you admitted you didn't really know at all. Most studies put it in the 160k range which would jibe with the medium range in the study, although there are others out there that go beyond the high estimates in that study. I would say it's in the medium range given all that I've read.
160,000 is not a multiple of 100,000 and thus not in the “hundredS of thousands” range. 200,000 and more is in the hundreds of thousands range.
Again your lack of understanding your own language has led you astray.
Originally posted by Toad
So if I call a skunk a stinking little creature it would be a personal attack? I gotta smile.
Ah, now you bring irrelevancies to the debate. Obviously a skunk cannot understand your insults, but if you were to call a short man with bad body odor a “stinking little creature” then yes that would be a most insulting personal attack.
-
Originally posted by john9001
it seems to be saying that the death rates in prison are lower than in the general population, and 9 of 10 deaths are due to illness.
where is the "blood bath"?
I’m not calling it a bloodbath. It’s NOT a bloodbath, and that’s my point. Toad would have called it a bloodbath if he had the guts to take a stand on the issue.
-
Originally posted by Viking
I’m not calling it a bloodbath. It’s NOT a bloodbath, and that’s my point. Toad would have called it a bloodbath if he had the guts to take a stand on the issue.
nono, you said more people died in US prisons than when the north viet took over the south, or did you, your ramblings are hard to follow sometimes.
-
Originally posted by john9001
nono, you said more people died in US prisons than when the north viet took over the south, or did you, your ramblings are hard to follow sometimes.
My posts are quite easy to read if you’ve passed elementary English. I said the unnatural death rate was lower in Vietnamese “reeducation camps” and labor camps than in US State prisons. The highest number Toad could offer was 7.5% for the Vietnamese camps. The US Bureau of Justice gives an 8% or 9% number for US State prisons. Your numbers give a 1 out of 10 or 10% number for US prisons.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Toad would have called it a bloodbath if he had the guts to take a stand on the issue.
Toad wasn't interested in the debate other than to see if you even knew what you were talking about and clearly you did not.
T'was just more typical Scholz from the olden days. As is your comparison of US prisons to NV re-ed and forced labor camps. A pretty red herring there and an example of why you are simply not worth the candle.
As for your short stinking little man allegory, if it were true, it wasn't an insult; it was just the truth. The insult is in his personal hygiene and the insult is to others.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Toad wasn't interested in the debate other than to see if you even knew what you were talking about and clearly you did not.
Clearly I did know what I was talking about. Clearly you did not. The unnatural deaths were in the tens of thousands range, not hundreds of thousands you claimed. Clearly it was not indiscriminate and did not involve much bloodshed and thus was not a bloodbath by any commonly accepted definition.
What is your definition of “bloodbath” Toad … or are you really such a hypocrite that you won’t answer?
Originally posted by Toad
T'was just more typical Scholz from the olden days. As is your comparison of US prisons to NV re-ed and forced labor camps.
It is not my fault that US prisons compares unfavorably to Vietnamese prison camps. Nor is it my fault that you are incapable of backing up your arguments with documentation. The only documentation you’ve presented supported my arguments.
Originally posted by Toad
As for your short stinking little man allegory, if it were true, it wasn't an insult; it was just the truth. The insult is in his personal hygiene and the insult is to others.
You don’t have to lie to make an insult. You really do have a problem with definitions don’t you Mr. Toad. :)
-
US prisons compares unfavorably to Vietnamese prison camps
====
By this statement you are insinuating that there is real torture, like that experienced at the Hanoi Hilton, occurring in Gitmo?
What the heck are you talking about?
-
the 7.5% is a assumed number because no one except the NV have the real numbers or if they even bothered to keep count, but at that assumed rate it is still over 200,000 dead by unnatural means, now we must wonder how many died by a "natural bullet" to the back of the head or being worked to death, starved, etc.
total passed through the re-ed camps estimated at 2,500,000.
this says nothing of the "boat people" that died or other refuges that died trying to escape.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
US prisons compares unfavorably to Vietnamese prison camps
====
By this statement you are insinuating that there is real torture, like that experienced at the Hanoi Hilton, occurring in Gitmo?
What the heck are you talking about?
No. I’m not talking about “Gitmo” or “Hanoi Hilton” at all. Where did you get that?
-
Originally posted by john9001
the 7.5% is a assumed number because no one except the NV have the real numbers or if they even bothered to keep count, but at that assumed rate it is still over 200,000 dead by unnatural means, now we must wonder how many died by a "natural bullet" to the back of the head or being worked to death, starved, etc.
total passed through the re-ed camps estimated at 2,500,000.
Then why is the assumed number so low? If that report truly represents the most detailed report Toad has seen surely the people making it knows what they are talking about.
Originally posted by john9001
this says nothing of the "boat people" that died or other refuges that died trying to escape.
The boat people have already been discussed. Feel free to review the thread.
-
so your saying 200,000 killed is not a blood bath?
-
Originally posted by john9001
so your saying 200,000 killed is not a blood bath?
That is correct, now you’re getting it. In this case 200,000 (or whatever the true number is) deaths (no one has provided any evidence that they were killed, but it is a safe assumption that some of them were) over an 11 year period is not a “bloodbath” by any commonly accepted definition of the word.
-
Originally posted by john9001
it seems to be saying that the death rates in prison are lower than in the general population, and 9 of 10 deaths are due to illness.
where is the "blood bath"?
Since when the population of a the prison is similar to the general population ????
-
Your problem Viking is you took the word bloodbath too literaly. That is a common error for many words for those whose mother tongue is not English.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Your problem Viking is you took the word bloodbath too literaly. That is a common error for many words for those whose mother tongue is not English.
I think the problem is more that many people exaggerate by using unnecessarily emotional words in inappropriate contexts. I find that of all the English speaking peoples the Americans do this the most … at least in the media and on this bbs. War, massacre, bloodbath, holocaust … powerful words that are used so much these days in trivial contexts that they lose all meaning. Americans go to “war” on everything these days and one is left wondering if they know what the word really means anymore.
-
Origanally posted by Viking
That is correct, now you’re getting it. In this case 200,000 (or whatever the true number is) deaths (no one has provided any evidence that they were killed, but it is a safe assumption that some of them were) over an 11 year period is not a “bloodbath” by any commonly accepted definition of the word.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok...If 200,000 Human Beings killed isn't a bloodbath, It's certainly a Despotic Purge.
They were killed for a political reason.
Plus, there's the question of the validity of any intelligence info coming outta Vietnam Post-1975. The way the regime change was, any reports coming out of there would be compromised by being censored and edited by the Communists. Even the Red Cross, or any other Humane organization, would'nt have really been able to get the full story.
P.S. This thread was origanally about Iraq's regime, we seem to be sidetracked on Vietnam.
-
I would consider 10,000 or even fewer people slaughtered a bloodbath. 10,000 is a heck of a lot of dead people. :(
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I would consider 10,000 or even fewer people slaughtered a bloodbath. 10,000 is a heck of a lot of dead people. :(
And you still use your car ? ;)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I would consider 10,000 or even fewer people slaughtered a bloodbath. 10,000 is a heck of a lot of dead people. :(
Again with the emotional labels. These people were not “slaughtered”, they were incarcerated in prison camps and labor camps where a number of them died of unnatural causes (less than 1 in 10 of the total deaths if Toad's numbers are correct) over a period of 11 years. Unnatural causes would include suicides, accidents and yes, executions.
Straffo brings up an interesting point. In 2004 42,636 people were killed in traffic accidents in the USA. Do you consider this a “bloodbath”? Were they “slaughtered”? Obviously not.
Between 2001 and 2004 12,129 people died in US State prisons. Does that constitute a “bloodbath”? Were they “slaughtered”? Obviously not.
-
Marine Corporal From A Bunker In Ramadi: “I Got A Message For That sweetheart Harry Reid" (http://patdollard.com/2007/04/23/marine-corporal-from-a-bunker-in-ramadi-i-got-a-message-for-that-sweetheart-harry-reid/)
I always thought you don't lose a fight until you give up.
Guess the dumbacrats are preparing the way for their "new direction" in the Iraq war ... to the dems, reverse is a new direction in their yellow minds