15 more young Americans sacrificed by Bush for his re-election bid

[shemp]

Missile Downs U.S. Chopper in Iraq, Killing 15 GIs in Deadliest Day for American Occupation (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031102_567.html)

Insurgents shot down a U.S. Chinook helicopter in central Iraq on Sunday as it carried troops headed for R&R, killing 15 soldiers and wounding 21 in the deadliest single strike against American troops since the start of war.

The attack by a shoulder-fired missile was a significant new blow in an Iraq insurgency that escalated in recent days a "tough week," in the words of the U.S. occupation chief.

Other U.S. soldiers were reported killed Sunday in ground attacks here and elsewhere in central Iraq. The only day that saw more U.S. casualties came March 23, during the first week of the invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein.

I wonder how many Americans won't even take a moment from their church services and football games to think about these 15, and to ask themselves "Why?" Why did they die for George W. Bush and his power-hungry cabal of warmongers? I wonder if they and the others who have died needlessly for the monster's re-election bid will even get a memorial like the Wall for the Vietnam vets? I wonder if and when the majority of Americans will wake up to what Bush is doing and put a stop to it.

[LFTKBS]

Bring 'em on.

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
Bring 'em on.
..home

[demon]

"I wonder how many Americans won't even take a moment from their church services and football games to think about these 15, and to ask themselves "Why?" "

Well, I bet it won`t include any of the chickenhawk millionaires who fabricated this war and are now sitting back enjoying the profits of their deceit.
You still got Jessica Lynch to worship though, she took them on single handedly and came out the other end...oops, forgot the Iraqi`s saved her ass.

[Jon_in_london]

Just as long as they didnt die under oath.......

[Tmy]

"Insurgents"!?!? Just who are the guys attacking our guys. There always portayed as Saddam loyalists or interloping foriegn troublemakers. Methinks thats Washington spin. They just cant admit that the happy people of Iraq are not that happy.

[headscratcher4]

Ah, another sign that we are winning the peace. THe desperate assortment of insurgent Iraqi terrorists are so afraid of the sucess of the American occupation that they are having to shoot down hilocopters to prove their points. Their failures continue to mount. Their inability to inflict real damage is their embarassment.

Fortunately, President Bush, VP Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz anticipated all of this and have it completely under control. The deaths that we see, the seeming inability of US Forces to get the terrorists under control, to capture Saddam, to establish civilian government, to work with the rest of the world on a coherent stabilization plan for Iraq are all hall-marks of a successful campaign. We are winning. We are winning big -- and we know this because they keep killing us.

If we were really losing ground, they wouldn't need to kill us to make their point. They are just p*ssed off that we're winning and doing it so well. Clearly, they do not know how to lose with grace. You would think that we are so in control of the situation, that they'd just roll-over and give up the ghost. Their desperation makes me laugh!

Fortunately, the best weapon we have is George W. -- the former Cheerleader -- he the man!

So, take that Saddam and Bin Ladin. We fart in your general direction. For every 15 of us you kill, we will hold a corresponding press conference to deny that their is any errosion in confidence, or that we lack a coherent plan. That will show you.

Bring 'em on.....

[hammegk]

Ugly stuff. The US needs to go back into absolute martial law/hot war footing in Iraq, and stop this crap.

Or, what do all you complainers suggest? Pull out, let the Middle East conflagration really start up?

[headscratcher4]

Or, what do all you complainers suggest? Pull out, let the Middle East conflagration really start up?

As one of the complainers, it isn't "either/or"

First, the Bush Administration manipulated facts (whether knowingly -- a terrible thing -- or out of ingnorance -- even worse) to get us into a situation where we could not easilly withdraw.

Second, yes, we probably do have to put more troops in. THis will be a tacit admission by the Administration that their brave words and planning have failed, and it will further inflame the Arab world against the US.

Because of how Bush got us there, this is the inevitable result.

It is increasingly clear that the President and the War Party in the Administration blew it.

Now, I agree, we can not leave without creating a further disaster. Nor, is this Administration willing to come out publically and say: we have to do more, stronger, harder, and we were wrong....

We are there. We are stuck there, and it is Bush's fault. My only hope is that he will be held responsible.

Now, just to underscore my anger/dissapointment. WE MUST STAY, I AM NOT URGING PULL OUT. I am calling for honesty and sanity from our adminstration. I am calling for them to be honest with the American people. I do not feel they are being honest, and young people are dying as a result.

You may not recall, back when I thought is would be stupid for the Administration to lie to the American people about a thing like the reasons for invading Iraq (I thought they had hard evidence of the threat, because they told the world so...) I supported the invasion. I do not miss or lament the passing of Saddam.

However, this Administration is full of liars and montebanks, and those who blindly support the mistakes of this Administration for the sake of a false "Patriotism" are credulous fools.

If we have to put in more tropps, than let's do so. But LET US NOT ENGAGE IN THE POSITIVELY ORWELLIAN GAME of claiming that we are getting our noses bloodied because we are winning and they are desperate. They are desperate by deffinition, and we are bleeding and getting hurt...and that isn't a deffinition of winning (at least in this moment) as I understand the wrods.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy
"Insurgents"!?!? Just who are the guys attacking our guys. There always portayed as Saddam loyalists or interloping foriegn troublemakers. Methinks thats Washington spin. They just cant admit that the happy people of Iraq are not that happy.


Me thinks you are wrong (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/2195244).

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by hammegk
Ugly stuff. The US needs to go back into absolute martial law/hot war footing in Iraq, and stop this crap.

Or, what do all you complainers suggest? Pull out, let the Middle East conflagration really start up?
What conflagration? Get out now and leave Iraq to the iraqis.

[TruthSeeker]

Pentagon keeps dead out of sight (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1067728207768&call_pageid=1038394944805&col=1038394944443)


As a Canadian, my question is whether this article accurately reflects the American media's coverage of the issue.

Thanks

[hammegk]

Originally posted by bangdazap

What conflagration? Get out now and leave Iraq to the iraqis.

Er, the Kurds? Sunnis? Shia? maybe a few Iranians? some Syrians? And what will the Saudis do?

Even more scary, what will the Israelis do?

[Dancing David]

Very sad, the planners didn't put in enough for the occupation or the winning hearts and minds....

Sigh...


I hope they get he electricity and water up soon, and maybe lots more police and medications,

then flood them with booze and cocaine!

[epepke]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Pentagon keeps dead out of sight (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1067728207768&call_pageid=1038394944805&col=1038394944443)

As a Canadian, my question is whether this article accurately reflects the American media's coverage of the issue.

I'm not sure what you're asking. This is an article out of the Toronto Star, i.e. a media outlet. If you're asking whether it is substantially similar to articles printed in US newspapers, then the answer is "yes."

Curiously, many articles published in the media in the US also contain assertions that the media in the US do not publish such articles, which would seem ridiculous on the face of it, no?

[geni]

Originally posted by Dancing David

then flood them with booze and cocaine!

We are talking about an islamic country I think this would cause even more atacks from the hardliners

[American]

15 of your enemies, shemp. 15 warriors and friends of the good citizens of Iraq.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by American
15 of your enemies, shemp. 15 warriors and friends of the good citizens of Iraq.

"You smell that? Kind of a gasoline mixed with body odour smell. That's propaganda. I love the smell of propaganda in the morning. To me it smells like... victory."

[TruthSeeker]

Originally posted by epepke


I'm not sure what you're asking. This is an article out of the Toronto Star, i.e. a media outlet. If you're asking whether it is substantially similar to articles printed in US newspapers, then the answer is "yes."

Curiously, many articles published in the media in the US also contain assertions that the media in the US do not publish such articles, which would seem ridiculous on the face of it, no?

I apologize for lack of clarity.

The article suggests that the American media has failed to report the true extent of the wounded/dead.

I was asking whether those exposed to the American media would agree. In other words, is your average American aware of the number of deaths and wounded soldiers.

You have sort of answered my question. Thanks.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Ah, another sign that we are winning the peace. THe desperate assortment of insurgent Iraqi terrorists are so afraid of the sucess of the American occupation that they are having to shoot down hilocopters to prove their points. Their failures continue to mount. Their inability to inflict real damage is their embarassment.

Fortunately, President Bush, VP Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz anticipated all of this and have it completely under control. The deaths that we see, the seeming inability of US Forces to get the terrorists under control, to capture Saddam, to establish civilian government, to work with the rest of the world on a coherent stabilization plan for Iraq are all hall-marks of a successful campaign. We are winning. We are winning big -- and we know this because they keep killing us.

If we were really losing ground, they wouldn't need to kill us to make their point. They are just p*ssed off that we're winning and doing it so well. Clearly, they do not know how to lose with grace. You would think that we are so in control of the situation, that they'd just roll-over and give up the ghost. Their desperation makes me laugh!

Fortunately, the best weapon we have is George W. -- the former Cheerleader -- he the man!

So, take that Saddam and Bin Ladin. We fart in your general direction. For every 15 of us you kill, we will hold a corresponding press conference to deny that their is any errosion in confidence, or that we lack a coherent plan. That will show you.

Bring 'em on.....

You forgot to mention that Teal Redman is a ho. :D

[Skeptic]

I am not commenting on the event itself, I only note that it is the height of hypocracy for Shemp--of all people--to pretend to care for US soldiers after he quite literally called them "murderers" in other threads, when they killed others instead of being killed.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I am not commenting on the event itself, I only note that it is the height of hypocracy for Shemp--of all people--to pretend to care for US soldiers after he quite literally called them "murderers" in other threads, when they killed others instead of being killed.

Quit jocking him. He's told you he won't have sex with you, you're going to have to suck it up and respect his wishes. Haven't you heard that stalking is a no-no?

[reprise]

"The oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and its allies. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan. The US is a friend of the Afghan people."

Take a look at what's happening in Afghanistan right now and then ask why the people of Iraq have no faith in the promises of the "Coalition of the Willing".

FWIW, political analysts in Australia seem to lean heavily towards the view that the CotW should get the hell out of Dodge sooner rather than later.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Quit jocking him. He's told you he won't have sex with you, you're going to have to suck it up and respect his wishes. Haven't you heard that stalking is a no-no?

I'll take that as an admission that you've conceded the point.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Skeptic


I'll take that as an admission that you've conceded the point.

It won't be the first time you've made a faulty conclusion based on misinterpretation of data.

[ssibal]

Ah, 15 soldiers dead, another excuse for you to rant about how much you hate Bush. Who is worse, Bush who "sacrificed them" or you who gloats about their deaths to try to prove a point?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by shemp
Missile Downs U.S. Chopper in Iraq, Killing 15 GIs in Deadliest Day for American Occupation (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031102_567.html)



I wonder how many Americans won't even take a moment from their church services and football games to think about these 15, and to ask themselves "Why?" Why did they die for George W. Bush and his power-hungry cabal of warmongers? I wonder if they and the others who have died needlessly for the monster's re-election bid will even get a memorial like the Wall for the Vietnam vets? I wonder if and when the majority of Americans will wake up to what Bush is doing and put a stop to it.

Amazing.

Not one word of rebuff towards those who actually committed the despicable act.

You are thinking exactly the way the terrorists / Saddam loyalists / insurgents want you to think. Congratulations shemp, you have graduated to a complete sheep.

Oh wait, let me translate for you:
baaaaaaaa. baaa. baaaaaa. baaa. baaaaaaaa.

[reprise]

Someone in Iraq shoots down a helicopter carrying the military personnel of an invading force and it's a "despicable act"? Cry me a river, and tell me how many Iraqi's have perished as the result of "coalition" military actions since Bush declared the war over.

[American]

Originally posted by reprise
Cry me a river, and tell me how many Iraqi's have perished as the result of "coalition" military actions since Bush declared the war over.


River of blood, f-ckface.

After your terrorist friends are killed, you know your own political loss will follow because this country is sick of ingrates who leech freedom off of others' sacrifice that you decry at the worst possible moments. You are not "supporting the troops". You actively support the enemy. All of you liberals do. But you are going to lose, and you know it.

Start writing your eulogy to Saddam, as you offer none to our own murdered heros.

[dsm]

Originally posted by headscratcher4

My only hope is that he will be held responsible.


There is only one group of people who can hold him responsible and they are us!

[reprise]

Originally posted by dsm
There is only one group of people who can hold him responsible and they are us!

Are voters in the US actually badgering the hell out of their congressmen and senators over this issue or is there simply no point in doing so because it's nigh impossible to get rid of Bush until the next election?

I realise that we're not getting the kind of domestic media coverage you're getting in the US, but I would expect those political opponents who are hoping to topple Bush next year to be making mileage out of this in the media every single day - is that happening?

If I understand the US political system, there isn't really any equivalent of our "question time" where the President can be asked to answer questions time and time and time again by those who disagree with his policies - is that correct?

[corplinx]

this is a skeptic board....... if shemp thinks the Iraq war was about Bush's re-election bid then he should support it (which he hasnt)

Personally, I think its a kook point of view......

The rest of you are supporting his view that the troops shouldnt be there or attacking him in kind.

[reprise]

Originally posted by corplinx
this is a skeptic board....... if shemp thinks the Iraq war was about Bush's re-election bid then he should support it (which he hasnt)

Personally, I think its a kook point of view......

The rest of you are supporting his view that the troops shouldnt be there or attacking him in kind.

Whether I believe that the troops should be there or not, the assertion that Iraqi's attacking the military personnel of the occupying coalition forces is somehow "despicable" is utterly ludicrous - about as ludicrous as would be the assertion that Americans or Australians or Britons did not have the right to attack the military forces of any country which chose to invade our own nations.

We are not "peace-keepers" who were invited into Iraq by a legitimate government, we are occupying forces who invaded Iraq for our own political purposes and we have no right whatsoever to demand that the Iraqis treat us as anything OTHER than invaders.

[demon]

Point well made reprise.
Those damn natives just won`t behave and play by the rules.
Shame on them.

[Crossbow]

Anyone else remember the spin that was offered the other day when Bush & Co. said that the increasing frequency and ferocity of the attacks were a sign that the USA was bringing more peace to Iraq?

Go figure!

[volant]

I wonder how many of the dead soldiers Bush can name, not that its really important.

[American]

Originally posted by volant
I wonder how many of the dead soldiers Bush can name, not that its really important.

He's in command of 1.5 million armed service members. Learn their names? Get real.

[Girl 6]

/rant

Frankly, I'm sick of the entire thing. And, you all know that I'm an anti-war activist. Every day this war keeps dragging on contrary to Bush's claim that it would be short. :rolleyes:

I've been telling you guys for MONTHS that this war was nothing but a stack of despicable lies from the U.S. government. How many more soldiers must die before we finally get the truth about this?

I think we should contemplate pulling out of there. Why not? The REAL terrorists are somewhere else.

/end rant

G6

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by American


He's in command of 1.5 million armed service members. Learn their names? Get real.

Would it be too much to ask that he attend a funeral now and again? (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17079)

[epepke]

Originally posted by reprise
Are voters in the US actually badgering the hell out of their congressmen and senators over this issue or is there simply no point in doing so because it's nigh impossible to get rid of Bush until the next election?

It is well nigh impossible to get rid of him before the next election. We don't have the recall mechanisms that many parliamentary governments do.

I realise that we're not getting the kind of domestic media coverage you're getting in the US, but I would expect those political opponents who are hoping to topple Bush next year to be making mileage out of this in the media every single day - is that happening?

:nope: The problem is that they're all so incredibly incompetent. The Republicans at least know how to organize and know how to give at least the impression that they stand for something. The Democrats' idea of a platform is fifteen people armed with creme pies. The result of this is usually a candidate so bland and homogenized that it's practically impossible to unify in support.

Another source of incompetence is the ordinary people on the left. I don't know exactly why they have made this decision over the past thirty years, but they seem to have volunteered to give up all their credibility. Just look at this and other threads and see how much "opposition" consists of nothing but "neener neener boo boo!" Plus, far too many on the left think it's kewl to make a political stance by "boycotting elections." They are proud of being independent thinkers, or cats that cannot be herded, but that isn't how you win elections.

If I understand the US political system, there isn't really any equivalent of our "question time" where the President can be asked to answer questions time and time and time again by those who disagree with his policies - is that correct?

No, and press conferences are a complete joke. There are many excellent things about the system of government in the US, but the presidency is a wild card, and the office has gained way too much power. Consider that according to the Constitution, congress has the responsibility to declare war, but the US has not declared war since WWII.

[Ursa Major]

Originally posted by epepke


The Republicans at least know how to organize and know how to give at least the impression that they stand for something. The Democrats' idea of a platform is fifteen people armed with creme pies. The result of this is usually a candidate so bland and homogenized that it's practically impossible to unify in support.


"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!" - Will Rogers

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by reprise
Someone in Iraq shoots down a helicopter carrying the military personnel of an invading force and it's a "despicable act"? Cry me a river, and tell me how many Iraqi's have perished as the result of "coalition" military actions since Bush declared the war over.

How many of these post-war casualties you cite are directly related to defending from an "illegal" attack by non-uniformed combatants? Have you made yourself believe that the US troops are deliberately targeting civilians?

As sad as it is, collateral damage to civilians is not a war crime. Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime. Non-uniformed combatants on a battlefield are committing a war crime and are directly responsible for civilian deaths. A uniformed combatant shooting at non-uniformed combatants is not a war crime, either. Look it up.

When are any of the "anti-war" crowd or the media going to hold the perpetrators of the post-war violence responsible for their actions? But, no, let's beat up on the US troops and make their sacrifices meaningless and then turn around and say "I don't support the war, but I support the troops". - B.S.

BTW: "anti-war" is one of those ambiguous descriptions that liberals love to throw out, because it automatically demonizes anyone with a difference of opinion as "pro-war". I only use the term because "America-hater" is more typing than I want to do.

What!?!?! You say "anti-war" is not equal to "America-hater"!?!?!?
Do the "anti-war" demonstrators ever demonstrate against anyone but the US or it's allies?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal


How many of these post-war casualties you cite are directly related to defending from an "illegal" attack by non-uniformed combatants? Have you made yourself believe that the US troops are deliberately targeting civilians?

As sad as it is, collateral damage to civilians is not a war crime. Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime. Non-uniformed combatants on a battlefield are committing a war crime and are directly responsible for civilian deaths. A uniformed combatant shooting at non-uniformed combatants is not a war crime, either. Look it up.

When are any of the "anti-war" crowd or the media going to hold the perpetrators of the post-war violence responsible for their actions? But, no, let's beat up on the US troops and make their sacrifices meaningless and then turn around and say "I don't support the war, but I support the troops". - B.S.

BTW: "anti-war" is one of those ambiguous descriptions that liberals love to throw out, because it automatically demonizes anyone with a difference of opinion as "pro-war". I only use the term because "America-hater" is more typing than I want to do.

What!?!?! You say "anti-war" is not equal to "America-hater"!?!?!?
Do the "anti-war" demonstrators ever demonstrate against anyone but the US or it's allies?

You didn't read reprise's post at all, did you?

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Would it be too much to ask that he attend a funeral now and again? (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17079)

Not to worry. When he does get around to it, he'll be there, looking solemn, while the "liberal media" covers it breathlessly.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
"Insurgents"!?!? Just who are the guys attacking our guys. There always portayed as Saddam loyalists or interloping foriegn troublemakers. Methinks thats Washington spin. They just cant admit that the happy people of Iraq are not that happy.

Yes. The happy people of Iraq all have surface-to-air missiles in their kitchen closets.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by reprise


I realise that we're not getting the kind of domestic media coverage you're getting in the US, but I would expect those political opponents who are hoping to topple Bush next year to be making mileage out of this in the media every single day - is that happening?



They would be hypocrites if they did. They all supported the war in Iraq. Voted for it.

[DavidJames]

"They would be hypocrites if they did. They all supported the war in Iraq. Voted for it."

I believe if someone supported the war initially, based on what turned out to be incorrect information, i.e. WMD, it's perfectly legitimate and not hypocritical to say they were mislead. I also believe it's not hypocritical to have supported the invasion but to disagree with the way things are being handled now.

But it is a sensitive issue and they need to ensure they have their butts covered when they get hit by the conservative crowd with chants of hypocrite and freedom hater and terrorist supporter, like we know they will.

[Mr Manifesto]

For anyone who thought this attack happened out of the blue (hopefully not many of you), here (http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/fisk2.html) is an article by Robert Fisk filed a week or so before the attack.

"We used to have a five-mile safety perimeter round the airport," Chuck says. "That's now down to two miles. The max anti-aircraft range is 8,000ft. So two miles is on the edge." Translation: US forces used to control five miles round the airport -- too far to permit a man with a hand-held launcher to hit a plane. Ambushes and attacks on the Americans have reduced their control to a mere two miles. On the edge of that radius, a man might just hit a plane with a missile range of 8,000ft.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

You didn't read reprise's post at all, did you?

The part where Reprise says "Someone in Iraq", implying an average citizen? The part where Reprise calls the coalition troops an "invading force"? The omission of the responsibility of the non-uniformed combatants? Which of Reprise's innuendo are you referring to?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Girl 6
/rant


I think we should contemplate pulling out of there. Why not? The REAL terrorists are somewhere else.

/end rant

G6

And how do you pursue these terrorists who are in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and "Palestine". In case you didn't notice, Iraq is the normandy of the war on terror. From a liberated Iraq we are in a much better position to get intelligence on terrorists and to put pressure on the governments who turn a blind eye to their presence.

Don't lose sight of the prize because of the loss of a few men.

What we really need now is a pacific "front". However, I think Australia is more suited to dealing with terrorism in the south pacific.

[volant]

Originally posted by American


He's in command of 1.5 million armed service members. Learn their names? Get real.

Maybe I wrote my post wrong. I was talking about the dead ones, the ones who have died, are not living, 6FT under, etc. I don't expect him to know all the names, but a few.

[dsm]

Originally posted by corplinx

And how do you pursue these terrorists who are in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and "Palestine".


Turn Rummy loose on them! We'll just put a few carriers off their coast and use "anti-terrorism" as the reason to invade.

:rolleyes:


In case you didn't notice, Iraq is the normandy of the war on terror.


Or the next American Viet Nam. Or the next Soviet Afghanistan (for America, though).


From a liberated Iraq we are in a much better position to get intelligence on terrorists and to put pressure on the governments who turn a blind eye to their presence.


Ummm. The beginning of the sentence says "liberated Iraq". Then it says "we are in a much better position". So, you're not in favor of an independent Iraq? If Iraq became independent, there is no reason to believe that we would have any more influence in the area than we do now.


Don't lose sight of the prize because of the loss of a few men.


Don't read more into what Bush (et.al.) is doing in Iraq than has actually been demonstrated.


What we really need now is a pacific "front". However, I think Australia is more suited to dealing with terrorism in the south pacific.

War with Iraq began before we truly finished with Afghanistan (and OBL). Now the call is beginning to open a third "front" (say, in NK)?

:rolleyes:

[Ursa Major]

Originally posted by corplinx
In case you didn't notice, Iraq is the normandy of the war on terror. From a liberated Iraq we are in a much better position to get intelligence on terrorists and to put pressure on the governments who turn a blind eye to their presence.

Don't lose sight of the prize because of the loss of a few men.

What we really need now is a pacific "front". However, I think Australia is more suited to dealing with terrorism in the south pacific

I really hope there isn't anybody in the Pentagon or White House who share this, frankly, silly notion that WWII era geo/political/military strategies have any relevance in today's world. It's bad enough that the military is in the habit of fighting "the last war" without seeing that blunder regressed back 4 or 5 wars ago.

I'm amazed how those that say the Iraq war is nothing like Vietnam are so quick to compare it to wars even further in the past (and vice versa).

The fact is, the US is involved in a type of war it really hasn't tried to fight since we supplanted the Spanish in the Philipines 100 years ago. Even that episode offers no solutions. The ruthless methods used then can not be repeated in an age of omnipresent news coverage and international law.

The scariest thing I've heard in the last several months is that the film The Battle for Algers is now being screened at the Pentagon. I hope the intent is to learn from the French mistakes and not to immulate their failed tactics (like we did in SE Asia).

There is no historical model for a successful American military intervention in Iraq, and I haven't heard any viable new ones proposed by the geniuses who put us there.

[reprise]

Will someone please explain to me by what convoluted logic it is possible to deny that the coalition forces are invading forces?

Whether or not you believe that the presence of the troops of my own nation, Britain, and the US is justifiable, we did invade and are now occupying Iraq and no amount of spin-doctoring changes that historical fact.

What we really need now is a pacific "front". However, I think Australia is more suited to dealing with terrorism in the south pacific.

Military action is not the way to deal with terrorism in the South Pacific. Even if military action WAS the appropriate way to deal with terrorism in our region, Australia does not have the defence capability to do so - which means that we'd have to invoke ANZUS, which means that essentially the US would be running the show.

While the South Pacific nations may not have a great deal in common, I have little doubt that they would form alliances to oppose any moves by Australia to impose upon them a military solution to the problem of terrorism in our region. We might as well just declare ourself the 51st state of the Union if we're going to be the means by which US policy is imposed on our Pacific neighbours.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by reprise



Military action is not the way to deal with terrorism in the South Pacific.

notice i had front in quotes, theres a good reason for that. Its because i realize you don't fight terrorism on frontlines, only the regimes that support or harbor them.

Make no mistake, I wasn't suggesting some sort of ww2 strategy, only using a loose comparison.

[reprise]

Originally posted by corplinx
notice i had front in quotes, theres a good reason for that. Its because i realize you don't fight terrorism on frontlines, only the regimes that support or harbor them.

Make no mistake, I wasn't suggesting some sort of ww2 strategy, only using a loose comparison.

I'm not sure to what extent people who don't live in this region realise just how politically unstable it is and the magnitude of political and economic problems facing many of the legitimate governments in the region, never mind the illegitimate ones. In many of these failed and struggling nation states, the only choice to be made is which particular corrupt regime the West would prefer to be in power.

Australia is certainly not beloved by those nations in this region which are dependent upon us for foreign aid and the contempt in which we are held by some of the other governments in this region is barely disguised. Regime change will not stop these nations from harbouring terrorists - we are pretty much loathed by ALL of the political factions in those countries. We cannot afford to form expedient alliances with those seeking to oust their current governments because they are no less corrupt and no less hostile towards us than those currently in power. It has not generally been to the advantage of other nations in this region when they have allowed Australia to interfere in their domestic affairs or when we have done so by force, and their people are unlikely to forget that fact in a hurry.