US Troops' Iraq withdrawal timetable approved by Iraq leadership

[Checkmite]

Withdrawal from all cities and towns: June 30, 2009. From the rest of the country: December 31, 2011.

According to the government of Iraq, these dates are final and "not subject to the circumstances on the ground".

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/11/16/security.pact.vote/index.html)

The approved draft will be sent to the Council of Representatives, Iraq's 275-seat parliament, later Sunday, where it will be put to another vote. "There is great optimism that they will pass it," said Industry Minister Fawzi Hariri.

...

Zebari said the parliament will reach a decision before it takes a 15-day recess on November 25.

In Washington, a spokesman for the National Security Council described the agreement as "an important and positive step."

*crossing my fingers*

[mikedenk]

But... surely we haven't drained their oil fields of every last drop of sweet crude???

Hell, we haven't even begun the mandatory conversions to Christianity yet.

[Toke]

What about those fancy bases?

[WildCat]

Wait, I thought they were our puppets and we were occupiers? Poor EJ Armstrong's head will asplode trrying to figure this one out...

[tyr_13]

I mean, we don't even have a Wal-Mart there yet....

Do we?

[mrbaracuda]

I wonder what's that gonna do.

[JihadJane]

Wait, I thought they were our puppets and we were occupiers?

Perhaps things have changed a bit for the occupiers now because, as Iraqis promised they would when the Anglo/US alliance launched its unprovoked, "Shock and Awe" terrorist bombing attack on the virtually defenceless country, the USA has lost.

[Toke]

sounds likely.
Instead of being the only power in the country the us is the biggest militia and has to negotiate with the others.

[WildCat]

Perhaps things have changed a bit for the occupiers now because, as Iraqis promised they would when the Anglo/US alliance launched its unprovoked, "Shock and Awe" terrorist bombing attack on the virtually defenceless country, the USA has lost.
Really? Saddam will come back when, exactly? :rolleyes:

sounds likely.
Instead of being the only power in the country the us is the biggest militia and has to negotiate with the others.
"Has to negotiate"? This was the plan from the beginning, in fact it was hoped we could have left long before this.

[PixyMisa]

"Has to negotiate"? This was the plan from the beginning, in fact it was hoped we could have left long before this.
Indeed. Having achieved what we set out to achieve, we will be leaving. This is not generally regarded as a defeat - at least, not among sane people.

[tyr_13]

Indeed. Having achieved what we set out to achieve, we will be leaving. This is not generally regarded as a defeat - at least, not among sane people.

No, you see, she thinks we are leaving in defeat because we aren't taking all of the Iraqi oil with us. It couldn't possibly be that the oil wasn't the reason for going in in the first place. The US must be an evil nation of terrorists after oil. Obviously, that means we lost.

Also, there are some children and kittens we didn't rape and/or murder.

[Travis]

sounds likely.
Instead of being the only power in the country the us is the biggest militia and has to negotiate with the others.

The plan was always to establish a stable democracy and then leave. I find it strange you equate negotiation with defeat.

[JihadJane]

No, you see, she thinks we are leaving in defeat because we aren't taking all of the Iraqi oil with us. It couldn't possibly be that the oil wasn't the reason for going in in the first place. The US must be an evil nation of terrorists after oil. Obviously, that means we lost.

Also, there are some children and kittens we didn't rape and/or murder.

What's your name for unprovoked mass murder and pillage?

[KoihimeNakamura]

At risk of pointing out the obvious, (lol obvious) miltary actions aren't terrorism. May be wrong? But aren't terrorism.

[Toke]

No, you see, she thinks we are leaving in defeat because we aren't taking all of the Iraqi oil with us. It couldn't possibly be that the oil wasn't the reason for going in in the first place. The US must be an evil nation of terrorists after oil. Obviously, that means we lost.

Also, there are some children and kittens we didn't rape and/or murder.

The us are no more evil that other empires. The bad press comes mostly from being the biggest and as reaction to the moral double standards.

It looks like this particular robbery was bungled, is that so hard to belive considering bush´s other disasters?

[JihadJane]

At risk of pointing out the obvious, (lol obvious) miltary actions aren't terrorism. May be wrong? But aren't terrorism.

What is the difference between the proudly declared "Shock and Awe" tactic and terrorism? Both aim to create terror for politcal gain. The only difference I can see is that one version is better armed than the other.


It looks like this particular robbery was bungled, is that so hard to belive considering bush´s other disasters?

The unprovoked armed robbery has been a successsful business enterprise. Vast amounts of money have been made from it.

[WildCat]

It's funny when truthers post in other sections of JREF. 9/11 isn't the only thing they're spectacularly wrong about.

[tyr_13]

What's your name for unprovoked mass murder and pillage?

Well, your assumption of 'unprovoked' is well off base. You may not agree with the reasons, but to say that Saddam didn't bring this onto his government through decades of violence against his own people and history of aggression towards his neighbors. (OH, I know, the US is the same in your view right?)

Being wrong about the weapons doesn't change the fact that Saddam was an unmitigated ass hat.


The us are no more evil that other empires. The bad press comes mostly from being the biggest and as reaction to the moral double standards.

It looks like this particular robbery was bungled, is that so hard to belive considering bush´s other disasters?
Today 03:06 AM


Yes. It is that hard to believe. What you don't understand is that if the US really, really was willing to support outright robbery wholesale, it would not have mattered how stupid Bush is. Both the companies of the US and it's military would have to fail very badly if oil was the real goal. I know you think the US sucks that bad, but I don't even think Mexico sucks that bad.


What is the difference between the proudly declared "Shock and Awe" tactic and terrorism? Both aim to create terror for politcal gain. The only difference I can see is that one version is better armed than the other.

Shock and Awe: If you don't let the inspectors continue, and eventually step down from power, we will destroy your military targets in the most accurate way we possibly can using the most advanced technology on Earth.

Terrorism: Let us kill anyone we want or we will kill you, but specifically your civilians.

That is so hard to understand?

[Darth Rotor]

Folks, what I read in the papers is that the cabinet approved, but the Parliament has not. You are counting chickens before they hatch.
From a Washington Post article (http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/news.jsp?key=316602&rc=wo).
BAGHDAD, Nov. 16 -- After months of tense negotiations and public protests, the Iraqi cabinet on Sunday approved a bilateral agreement allowing U.S. troops to remain in this country for three more years. The accord still needs approval from Iraq's parliament, but the cabinet vote indicated that most major Iraqi parties supported it. The Iraqi government spokesman portrayed the pact as closing the book on the occupation that began with the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

"The total withdrawal will be completed by December 31, 2011. This is not governed by circumstances on the ground," the spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, told Iraqi reporters, pointedly rejecting the more conditional language that the U.S. government had sought in the accord.

American officials have pointed out that there is nothing stopping the next Iraqi government from asking some U.S. troops to stay. The Iraqi military is years away from being able to defend the country from external attack, according to U.S. and Iraqi officials.

Still, there is no doubt that the accord, if passed by parliament, would sharply reduce the U.S. military's power in Iraq.
If parliament does not approve, then what?
"There is great optimism that they will pass it," said Industry Minister Fawzi Hariri.
I am skeptical regarding his source of optimism. Why?

Let's see what Al Sistani and Al Sadr have to say, (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/15/al-sadr-sistani-rip-pact-with-us/)two persons of some interest . . .

BAGHDAD--Iraq's two most powerful Shi'ite clerics Friday challenged the government's planned security pact with the United States, undercutting efforts to reach a deal before the U.N. mandate for American troops in Iraq expires Dec. 31. Shi'ite leader Muqtada al-Sadr renewed threats to unleash his militia fighters to attack U.S. forces unless they leave Iraq immediately, and Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani vowed to intervene if he concludes the proposed agreement governing the presence of U.S. forces infringes on national sovereignty. Iraqi officials have said they would seek a renewal of the U.N. Security Council's mandate if the pact, which would allow American troops to stay in Iraq through 2011, is not passed by parliament by year's end. The pressure from the clerics showcases the precarious position of Shi'ite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Most of his Shi'ite allies reject the deal, including the senior partner in his coalition, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, and his own spiritual guide, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah of Lebanon.
Caveat: I don't find Washington Times to be the greatest source of all time, but I don't ignore them either. I think they picked it up off of the AP wire.
By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer – Fri Nov 14, 2:24 pm ET There is the byline.
What about those fancy bases?
Most likely outcome: same thing as happened to Cam Ranh Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam_Ranh_Bay)in Viet Nam, or Subic Bay some years later in the Philippines -- released to the host nation, for them to do with as they wish.

DR

[gumboot]

If the US really wanted Iraq's oil, there's nothing on earth the Iraqi government or people could do to stop them taking it.

The "No Blood for Oil" mantra is so 1990's. Let it go.

[gumboot]

What is the difference between the proudly declared "Shock and Awe" tactic and terrorism?

In general terms, the difference is the target.


The unprovoked armed robbery has been a successsful business enterprise. Vast amounts of money have been made from it.

The only people who have made vast amounts of money from the Iraq War are rich oil-selling Arabs.

[ktesibios]

If the US really wanted Iraq's oil, there's nothing on earth the Iraqi government or people could do to stop them taking it.

The "No Blood for Oil" mantra is so 1990's. Let it go.

And if the US government had attempted the spoliation which has often been claimed to be their motive, all of the officials involved would have wound up like Kissinger- unable ever to set foot outside the USA for fear of the policeman's tap on the shoulder.

As this paper (http://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/documents/behind_the_gas_pump/Langenkamp_FullPaper.pdf) lucidly explains, the rights and obligations of a belligerent occupant regarding real property in an occupied country are pretty well spelled out by a complex of 20th-Century treaties. While the peculiar properties of oil-producing assets leave room for interpretation, had BushCo actually tried to despoil the Iraqis of their oil it would have been an unambiguously criminal act.

Presumably even neo-con thinkers were well-enough informed to know that any such fantasies would, if acted upon, have been a charter ticket to the Hague.

[Travis]

If all the US wanted was the oil they sure as heck wouldn't have even bothered to take the cities. They could have seized the oilfields and then defended them against whatever futile counterattacks were thrown at them. Going after the urban centers is risky and expensive and simply not worth it if your aim is purely oil plunder.

[Travis]

What is the difference between the proudly declared "Shock and Awe" tactic and terrorism? Both aim to create terror for politcal gain. The only difference I can see is that one version is better armed than the other.

If that's the only difference you can see I will take it that you've never tried to look. "Shock and Awe" was aimed at the total incapacitation of the targets military and political apparatus through precise and simultaneous strikes of key military targets. At no time was "Shock and Awe" ever about the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians which, in case you didn't know, is the aim of "terrorism."

The unprovoked armed robbery has been a successsful business enterprise. Vast amounts of money have been made from it.

So why didn't you volunteer to help defend Saddam when he was on trial? The poor innocent man could have used your help to free him.:rolleyes:

[JihadJane]

At no time was "Shock and Awe" ever about the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians which, in case you didn't know, is the aim of "terrorism."


The US has targeted civilians in many parts of the world. There is no reason to assume that their bombs, bullets and death squads haven't done the same in Iraq.

Anyone who sets off explosions in a populated area such as Baghdad knows that they are inevitably going to leave behind a trail of dead, mutilated and severely traumatised civilians. That these uniformed murderers convince themselves that they are not spreading terror deliberately by "accidentally" chopping up sleeping men, women, children, babies and their pets, for example, simply demonstrates their advanced state of mental derangement and psychopathic denial.

The targets hit on 911 were economic, symbolic and economic. The 3,000 odd casualties can be regarded as psychologically useful "collateral damage". At least someone bothered to count them.

It's funny when truthers post in other sections of JREF. 9/11 isn't the only thing they're spectacularly wrong about.

Thanks for the gossip.

I find threads like this useful in helping to understand how 911 Believers sustain their wishful thinking with fantasy history. Here, for example, it's fiction about weapons inspections, democracy missions and mushroom clouds. Not all 911 believers are so blinkered, however, so I won't generalise like an imbecile. An honest minority of 911 Believers are sane enough to see that the unprovoked assault on and destruction of Iraq was a horrific crime of far greater in magnitude and ambition than the 911 Shock and Awe crime that was used to launch it.

Hardcore Believer, Gumboot's fantasy, for example, demonstrates an almost complete divorce from reality:

The only people who have made vast amounts of money from the Iraq War are rich oil-selling Arabs.

The unprovoked invasion, destruction, "rebuilding" and privatisation of Iraq follows the established routine of the disastrous, parasitic US economic system, currently to be also seen, on steroids, sucking out the Homeland's wealth.

US economist Catherine Austin Fitts describes it eloquently:

"This tapeworm is managed tightly by the cartels that syndicate around central banking and warfare and it has four phases:

Phase One -- Break It: Private syndicates make money destroying a place through organized crime, covert operations, warfare or a variety of both;

Phase Two- Buy It: The profit generated from breaking it is used to buy or seize “legal control” at a discount;

Phase Three- Fix It: Government funding, credit and subsidies are then used to “fix it” while harvesting remaining assets, including with narcotics trafficking, sex slavery and any other form of liquidating the human, intellectual, environmental and physical capital in a place:

Phase Four—Declare Victory: Victory is then declared and a flow of foundation and academic grants funded by the “break it-fix it” profits generate awards, photo opportunities and official archives and documentation for the perpetrators to be admired for their bringing of advanced civilization to the natives.

What emerges from an investment banker’s analysis of billions of transactions involved in situation after situation, in place after place, in year after year, is surprisingly simple.

We are watching a global first world economy that has a negative return on investment."

A small minority benefits while the rest, at home and abroad, are impoverished.

"The American Tapeworm (Part 1)"

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0304/S00228.htm

Also useful for exploring the psychology of abusers who deny their abuse:

"The Architects of Fear:

'Family Values' Up Close under the Roof of Domestic Terror"

"These last eight years of the Bush Administration felt very familiar to me. I suspect the same is true for many survivors of the terrors and degradations of religiously sponsored child abuse...

Five years after World War II ended, a group of scholars published a landmark analysis under the title The Authoritarian Personality."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21235.htm

[Darth Rotor]

The US has targeted civilians in many parts of the world.
Hi. I am quite familiar with US military targeting regulations, methods, checks, balances, and other processes. What you stated here is false. What is true is that civilians/non combatants have been hit when a valid target was attacked. ALso, now and again a bomb or shell goes astray, and misses the target area to hit somewhere it had no business falling. (Rare, but it happens. There is no PH = 1.0 weapon yet built beyond a Bowie Knife or bayonet.) That reality is not the same thing as "targeting civilians," the false statement you make. An irregular or partisan is not a civilian, he or she is a combatant of one sort or another. Likewise a scout.

I'll grant that if you are that unlucky soul who gets hit in the frag pattern meant for someone else, you are still dead. That is the sick reality of war. Your post, however, alleges an intention that is untrue.
Anyone who sets off explosions in a populated area such as Baghdad knows that they are inevitably going to leave behind a trail of dead, mutilated and severely traumatised civilians. That these uniformed murderers convince themselves that they are not spreading terror deliberately by "accidentally" chopping up sleeping men, women, children, babies and their pets, for example, simply demonstrates their advanced state of mental derangement and psychopathic denial.
I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. I also note you attempt at moral equivalence between the run of the mill car bomber and the soldier, which is once again a failure.
The targets hit on 911 were economic, symbolic and economic. The 3,000 odd casualties can be regarded as psychologically useful "collateral damage". At least someone bothered to count them.
Regarded by whom, Jane? Osama Bin Laden understood the reaction he'd get, certainly. I have read that he was surprised, in a positive sense, with how strong the reaction. Don't know beyond what I have read on that, though it fits a standard terrorist MO.
An honest minority of 911 Believers are sane enough to see that the unprovoked assault on and destruction of Iraq was a horrific crime of far greater in magnitude and ambition than the 911 Shock and Awe crime that was used to launch it.
For the love of Pete, please take your balderdash back to the CT forum, or Loose Change forums, where it belongs. Thanks in advance.

DR

[JihadJane]

Hi. I am quite familiar with US military targeting regulations, methods, checks, balances, and other processes. What you stated here is false. What is true is that civilians/non combatants have been hit when a valid target was attacked. ALso, now and again a bomb or shell goes astray, and misses the target area to hit somewhere it had no business falling. (Rare, but it happens. There is no PH = 1.0 weapon yet built beyond a Bowie Knife or bayonet.) That reality is not the same thing as "targeting civilians," the false statement you make. An irregular or partisan is not a civilian, he or she is a combatant of one sort or another. Likewise a scout.

I'll grant that if you are that unlucky soul who gets hit in the frag pattern meant for someone else, you are still dead. That is the sick reality of war. Your post, however, alleges an intention that is untrue.

History says that US regular forces do intentionally target and kill civilians, e.g.:

"A My Lai a Month"

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081201/turse

Unaccountable covert and mercenary forces and sponsored death squads in Iraq do not necessary follow sweet-sounding "regulations, methods, checks, balances, and other processes". Nor do regular soldiers if they are enraged, psychopathic or badly led.


Can invading, occupying and destroying a virtually defenceless country, weakened and disarmed by a decade of murderous sanctions, presenting absoloutely no military threat to the aggressor, really be called "war"? I think war crime is the correct term for an unprovoked military attack.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. I also note you attempt at moral equivalence between the run of the mill car bomber and the soldier, which is once again a failure.

What is the moral difference between dropping a bomb out of an aeroplane and using a car and, sometimes, your life to deliver one?

Regarded by whom, Jane? Osama Bin Laden understood the reaction he'd get, certainly. I have read that he was surprised, in a positive sense, with how strong the reaction. Don't know beyond what I have read on that, though it fits a standard terrorist MO.

By the "sick reality of war", Rotor.

For the love of Pete, please take your balderdash back to the CT forum, or Loose Change forums, where it belongs. Thanks in advance.

Instead of relying on lazy (and inaccurate) steroetypes and Pete why don't you present a cogent argument as to why the unprovoked "bombing" of three occupied buildings is worse than the unprovoked bombing of an entire, occupied country?

[tyr_13]

Instead of relying on lazy (and inaccurate) steroetypes and Pete why don't you present a cogent argument as to why the unprovoked "bombing" of three occupied buildings is worse than the unprovoked bombing of an entire, occupied country?

You just might be the first person to end up on my ignore list. Congratulations. No, it isn't because your arguments are 'actuate', but because you defend one lie with another lie and are blind to any inconsistency.

The US didn't bomb the entire country. It very well could have. The US could have turned Iraq into a very flat and oil rich parking lot.

You can justify your delusional hatred of the US to yourself, but it just looks stupid. If you can't even tell the difference between a military target and civilians, you're hopeless. US service men and women die because they take the time to identify between the two. Are they perfect? No. Apparently you think they should be, or that you would be, or that Iraqis are, or something else equally ridiculous.

Hell, you don't even know what 'unprovoked' means. Good luck with that.

[applecorped]

What's your name for unprovoked mass murder and pillage?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Anfal_campaign

[Darth Rotor]

History says that US regular forces do intentionally target and kill civilians, e.g.:

"A My Lai a Month"

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081201/turse
I guess you don't understand, willfully. See what follows.
Unaccountable covert and mercenary forces and sponsored death squads in Iraq do not necessary follow sweet-sounding "regulations, methods, checks, balances, and other processes".
What did I say I was familiar with, goalpost moving person? You make rash generalization, I call you on it, and you now wish to reclassify into some particular incidents? You are still wrong.
Nor do regular soldiers if they are enraged, psychopathic or badly led.
You might have noticed that any number of those soldiers who have so done have been charged and even convicted of criminal activity. Funny old thing, that, about violating the RoE and the regs.
Can invading, occupying and destroying a virtually defenceless country, weakened and disarmed by a decade of murderous sanctions, presenting absoloutely no military threat to the aggressor, really be called "war"? I think war crime is the correct term for an unprovoked military attack.
What country are you referring to, Jane?
What is the moral difference between dropping a bomb out of an aeroplane and using a car and, sometimes, your life to deliver one?
Depends on what you are aiming at. The car bombers are habitually aiming at killing the most possible, regardless. The guy in the plane is typically trying to hit a valid target. Most often he does. When he doesn't, you read about it in the news and assume all such events are the same. That is your cognative problem.
By the "sick reality of war", Rotor.
I note also that the war to end all wars didn't. Your dream of wishing it away won't work either. Welcome to the real world, Jane.
Instead of relying on lazy (and inaccurate) steroetypes and Pete why don't you present a cogent argument as to why the unprovoked "bombing" of three occupied buildings is worse than the unprovoked bombing of an entire, occupied country?
No need to. All I had to do was point out that your gross generalization was incorrect, which I have, and leave you to your foaming at the mouth. Being in "transmit only" mode, Jane, does not lend to a useful discourse.

Good day.

DR

[Travis]

I note that in the stereotype thread Jane was livid that American Soldiers are presented as always being humanitarians and yet she has several times now referred to them as psychopathic.

Replacing a strawman with an unwarranted prejudice.

[JihadJane]

You just might be the first person to end up on my ignore list.

Feel free, though I wonder if you are being honest with yourself about the reasons. I'm all for a bit of peace and quiet and there's plenty more where you came from! :)

The Anglo/US alliance has turned Iraq into such a nightmare that Iraqis now talk nostalgically of the Saddam days.

The US didn't bomb the entire country. It very well could have. The US could have turned Iraq into a very flat and oil rich parking lot.

If the US had done that, then there really would be a realistic risk that a few of the Condi-promised mushroom clouds might go off over the USA. Even the USA must observe some limits in the interests of its own security.

I guess you don't understand, willfully. See what follows.

The US military has wilfully targeted and killed civilians many times. See, for example:

"A My Lai a Month"

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081201/turse

What did I say I was familiar with, goalpost moving person? You make rash generalization, I call you on it, and you now wish to reclassify into some particular incidents? You are still wrong.

You said you were familiar with "US military targeting regulations, methods, checks, balances, and other processes", Bowie Knives, bayonets and fragging.

I guess this was an appeal to authority. However, your ignorance about the US military having indeed wilfully targeted and killed civilians in the past undermines any authority you may seek to assert about the reality of the US military's current activities.



You might have noticed that any number of those soldiers who have so done have been charged and even convicted of criminal activity. Funny old thing, that, about violating the RoE and the regs.

"Any number"? What number exactly? The experience of Vietnam and Iraq shows that the US military reluctantly takes action on abuses only when someone blows the whistle on them. And then it is usually those at the bottom of the food chain who are punished. The world watched what the US did about Abu Ghraib atrocities. Just a few bad apples, we were told.....

What country are you referring to, Jane?

Iraq, ......Rotor! :rolleyes:

Depends on what you are aiming at. The car bombers are habitually aiming at killing the most possible, regardless. The guy in the plane is typically trying to hit a valid target. Most often he does. When he doesn't, you read about it in the news and assume all such events are the same. That is your cognative problem.

The "guy in the plane" knows that sooner or later he is going to kill civilians. Probably sooner. He get a lot more shots than the car bomber. He'd be wise not to believe intelligence about "terrorist" weddings, villages or TV stations. Best not use depleted uranium either. Very unpredictable stuff. Last a long time.

I note also that the war to end all wars didn't. Your dream of wishing it away won't work either. Welcome to the real world, Jane.

You were the one who got all upset because I called a spade a spade.

No need to. All I had to do was point out that your gross generalization was incorrect, which I have, and leave you to your foaming at the mouth. Being in "transmit only" mode, Jane, does not lend to a useful discourse.

Thanks for your own transmission of foam, Rotor! Sorry you chose not to answer such a central question.

===

Imagine your own country is under occupation by hyper-violent foreign invaders, there because your values are the wrong ones. They are liberating you!

They are free to force you to the ground at gunpoint wherever and whenever they like, including in your bedroom, in front of your children.

They have accidentally fragged your brother's entire, "unlucky" family. Never mind, that's just the "sick reality of war". Move on.

[JihadJane]

I note that in the stereotype thread Jane was livid that American Soldiers are presented as always being humanitarians*....

Yes, propagandistic fantasy is depressing, especially when so many apparently intelligent people are taken in by it.

... and yet she has several times now referred to them as psychopathic.

Replacing a strawman with an unwarranted prejudice.

Rubbish, Travis, you have conveniently (and possibly shamelessly!) massaged reality to fit your own prejudices.

I said that psychopathic soldiers don't necessarily obey regulations and that the inability to recognise the murderous consequences of ones actions is a symptom of psychopathic denial.

Do you disagree with either of those statements?


= = =

* What I actually said on "What stereotypes bug you?" thread:

I'm not too keen on the one that says the US military is a massive charity organisation, devoted to distributing freemanoxy to the unenlightened and the oppressed.

It's sick.

[Darth Rotor]

The Anglo/US alliance has turned Iraq into such a nightmare that Iraqis now talk nostalgically of the Saddam days.
That's actually funny.
You said you were familiar with "US military targeting regulations, methods, checks, balances, and other processes", Bowie Knives, bayonets and fragging.

I guess this was an appeal to authority. However, your ignorance about the US military having indeed wilfully targeted and killed civilians in the past undermines any authority you may seek to assert about the reality of the US military's current activities.
I don't think you grasp the difference between what the rules are, what the process is, and what happens when people break the rules. It's why we have court martials.
"Any number"? What number exactly? The experience of Vietnam and Iraq shows that the US military reluctantly takes action on abuses only when someone blows the whistle on them. And then it is usually those at the bottom of the food chain who are punished. The world watched what the US did about Abu Ghraib atrocities. Just a few bad apples, we were told.....
For my money, Jane, the penalty run did not go far enough up the chain of command on that score.

Secondly, you make the irrational assumption that "a data point of one equals an activity by all." Sorry, your argument is barren.
Iraq, ......Rotor! :rolleyes:
Right. Nice when you stick to specifics.
The "guy in the plane" knows that sooner or later he is going to kill civilians.
No, he doesn't. What he relies on is that the calls for fire are in accordance with the RoE, and so on. But you aren't interested in something other than your cartoon character, so why bother?
Probably sooner. He get a lot more shots than the car bomber.
The car bomber doesn't care who he kills. The pilot in question does.
He'd be wise not to believe intelligence about "terrorist" weddings, villages or TV stations. Best not use depleted uranium either. Very unpredictable stuff. Last a long time.
Focus, Jane, Focus.
You were the one who got all upset because I called a spade a spade.
If you wish to extrapolate from the uncommon into the entire, be expected to be called on it.
Thanks for your own transmission of foam, Rotor! Sorry you chose not to answer such a central question.
??? Care to repeat it.
Imagine your own country is under occupation by hyper-violent foreign invaders, there because your values are the wrong ones. They are liberating you!
Odds are I'd already be dead, Jane, or out there trying to kill one of them.
They are free to force you to the ground at gunpoint wherever and whenever they like, including in your bedroom, in front of your children.
You skipped a few steps, Jane.
They have accidentally fragged your brother's entire, "unlucky" family. Never mind, that's just the "sick reality of war". Move on.
I already covered that. War sucks when you are on the losing side.

Don't be.

DR

[Travis]

Yes, propagandistic fantasy is depressing, especially when so many apparently intelligent people are taken in by it.



Rubbish, Travis, you have conveniently (and possibly shamelessly!) massaged reality to fit your own prejudices.

I said that psychopathic soldiers don't necessarily obey regulations and that the inability to recognise the murderous consequences of ones actions is a symptom of psychopathic denial.

Do you disagree with either of those statements?

Nope, I'll concede that a psychopathic soldier is bad to have around.

However, do you think that this is specific to US soldiers or to soldiers in general?

[WildCat]

And if the US government had attempted the spoliation which has often been claimed to be their motive, all of the officials involved would have wound up like Kissinger- unable ever to set foot outside the USA for fear of the policeman's tap on the shoulder.
Odd, Kissinger doesn't seem too afraid to travel abroad. He was even at the Olympics in Beijing this summer.

[tyr_13]

Feel free, though I wonder if you are being honest with yourself about the reasons. I'm all for a bit of peace and quiet and there's plenty more where you came from! :)

Wow, you actually pointed out something true! There are plenty of rational people like me on the boards. I'm being perfectly honest with the reasons. I'm beginning to suspect that you are a troll of some kind just based on how absolutely you are sticking to the anti-American stereotype.



The Anglo/US alliance has turned Iraq into such a nightmare that Iraqis now talk nostalgically of the Saddam days.

You mean like the murderous former members of Saddam's Bath party? Poor babies, the big mean US stopped them from killing the minorities.



If the US had done that, then there really would be a realistic risk that a few of the Condi-promised mushroom clouds might go off over the USA. Even the USA must observe some limits in the interests of its own security.

My hyperbole was to show a point; if the US really didn't care about civilians it would have done things much differently. It wouldn't have embedded reporters. It wouldn't have bothered to fight on foot. It wouldn't arrest or court martial it's own troops.



The US military has wilfully targeted and killed civilians many times. See, for example:

"A My Lai a Month"

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081201/turse

Has done something before in no way means does so commonly, has orders to do so, or enjoys doing so. The US military has also given small-pox laced blankets to Native Americans.



You said you were familiar with "US military targeting regulations, methods, checks, balances, and other processes", Bowie Knives, bayonets and fragging.

I guess this was an appeal to authority. However, your ignorance about the US military having indeed wilfully targeted and killed civilians in the past undermines any authority you may seek to assert about the reality of the US military's current activities.

It obviously isn't an appeal to authority, it is just telling you the reality of the rules. If you think that someone is trying to come off as an authority because they know the terms then you really don't know much about the military huh?





"Any number"? What number exactly? The experience of Vietnam and Iraq shows that the US military reluctantly takes action on abuses only when someone blows the whistle on them. And then it is usually those at the bottom of the food chain who are punished. The world watched what the US did about Abu Ghraib atrocities. Just a few bad apples, we were told.....

As opposed to every other military, government, or people on earth, which always own up to everything instantly.







The "guy in the plane" knows that sooner or later he is going to kill civilians. Probably sooner. He get a lot more shots than the car bomber. He'd be wise not to believe intelligence about "terrorist" weddings, villages or TV stations. Best not use depleted uranium either. Very unpredictable stuff. Last a long time.

Yet more ignorance at the basics of what soldiers do.



You were the one who got all upset because I called a spade a spade.



Thanks for your own transmission of foam, Rotor! Sorry you chose not to answer such a central question.



Imagine you are an occupant of a fascist nation. Your government provides you no support, and often times kills your people, with nerve gas. This is even though the government has the resources to stop this. Now another country comes in and destroys the government which has murdered your family, kept you in poverty, and attacked your neighbors. Would you be willing to accept some death and destruction then?

Ohhh, I know. You think that already describes the US right? That would be out of the 'America sucks' playbook.

[JihadJane]

Nope, I'll concede that a psychopathic soldier is bad to have around.

Credit to you for abandoning prejudice in favour of some genuine critical thinking.

However, do you think that this is specific to US soldiers or to soldiers in general?



No, not at all.

I do believe, however, that war itself is psychopathic and encourages people to act in psychopathic ways. I have heard comments from young Isreali soldiers at a checkpoint, for example, who have been deeply shocked by the way their own behaviour has changed when given the power to point a gun at a Palestinian.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by JihadJane
The Anglo/US alliance has turned Iraq into such a nightmare that Iraqis now talk nostalgically of the Saddam days.

That's actually funny.

I don't understand your sense of humour. Are you not curious about why Iraqis feel like this?

I don't think you grasp the difference between what the rules are, what the process is, and what happens when people break the rules. It's why we have court martials.

How many soldiers/mercenaries/operatives have been court-marshalled for breaking such rules in Iraq?

For my money, Jane, the penalty run did not go far enough up the chain of command on that score.

Why do you keep adressing me as "Jane"? Is it your way of trying to assert power, big boy?


Secondly, you make the irrational assumption that "a data point of one equals an activity by all." Sorry, your argument is barren.

I haven't once extrapolated from the uncommon into the entire. Interestingly, you, Travis and the even lovlier tyr_13 have all made this lazy, mistaken assumption. See dead dog example below.



No, he doesn't. What he relies on is that the calls for fire are in accordance with the RoE, and so on. But you aren't interested in something other than your cartoon character, so why bother?

"Collateral damage" is inevitable.

The car bomber doesn't care who he kills. The pilot in question does.

The pilot knows that his/her actions will kill civilians. Whether he/she cares about it or not if he/she still goes ahead and kills them.

Focus, Jane, Focus.

Are you going to explain this "Jane" business? Does it make you feel bigger?

If you wish to extrapolate from the uncommon into the entire, be expected to be called on it.

I haven't once extrapolated from the uncommon into the entire.

If a US soldier breaks into my house and shoots my dog then I am going to hold the force (the US military) that sent him/her into my house accountable for his/her actions. This isn't saying that all US soldiers break into houses and shoot dogs.

??? Care to repeat it.

Sure:

Instead of relying on lazy (and inaccurate) steroetypes and Pete why don't you present a cogent argument as to why the unprovoked "bombing" of three occupied buildings is worse than the unprovoked bombing of an entire, occupied country?


I already covered that. War sucks when you are on the losing side.

Don't be.


War sucks on both "sides".

Since Gulf War 1:

- 73,846 US Dead,

- 1,620,906 US Disabled

(12/13/07) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=adb_1197597746

Oppression abroad leads to oppression at home. Profiteers benefit from war, not ordinary people. "War is a racket".

[Francesca R]

Why do you keep adressing me as "Jane"? Is it your way of trying to assert power, big boy? [ . . . ] Are you going to explain this "Jane" business? Does it make you feel bigger?Why do you use it as a handle? Is it something to do with Fred T?

[JihadJane]

Why do you use it as a handle? Is it something to do with Fred T?

"Jane" isn't my handle.

And who's Fred T? :confused:

[Francesca R]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_T_Jane

I'm not getting why you dislike "JihadJane" being shortened to "Jane".

[JihadJane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_T_Jane

I'm not getting why you dislike "JihadJane" being shortened to "Jane".

Thanks for the link. Interesting and funny. It brought to mind miniature paintings done on grains of rice .

I don't dislike "JihadJane" being shortened to "Jane". After all, I am not actually, in real life, JihadJane :). I find Rotor's use of it interesting and funny (at Rotor's expense!). Not many posters call me plain Jane. One, though, has dared to call me Plain Jane.

Sometimes the shortening is just friendly or for convenience but a few posters, like Darth Rotor, above, appear to use it to communicate an aggressive assertion of power. It seems to be intended to sound patronising. In Darth Rotor's case this is most strongly indicated by its repetition, often a way of adding emphasis to a word's inferred meaning. What is being emphasised?

Love?

I can only speculate on Darth Rotor's inner experience and intent when typing the word "Jane" to me. Perhaps it is not meant to be demeaning at all. Perhaps my suspicions that there could be a gender and/or sexist component to its meaning, or a generational one (adult/child), are unfounded.

Of course, as in the case of Fred T.Jane, Rotor could be using "Jane" as a family name, as a way of maintaining equality and showing respect... though that also makes me think of military folk barking family names at their cowering inferiors!

Is Darth expressing something about my first name? Not many people call me Jihad.

I'd be interested to know Darth Rotor's end of it

- - - -

Of course, if she/he admits to having altered my handle for questionable purposes of insult, I shall have no other choice than to immediately inform the authorities, as per JREF regulations!

[Francesca R]

(OK. Probably extremely off-topic. Just seemed like, if someone had a forum name "JumpingJack" and others referred to them as "Jack")

[Darth Rotor]

I don't understand your sense of humour. Are you not curious about why Iraqis feel like this?
I am not surprised at Iraqis feeling that way. Five years of civil war is no picnic, and over a million have fled the country. That's not trivial.
Why do you keep adressing me as "Jane"? Is it your way of trying to assert power, big boy?
No, it's the only name in your handle. Jihad isn't a name. Jane is.
I haven't once extrapolated from the uncommon into the entire.
Really? Your My Lai a day isn't an extrapolation? That's a fascinating take on your own utterances, Jane.
"Collateral damage" is inevitable.
Probably true.
The pilot knows that his/her actions will kill civilians.
No, he or she doesn't. What the pilot knows is that it's a risk if all the pieces don't fall into place, or if the combatants shooting at our folks are keeping civilian shields in place during a firefight. How much time have you spent as an attack pilot, Jane?
Whether he/she cares about it or not if he/she still goes ahead and kills them.
The target is the combatant. That is who the pilot is targeting. Go back to what I am busting your chops on, your words about who targets whom. That sometimes a non-combatant does die when a target it struck is, as I pointed out earlier, a sick reality war.
Are you going to explain this "Jane" business? Does it make you feel bigger?
Jihad sin't a name, Jane is, so I am using the name in your handle to address you. If it upsets you, I am sorry, but you are the one who chose the forum name. No intent to belittle you with that.
I haven't once extrapolated from the uncommon into the entire.
Yes, you have. Your statement was a generalization. It is also hyperbole.
The US has targeted civilians in many parts of the world. There is no reason to assume that their bombs, bullets and death squads haven't done the same in Iraq. Anyone who sets off explosions in a populated area such as Baghdad knows that they are inevitably going to leave behind a trail of dead, mutilated and severely traumatised civilians. That these uniformed murderers convince themselves that they are not spreading terror deliberately by "accidentally" chopping up sleeping men, women, children, babies and their pets, for example, simply demonstrates their advanced state of mental derangement and psychopathic denial.
That kind of imprecision evokes a response.
If a US soldier breaks into my house and shoots my dog then I am going to hold the force (the US military) that sent him/her into my house accountable for his/her actions. This isn't saying that all US soldiers break into houses and shoot dogs.
I understand that.
War sucks on both "sides".
We agree on that.
Since Gulf War 1:
- 73,846 US Dead,

- 1,620,906 US Disabled
As the result of war? American forces? I think you are off by an order of magnitude.
Oppression abroad leads to oppression at home.
It can, but it's not inevitable. What oppression at home happened during the US raids on Lybia, 1986? During Bosnia, 1995-2006?
Profiteers benefit from war, not ordinary people.
Some do, indeed. You might be interested to know that some of those profiteers also employee a hell of a lot of high tech workers in jobs, a situation which makes their industry very attractive to the Congress. Ponder upon that.
"War is a racket".
I read the book, about 12 years ago. Smedley Butler was known as Old Gimlet Eye for a good reason: he saw a lot of things very clearly. :cool: Still a legend in The Corps.

Do you have a point?
like Darth Rotor, above, appear to use it to communicate an aggressive assertion of power
Nope. Wrong again, your mind reading sucks. See above.

@ FrancescaR: while OT, I agree with you. Do you mind if I call you Francesca? (Or do I have to go back to calling you Acuity! :D )

Back to JihadJane: One reason I don't refer to you as JJ is that jj, the poster, is someone I find worthwhile, and often insightful, and the similarity between your initials is sufficient for me to not use the initials as an address.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

The Boston Globe link (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2008/11/20/us_iraq_security_pact_may_be_in_violation_congress _is_told/)isn't opening so well, best luck to you, but here is an interesting twist.

An argument has been made to Congress that the Iraq US security pact may well violate both nations' constitutions, and the assertion is being made in Washington that the pact requires Senate approval. An unfortunate supporting argument is that "never been done before with a SOFA." That's irrelevant, as precedents get set in a variety of ways. There is always a first time for everything. Also, IIRC, the SOFA agreed with, for example, Italy is not run through Senate approval AFAIK.

They instead pressed for an extension of the United Nations mandate authorizing US troop involvement in Iraq, which expires Dec. 31
These American advocates seem to me motivated by partisan concerns, as I don't see a similar initiative in Iraq to extend the mandate. There are two sides to this deal, if such a deal is to be struck.

On the other side of the pond, Mr Al Sadr has been kind enough to sound off, yet again. It has disrupted the discussion of simple or two thirds majority in Parliament for approval.
Iraqi lawmakers, however, are debating the number of votes needed to pass the agreement. Most of the ruling parties argue that current law requires only a simple majority, while opponents say a provision in the Iraqi constitution calls for a two-thirds majority of the 275-member parliament, said Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi architect who is a consultant to the American Friends Service Committee

From the Boston Globe article: (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2008/11/20/us_iraq_security_pact_may_be_in_violation_congress _is_told/)
Yesterday, opponents of the agreement, including followers of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, disrupted a second reading of the agreement in parliament.

Jarrar told the House subcommittee a simple-majority approval of the pact could provoke unrest and violence in Iraq.

"Most of the groups who are opposing it in the parliament, have been saying, 'If you wanted to go through some loopholes - not send it to Parliament or pass it through a simple majority - we will quit this political process as a whole, and we will go back to armed resistance,' " he said.

[JihadJane]

I am not surprised at Iraqis feeling that way. Five years of civil war is no picnic, and over a million have fled the country. That's not trivial.

Then why do you think it's funny that they feel nostalgic for life under Saddam's rule?

The Anglo/US Alliance (illegally) invaded and occupied Iraq. It is the responsibility of the occupation force to maintain law and order. If they weren't up for the job then it is yet another reason why the aggressors should not have attacked Iraq in the first place.

Divide and rule is a tired old tactic.

"Five years after the United States occupied Iraq with the stated goal of bringing democracy to its people, the war has essentially ruined the country’s economy, society, and sovereignty ..." ***

*** http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11006

No, it's the only name in your handle. Jihad isn't a name. Jane is.

Weird logic. Very few screenames are real names. JihadJane isn't a real name.

Really? Your My Lai a day isn't an extrapolation? That's a fascinating take on your own utterances, Jane.

The article I linked to discussed compelling evidence of "A My Lai a Month", i.e. around five thousand civilians killed a year, often knowingly, often simply to up the "enemy" body count. Few of the perpetrators have been brought to justice. It is perfectly reasonable to consider that such episodes and the way they are covered up reflect on the US military as a whole, to this day.

The Iraqi NGO, The Monitoring Net of Human Rights in Iraq (MHRI), estimated that between 4,000 and 6,000 Iraqi civilians were killed during the November 2004 US assault on Fallujah. **

** "Countless My Lai Massacres in Iraq"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13427.htm

No, he or she doesn't. What the pilot knows is that it's a risk if all the pieces don't fall into place, or if the combatants shooting at our folks are keeping civilian shields in place during a firefight. How much time have you spent as an attack pilot, Jane?

The pilot knows that collateral damage is inevitable. Killing civilians is unjustifiable.

The target is the combatant. That is who the pilot is targeting. Go back to what I am busting your chops on, your words about who targets whom. That sometimes a non-combatant does die when a target it struck is, as I pointed out earlier, a sick reality war.

Killing civilians is unjustifiable, even if one wishes it wasn't part of one's job.

Jihad sin't a name, Jane is, so I am using the name in your handle to address you. If it upsets you, I am sorry, but you are the one who chose the forum name. No intent to belittle you with that.

See my post to Francesca R, above. My curiosity isn't motivated by upsets.

Yes, you have. Your statement was a generalization. It is also hyperbole.

What other explanation do you have for taking a life without their consent? Such an act requires complete detachment from the other person's inner life.

That kind of imprecision evokes a response.

I concede that "chopping up" was somewhat imprecise.

I understand that.

Then why do you maintain that I have made the irrational assumption that "a data point of one equals an activity by all"?

We agree on that.

Sorry, I misunderstood you when you said (post#34) :

"War sucks when you are on the losing side.

Don't be."

Is there a third side?

As the result of war? American forces? I think you are off by an order of magnitude.

Yes. Yes. It doesn't surprise me that you think that. "Skepticism" often has a pronounced lean.

It can, but it's not inevitable. What oppression at home happened during the US raids on Lybia, 1986? During Bosnia, 1995-2006?

The illegal 1986 raids on Lybia (which killed many civilians) represent the birth of the “terrorist” excuse as a pretext for overt, extralegal, US military interventions and helped build the oppressive politics of fear that once again dominate US foreign and domestic policy.

Islamic militancy was strengthened in the Bosnian bloodbath with direct help from the US and others* . The same Islamic Extremists, of course, were destined to become the imperial bogeyman de jour and used to terrify US citizens into allowing a major shift of power to the ruling executive.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/22/warcrimes.comment

Some do, indeed. You might be interested to know that some of those profiteers also employee a hell of a lot of high tech workers in jobs, a situation which makes their industry very attractive to the Congress. Ponder upon that.

It takes a disproportionately large amount of money to create one job in the defence industry. The cream-off rate is excellent, though, further up the food chain!

I read the book, about 12 years ago. Smedley Butler was known as Old Gimlet Eye for a good reason: he saw a lot of things very clearly. :cool: Still a legend in The Corps.



Do you have a point?

Do you believe that the reasons that wars are fought have changed since Smedley Butler's time?

Nope. Wrong again, your mind reading sucks. See above.

I am not mind reading. I am telling you what your words appear to me to be communicating.

You are fond of "sucks"!



Back to JihadJane: One reason I don't refer to you as JJ is that jj, the poster, is someone I find worthwhile, and often insightful, and the similarity between your initials is sufficient for me to not use the initials as an address.

If I were a cheeky sort of person I'd suggest that you are confirming your military credentials by instigating a cover-up rather than coming clean about your misdemeanours!

Maybe it is your normal for you to use selective parts of screenames in the manner you describe but i do not imagine that you normally do it 3 (post#30) or 4 (post#34) times per post. I am not wholly impressed that you have described what it was you were seeking to emphasise with this repetition.


I think we have more common ground than I initially thought. I understand your sensitivities, I think. Best wishes.

[tyr_13]

The pilot knows that collateral damage is inevitable. Killing civilians is unjustifiable.



Ok, this is just crazy. I mean, really, really crazy. What do you think should be done to people who kill civilians? You think that pilot should be brought up on chargers for accidentally killing civilians? How about intentionally?

What do you do to people that kill civilians, thousands and thousands of them, intentionally? Do you take military action against them? Or are you advocating complete passivism? How would you have dealt with Saddam? Ask him to stop killing civilians?

I'm very sorry that real life isn't nice and clean. But if the US is evil, what does that make France? Saddam's Iraq? South Korea? India? Pakistan?

[JihadJane]

Ok, this is just crazy. I mean, really, really crazy. What do you think should be done to people who kill civilians? You think that pilot should be brought up on chargers for accidentally killing civilians? How about intentionally?

What do you do to people that kill civilians, thousands and thousands of them, intentionally?

I call them mass murderers.

Do you take military action against them? Or are you advocating complete passivism? How would you have dealt with Saddam? Ask him to stop killing civilians?

We can make a start by not calling them heroes.

I'm very sorry that real life isn't nice and clean. But if the US is evil, what does that make France? Saddam's Iraq? South Korea? India? Pakistan?

If you believe that saying that killing civilians is unjustifiable is "really, really crazy" perhaps you would like to share your non-crazy justifications for killing civilians.

The court at Nuremberg trials described the war of aggression as “essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole”.

Associate US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief prosecutor at the trial said that “no political or economic situation can justify” the crime of aggression, which was “the greatest menace of our times”.

[Darth Rotor]

Then why do you think it's funny that they feel nostalgic for life under Saddam's rule?
The joke is on George Bush, actually . . .
The Anglo/US Alliance (illegally) invaded and occupied Iraq. It is the responsibility of the occupation force to maintain law and order. If they weren't up for the job then it is yet another reason why the aggressors should not have attacked Iraq in the first place.
One could call that 20-20 hindsight, but when you look at some of the sober critiques of the way the entire operation was run from the outset, and the assumptions made (Cobra II, End of Iraq, Fiasco) a good case can be made for competent advice being ignored and problems wished away. That's a good way to cock up a war, with the usual result being more dead people, not less.
"Five years after the United States occupied Iraq with the stated goal of bringing democracy to its people, the war has essentially ruined the country’s economy, society, and sovereignty ..." ***

*** http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11006
The current state of play is certainly miserable, however, Iraq is not caught in a statis field. The process of improving continues. Where Iraq ends up in three years time is interesting to speculate upon, given that its neighbors will influence the direction of that transformation considerably as the US disengages.
The article I linked to discussed compelling evidence of "A My Lai a Month", i.e. around five thousand civilians killed a year, often knowingly, often simply to up the "enemy" body count.
Not compelling evidence. The assertion that it is intenitonal is first of all rubbish. The "intent of upping the body count" completely at odds with the policy that's been in place since day one. The actual go no go criterion on use of fires are I think still covered by my NDA, so no further comment. I will point out to you that an experienced or expert witness is not subject to the idiotic charge of "argument from authority" since actual expertise in the field is a relevant issue. No, a doctor of proctology should not be deferred to when discussin integrated circuits, but an electrical engineer ought to be. His expertise is germane to assessing an issue within his expertise. Likewise with my detailed experience in Close Air Support, RoE, and fires in general. You are free to continue to argue from ignorance, if you'd like.
Few of the perpetrators have been brought to justice. It is perfectly reasonable to consider that such episodes and the way they are covered up reflect on the US military as a whole, to this day.At this point, I recognize a mantra when I see it. You might want to spend some time talking to people who've been involved.
The pilot knows that collateral damage is inevitable. Killing civilians is unjustifiable.
Once again, you are dead wrong, first sentence. On a given mission, it is not inevitable. As to your last, the Geneva Conventions do not agree with you, and the US RoE is more stringent than Geneva requires. That said, dead is dead, which returns us to the sick reality of war.
Killing civilians is unjustifiable, even if one wishes it wasn't part of one's job.
Geneva disagrees with you. Once a fighting position is established, it is a legitimate target. If you are in the target, sucks to be you. US RoE is actually far more stringent on when an engagement can be made if the risk to civilians is to great, but your demand that that risk be reduced to zero is, quite franky, demagoguery, and not in accordance with the Laws of Armed Conflict. (You spend enough days in a row dealing with nothing but that as your job and maybe, maybe, you'll get it. )
What other explanation do you have for taking a life without their consent? Such an act requires complete detachment from the other person's inner life.
War is unfortunately an exercise in slaughter. That is what it is. Because of that, one should take due care before starting one. If your argument against war is that "people might get killed" as a primary concern, you rather miss the point. If your argument is that this war was undertaken carelessly, you'd be on very solid ground. That is a critique with significant support.
"War sucks when you are on the losing side. Don't be."
Is there a third side?
Depends upon the war.
The illegal 1986 raids on Lybia (which killed many civilians) represent the birth of the “terrorist” excuse as a pretext for overt, extralegal, US military interventions and helped build the oppressive politics of fear that once again dominate US foreign and domestic policy.
Once again with the mantra. OK. Hoffer's "True Believer" needs to be added to your required reading list.
Islamic militancy was strengthened in the Bosnian bloodbath with direct help from the US and others* .
I agreed at the time, and somewhat agree now. Setting up a Muslim client state in Europe was a screwy policy, yet NATO adn the US chose to pursue that end in support of an initial, and typically buggered up, UN effort. I always suspected that it was a political payoff by Clinton for favors done for the US by some of the rich Arabs states, particularly Saudi Arabia, but I don't have enough evidence to support that beyond it being a suspicion. As a Greek officer once observed to me: "The Serbs have a point. What the hell are we, NATO, doing fighting on the side of Muslims in Europe?"
Do you believe that the reasons that wars are fought have changed since Smedley Butler's time?
It's a mixed bag. Butler's experiences in the Banana Wars were a reflection of the Wilsonian policies of the time, and of America emerging as a Power in the world, particularly a Power disputing the Powers of Europe's influence in the Western Hemisphere. The Korean War, for example, was not a war cut in the mold of the Banana Wars, nor one consistent with Butler's experience nor framework. The intervention in Kosovo and earlier in Bosnia, and before that Macedonia weren't either. WW II doesn't compare.

Operation Just Cause? Very similar, though at that point, European interference in the Western Hemisphere wasn't the issue, extending the "War on Drugs" mind set was more closely associated with it. Grenada was a lot like the Butler era banana wars, though there wasn't much of any money/profit involved. It was more of a dick measuring deal vis a vis a European power, Russia (then called the Soviet Union) The current American involvement in Columbia I think Butler would recognize quite well. Problem is, the war on drugs still hasn't targeted the three high payoff targets in the drug trade's network whose neutralization might make an effect: bankers, accountants, and lawyers who the drug cartels hire to whitewash their operations. Corrupt port authorities are now and again taken out during anti drug efforts, so I'll leave that alone for the nonce. That is a crucial link in the chain.

Desert Storm? An interesting comparison. Since the Carter doctrinal statement of preserving international access to the energy reserves in the Persian Gulf became operative, America has undertaken a rational policy of self interest given that affordable energy is the engine of the industrial world and international trade. Without international trade, America isn't the wealthy Power it is today. Nor does it have the living standard we enjoy at the moment. A reasonably consistent set of moves to preclude a single hegemon from controlling that globally traded comodity have taken place. It took the shape of a collaborative version of Wilsonian exercise in the Western Hemisphere, rather than one wholly American in interest, as witnessed by the broad coalition Bush 41 assembled to kick Saddam back out of Kuwait and its oil fields. Note that he left Saddam standing. The Japanese, for example, forked over money to support the effort, since they too had a vested interest in keeping the international trade network unconstrained by restrictions on energy flow. That war was the first inadvertent favor done for Iran by an American presidents since the hostage crap. (Iran Contra seems to have been deliberate.) W's taking Saddam out was the second. One wonders if behind the scenes sme Persian envoy sends a Thank You card to the Bush family each Christmas. :p
If I were a cheeky sort of person I'd suggest that you are confirming your military credentials by instigating a cover-up rather than coming clean about your misdemeanours!
That's the cutest way of trying to call someone a liar I've seen in a while, with a slur on the armed forces tossed in. Not well played.
Maybe it is your normal for you to use selective parts of screenames in the manner you describe but i do not imagine that you normally do it 3 (post#30) or 4 (post#34) times per post. I am not wholly impressed that you have described what it was you were seeking to emphasise with this repetition.
My posts vary with topic and mood. I am not obliged to post as a bot, I post as the muse strikes me. Your attempts to demand bot like posting is rejected, Jane, or JihadJane (the long form).
I think we have more common ground than I initially thought. I understand your sensitivities, I think. Best wishes.
Perhaps we do. Best of luck to you as well.

DR

[bigred]

No, you see, she thinks we are leaving in defeat because we aren't taking all of the Iraqi oil with us. It couldn't possibly be that the oil wasn't the reason for going in in the first place. The US must be an evil nation of terrorists after oil. Obviously, that means we lost.

Also, there are some children and kittens we didn't rape and/or murder.

You forgot about how we're just itching to force everyone to Christianity :rolleyes:

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by tyr_13
No, you see, she thinks we are leaving in defeat because we aren't taking all of the Iraqi oil with us. It couldn't possibly be that the oil wasn't the reason for going in in the first place. The US must be an evil nation of terrorists after oil. Obviously, that means we lost.

Also, there are some children and kittens we didn't rape and/or murder.

You forgot about how we're just itching to force everyone to Christianity :rolleyes:

The oil is still in the ground, much of it uptapped.

[JihadJane]

"Will The Slaughter Of Iraqis By The US Military Ever Be Reported?"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11040

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/21/AR2008112103228.html
This article suggests the US could get out of Iraq ten months, in an orderly fashion, from the execution order.

Depending on what assumptions the authors made about the availability of sea lift, and how many remain staged in Kuwait awaiting further on movement from there to elsewhere, that's probable.

I am leary of "a study says" when one does not get to take a look at the study. It depends upon what port facilities are used -- port facilities have a finite throughput, and have to consider commercial traffic in and out -- and what stuff gets left in Iraq. That latter consideration isn't trivial.

DR

[JihadJane]

This article suggests the US could get out of Iraq ten months, in an orderly fashion, from the execution order.

....

DR

Considering the on-going collapse of the US economy do you think an orderly exit is more likely than a chaotic dash? How much longer can the country afford to maintain its sprawling global network of military outposts?

[Darth Rotor]

Considering the on-going collapse of the US economy do you think an orderly exit is more likely than a chaotic dash?
Yes, as the two aren't particularly related to one another.
How much longer can the country afford to maintain its sprawling global network of military outposts?
For a while yet, I imagine. However, the long term aim of "CONUS based Globally deployable" remains as far as I know.

The overseas footprint has been generally shrinking since the first BRAC in the early 1990's, with the odd exception of the stuff built in Iraq. I don't expect the Iraq situation to mirror the Germany or Japan situation, for political reasons, in the long term. As it is, there is some infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region that may balance out shrinking footprints elsewhere. Looking at it today is slightly misleading, as some of that is due to current operations in Iraq. Draw that down, and the remaining footprint shrinks considerably.

There has been a move afoot to get completely out of South Korea. Rummy tried and only got a slight draw down. Still a work in progress. The Marines are supposed to be out of Okinawa by 2014, funding dependent. The Japan Times reported a few days ago (http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20081122a3.html)that the delay may be in part due to a funding blockage by the host nation. Even within Japan, there are mixed feelings on "should they stay or should they go" regarding the Marines stationed there.

The rationale for keeping a base in Okinawa, allegedly for support of the Korea contingency (?) (pick an Op Plan, figure out where the forward deployed MAGTF goes) has been thin for the past ten years. IMO, it's high time to end it. Me, I've been a proponent of "bring the boys home from Europe, North of the Alps" since the mid 1990's. The shared security interest is south of the Alps, in the Med basin. The nations of Europe are wealthy enough, and clever enough, to fund and man their own continental defence. The only basing deal we ought to retain, in a common interest, are airhead and SLOC Ports of Entry, north of the Alps, and a slightly more robust posture in the Northlant: UK - Norway area. South of the Alps? Might be wise to be a bit more robust, pending mutually agreed deals between the nations involved.

My two cents.

ETA: A bit more on topic, some input from a character named Chalabi. Read with a grain of salt, he has, or at least had, a vested interest.

Thanks, but you can go now (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/23/opinion/edchalabi.php)

BAGHDAD: The Iraq war is over. It ends five years too late and at far too terrible a cost in lives, money and idealism. The difficult and tortuous negotiations over the U.S. withdrawal now coming to an end in Baghdad offer a distorted glimpse of what might have been.

The independent, democratically elected Iraqi government now representing the interests of its people is nearly identical to the government that could have been formed in 2003.
Gee, wonder why he says that? :rolleyes: