Well, you see, we had to pay close attention to their (the terrorists) technique's, and study their moves. Then, and only then, were we ready to adopt their own attack method's. [/b][/quote]I'd like to see us use the same strategy as the French in Algeria in the 50's against the FLN...midnight raids, kidnappings, etc, holding indefinitely, torture/intelligence extraction, execution.

Destroys the morale of your enemy, ensures that you get answers, and the French strategy was successful until public opinion turned against them and they were forced to leave. Darn Frenchies.

Then again, had we not abandoned them at Dien Bien Phu, we might have had no need for the Vietnam war.

I must admit when I first heard this story, I too assumed bombs, until I read further clarification. I have been gone all day, and was checking to see how this was progressing. I didn't see too much at all on the regular sites (MSN, CNN, Local news), and am surprised (unless I missed the story) to find it fizzled out. At least according to this Times On-Line, who say Iraq initiated this operation:

"The operation, which doubled the population of the flat farmland in one single airlift, was initiated by intelligence from Iraq security forces, says Lt Col Skip Johnson commander of the 187 Battallion, 3rd Combat Brigade of the 101st Airborne. "They have the lead," he said to reporters at the second stop of the tour. But by Friday afternoon, the major targets seemed to have slipped through their fingers. Iraqi Army General Abdul Jabar says that Samarra-based insurgent leader Hamad el Taki of Mohammad’s Army was thought to be in the area, and Iraqi intelligence officers were still working to compare known voice recordings and photographs with the prisoners in custody."


Full Story:

Time On-line

Then I found this article for the UK, suggesting the "timing" of this "attack." For those of us who are suspicious of the past timing of terror alerts, (i.e. poll numbers in the dumpster?) this could be questionable as well.


"The operation came at a time when support at home for President Bush and his campaign in Iraq is running very low, and when the international media were preparing to focus on the third anniversary of the war, just three days later."

Full story:

BBC News

As far as pulling out, I don't know to be honest. I would say yes, stay a little longer, but I won't say stay indefinitely. If we need more American troops to train, get going, but if this is going to last throughout my lifetime and never end, I say get the hell out.

Btw, I DO think it matters how we got there. We have every right to know if we were misled and/or lied to. This isn't some mamby pamby, close your eyes to it, turn the other cheek type thing, this is a war in which many lives were lost, and if was unjust or unecessary, hell yea, I wanna know.

TIS

Double-J, you bring up some valid points, you seem to be quite knowledgeable about this subject, and at the risk of patronizing, I would like to commend you for consistently defending your hard right position without spouting the usual idiot, bullshit, company line position of "kelll 'emm alll an let Gaaad sord 'emm out!"

However, I don't know if your indirect comparison to The Holocaust and World War II is entirely fitting. Iraq was most definitely NOT a free country before The States invaded. For most of her history the cradle of civilization has been under autocratic rule and has known only extremely brief periods of democracy if any at all. Germany had a well developed democratic tradition prior to the rise and fall of Adolf Hitler and although that system went very, very wrong and resulted in the brutal and senseless slaughter of millions of people to compare it to Iraq does a disservice to both countries. And, if Bush's true intention was to rid the world of the menace of Saddam Hussein, it is not too far fetched to assume that a Central Intelligence Agency coup could be carried out and regime change accomplished with far less bloodshed. The CIA did this in the 50s to the democratically elected head of government of both Iran (Muhammad Mossadeq) and in the 70s (I believe) Chile (Salvador Allende). Why not do it to Iraq and only this time instead of installing an autocratic dictator (Iran - The Shah, Chile - Augusto Pinochet) set up the framework for democratic elections to take place. Obviously, this is not even close to as easy I might make it look, but it has been done and could be done again.

Yes, the Osirak nuclear development was destroyed by Israel in the 80s. Yes, Iraq lobbed scud missiles at Israel during Gulf War I. Yes, Hussein supported the families of suicide bombers who comitted acts of terrorism against Israelis and did an enormous disservice to the Palestinian cause. Would Iraq have posed a legitimate threat to Israel had The U.S.A. not invaded. No. I think that it is quite a stretch to say that Hussein had the balls let alone the means to acquire black market nuclear weapons from Russia or another former Soviet Republic or some other source, and carry out a nuclear attack against Israel or anyone. If Hussein did do this, he would draw Israel, The U.S.A and all her allies and pretty much the rest of the world into what could have been World War III. Was Hussein crazy enough to do this? Yes. Did he have the stones and any coherent plan? Frankly, I don't think so.

Also, I am sorry to say that I do share your general skepticism regarding The Middle East and of course we both know that this is a terrible shame. Many of the conflicts in The Middle East and the immediate surrounding areas are religious conflicts that are over a thousand years old. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict and the war on Iraq are the two major examples of the high volatility of the region, but there are many more. I only hope and pray for peace, but I don't expect it to come even in the time of our great grand children if at all.

As for The French in Algeria. Well, we all know how that turned out right? Algeria is a modern, pro Western, free, prosperous democratic nation-state that is the envy of The Arab and devloping world. :rolleyes:

I think I can handle this request. Don Smitty, indiscriminate killing is what the insurgents are doing in Iraq. Ya know, like suicide bombing in restaurants, car bombs on crowded streets. Discriminate bombing is picking a specific target where your enemy is located, like one of those computer-guided missiles.

That sounds a bit too Boston for me...especially the "Gaaad" part.

I also would like to commend you for your knowledge and tact, especially in the previous Israeli-Palestinian debates. Also, you're the only Canadian I know who doesn't take my jokes(which they are) as insults, so kudos.

But what you were saying is essentially that the Iraqis should have risen up and overcome Saddam, when you know perfectly well that it would be virtual suicide. And that's why I compared it to Holocaust victims - how are people expected to legitimately rebel against overwhelming, insurmoutable forces without outside help?

I'm not trying to do a disservice to either country, but I don't think that the argument about these countries pulling themselves up by the boostraps is logical, at least in this situation.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I've been saying since the beginning - it would have been a whole lot easier to send in a black-ops covert team to whack Saddam and his sons rather than invade.

I suppose logic held that it would paint an even darker picture of the United States after the Muslim world realized what happened, and would completely turn them against us, as if we were simply this shadow government pulling the strings, regardless of how evil Saddam was.

To be fair, Allende stole $1 billion in U.S. capital and industry when he nationalized American companies and businesses in Chile, and never compensated us (unlike his counterpart, Juan Peron, who did repay the U.S. when he nationalized businesses). Also, Allende may have been democratically elected, but he won with plurality (if I recall in the 25-30% range). His policies were disastrous for the Chilean economy - he placed all of his eggs in the copper industry, which bottomed out after the end of the Vietnam war (which he boycotted and threw hissy fits about even though it was his countries mealticket). Chile, formerly a prosperous nation that was the beacon of the Alliance for Progress, was turned into an economic disaster courtesy of Allende and his socialist-marxist policies.

Granted, Pinochet was a son of a bitch, and ended up killing off quite a few people formerly in the Allende government. But Chile's economy and society got back on track during and after he left power. I hate to use the expression, "he made the trains run on time." Unfortunately for Chile (and perhaps France should be looking at this as we speak) their socialism essentially ruined industry and business and left workers without jobs and the country bankrupt.

Same type scenario with Mossadeq in Iran - he nationalized (read: stole) British oil refineries in 1951. And with men like that twit Gamal Nassar in Egypt, do you think it would have been better to let them rob our interests and monopolize the oil (as they have done anyways now)?

Again, I concur wholeheartedly with you (glad to see someone else with common sense ) but you know that the majority of the world (read: France, Germany, left in the US, left in Canada, Spain) will completely shit on that, and will probably attempt to sanction any countries involved through the United Nations.

But you acknowledge that he is crazy enough to do such a thing, essentially saying he's not logical in the first place. After all, he claimed he was going to kick our ass in the first Gulf War, and we know how that turned out.

You make it sound like it would be hard to obtain nukes or weapons from Russia or former Soviet satellites, but in reality, they don't even know where much of their stuff is (as has been documented, there have been quite a few Soviet nukes randomly "missing") and have been selling it for quite some time. Weren't the Taliban using old Soviet stock weapons when we came in after 9/11?

See? Had the French public not turned against them and they left, the FLN wouldn't have regained power and turned it into the shithole that it became. Damn France, they just keep fucking up! :p

Well, you see, we had to pay close attention to their (the terrorists) technique's, and study their moves. Then, and only then, were we ready to adopt their own attack method's. [/b][/quote]I'd like to see us use the same strategy as the French in Algeria in the 50's against the FLN...midnight raids, kidnappings, etc, holding indefinitely, torture/intelligence extraction, execution.

Destroys the morale of your enemy, ensures that you get answers, and the French strategy was successful until public opinion turned against them and they were forced to leave. Darn Frenchies.

Then again, had we not abandoned them at Dien Bien Phu, we might have had no need for the Vietnam war. [/b][/quote]I don't know. I mean, I just really don't know. It sounds like the method's would work, and we'd all be happy. But I think we just need to be careful whenever plotting attack, because there is more to it than just winning a battle. Moral comes in to play, I think. I'm sure many govn't nutcases are sitting up in Washington thinking, "If only we could pull an attack on our enemy without risking a full-out war." Now, sure, we could secretly bomb someone, or frame someone, or whatever. But it's just not morally acceptable.

True, it would be a particularly harsh method of warfare, but there comes a point when you are willing to use such tactics to prevent more of your own people from dying, and stopping the enemy. Would it be bloody? Yes. Would people that were innocent probably be wrongly accused, and possibly tortured/killed? Yes. Would it be effective? Yes.