a huge, moderate-conservetive argument on Iraq

[hyperion571]

Well, since I feel like making an impact on this board, I'll post a huge, moderate-conservetive argument on Iraq. Not written by me; it's from board "408" of GameFAQs, the WOT (War on Terrorism) board, a semi-political forum under strict control.

Well, here I go (and to note, I did ask the guy if I could post it elsewhere; he agreed wholeheartedly):


Why Would Any Historically Informed Person Believe the War in Iraq Can't be Won?
From: Finishing_Touch | Posted: 12/9/2006 12:34:47 PM | Message Detail
The more and more I study the current war in Iraq, and the wars within this war, the more it seems apparent to me why the American public seems so ready to call it quits, pack up, and leave it all behind. I mean why not? We did it in Vietnam, we did it in Somalia, and so far as most appear to believe the consequences due to those withdrawals were negligible and not worth discussing or hearing. The U.S government left behind South Vietnam and 1.1 million anti-Communist ARVN soldiers in 1973 and it doomed a small, poverty stricken nation on the Horn of Africa to over a decade of anarchy and civil war. But few seem to care honestly as those are all distant memories or some lonely sliver of text in a history textbook. One would think by the effusive dribble our new Congressmen and women blurt out on almost a daily basis that such betrayals and vile acts of cowardice would be desirable. I've heard things like how we must take our involvement in Iraq 'in a new direction', how this war is 'unwinnable', how it's simply the 'Sunni vs. the Shia and the Shia vs. the Sunni' and how we as a nation should have no part in resolving what we created. But what simply really astounds me are the large quantities of gullible voters willing to believe wild anti-war rhetoric enough to vote for some of the people they did. Voting for a balance of power is just in the sense that one party will not have total control, but voting based solely on what one has heard on our news outlets here on the War in Iraq (numerous polls were showing as the top issue of the 2006 Congressional elections), which undoubtedly is eight out of ten times negative news, is ridiculously blind. If one is willing to call what is happening in Iraq a civil war, as I have since August of last year, then take a look at how these problems have been solved in similar situations, and here's a hint, none were pretty solutions and none involved leaving a massive security vacuum like our newly elected politicians plan to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Past and Current Civil Wars Similar to the One in Iraq

Current Iraq Civil War (August 2005-????)
(www.icasualties.org)
Death Count: 20,819 (updated)
Average Dead per Day: About 45
Average Dead per Year: About 16,499
Probable Cause(s): Lack of security following 2003 invasion, al-Qaeda in Iraq's civilian killing strategies, militias dividing Baghdad along sectarian lines, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (Samarra mosque bombing).
Combatants: al-Qaeda in Iraq, Shi'a militias (Mahdi Army), Sunni insurgents, Iraqi Police Death Squads.

Algerian Civil War (1992-2002)
(http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...0593A19899.htm)
Death Count: 150,000+
Average Dead per Day: 41+
Average Dead per Day (Death Rates Applied to Iraq’s Population): 33+
Average Dead per Year: 15,000+
Average Dead per Year (Death Rates Applied to Iraq’s Population): 12,195
Probable Cause(s): Cancellation of elections by Algerian government due to FIS support, Islamic fundamentalists arrested by the thousands and revolt.
Combatants: Algerian government forces, GIA (Armed Islamic Group), FIS.
Results: National reconciliation process coupled with crushing military blows to the GIA grind the civil war to a near halt.

Now doesn't that sound similar to President Nouri al-Maliki's reconciliation process? Certainly this war is different but the tactics to bring down these insurgencies worked over time. Let’s look at another recent civil war.

(Continued)
---
Xing Daorong-[ER]-There is a path to the top of even the highest mountain.-Afghan Proverb- www.sonsof408.com
From: Master Cilander | Posted: 12/9/2006 12:35:26 PM | Message Detail
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator] {hyperion: MC said "we could just level the place"}
From: Finishing_Touch | Posted: 12/9/2006 12:36:21 PM | Message Detail
Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990)
Death Count: 100,000+
Average Dead per Day: 11
Average Dead per Day (Death Rates Applied to Iraq’s Population): 76
Average Dead per Year: 4,000
Average Dead per Year (Death rates applied to Iraq’s population): 27,652
Probable Cause: Rival Christian and Islamic militias, outside interference in Lebanese politics.
Combatants: Lebanese government forces, Israeli Defense Force, Syrian Government Forces, Hezbollah, Phalange, Fatah, and other militias.
Results: Israel driven out of central Lebanon, Taif Agreement orders expulsion of Syrian forces from Lebanon, violence stalls.

Had a war of this intensity erupted in Iraq like it did in Lebanon the situation would be much more hopeless than it is now, Algeria is the closest comparison, as it represented what will have to happen. An Arab government defeating powerful militias and insurgencies on its own, Israel wasn’t able to stop the violence, Syria was able to when they continued the occupation. How Iraq goes by these standards is up in the air. Let’s take a look at two more recent civil wars to draw comparisons with.

El Salvador Civil War (1980-1992)
Death Count: 75,000+ (8,000 “missing”)+
Average Dead per Day: 17
Average Dead per Day (Death Rates Applied to Iraq’s Population): about 67
Average Dead per Year: 6,250
Average Dead per Year (Death rates applied to Iraq’s population): 24,563
Probable Cause: U.S propping up right-wing military dictatorship which violently suppressed dissent, assassination of Archbishop Oscar Ramero.
Combatants: El Salvador government forces, FMLN guerilla forces.
Results: New constitution and ceasefire in effect since 1992, FMLN allowed to join political process, civilian police force create.

This war was spawned out of government repression, the U.S backed government of El Salvador holding enough power to keep the FMLN from taking control of the country, but the means they went about doing it were gruesome. The Algerian government fought the GIA for ten years, the Syrians fought the Christian militias and the Israelis for nearly fifteen years, and the government of El Salvador fought the FMLN for twelve years, what do these wars have in common? They take a lot of time, but they can be won. One more civil war comparison to make this more accurate.

Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970)
Death Count: 3,000,000+
Average Dead per Day: 2,740
Average Dead per Day (Death Rates Applied to Iraq’s Population): 557
Average Dead per Year: 1,000,000
Average Dead per Year (Death rates applied to Iraq’s population): 203,252
Probable Cause: Biafra province seceding, Nigerian government invasion, guerilla forces and militias breaking out into all out war.
Combatants: Nigerian government forces, Odumegwu Ojukwu lead Biafran rebels and hired mercenaries.
Results: Nigerian government forces slowly crush Biafran resistance, Biafra reinstated as part of Nigeria.

Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005)
Death Count: 1,900,000+
Average Dead per Day: 237
Average Dead per Day (Death Rates Applied to Iraq’s Population): 173
Average Dead per Year: 86,364
Average Dead per Year (Death rates applied to Iraq’s population): 63,039
Probable Cause: Southern Sudan secession war.
Combatants: Sudanese government forces, Sudan People's Liberation Army.
Results: SPLW still holds Southern Sudan and has been granted unofficial autonomy, recent outbreaks of violence still occur as Sudanese troops still occupy parts of South Sudan.

Here is an example of a state within a state solution, something that we may have to settle for in Iraq eventually.

(Continued)
---
Xing Daorong-[ER]-There is a path to the top of even the highest mountain.-Afghan Proverb- www.sonsof408.com

[hyperion571]

From: Finishing_Touch | Posted: 12/9/2006 12:37:03 PM | Message Detail
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would normally like to give people the benefit of the doubt on their credibility in what they are talking about, but facts like these are not made known to the general public because they have little to do with our nation. Obscure statistics in relatively unreported and unremembered civil wars are seldom reported or remembered here in the Western world. People today believe that they should be able to somehow have their cake, eat it too, and then get more to do the same, in a sense, have instant gratification met for all their unrealistic wishes and erroneous predictions.
Most thought this operation in Iraq would be a conventional war to topple a tyrant and a quick mopping up operation afterwards, a step beyond the First Gulf War but nothing on a scale significant enough to produce a violent and tenacious insurgency with it's sights set on the Iraqi Government, Coalition troops, and their own fellow countrymen. We as a nation expected the Iraqis to greet our troops as liberators, and for a short time they did, as the famous images of the toppling statues had shown, but as reality sank in slowly more and more, we knew that we were getting into something we as a nation could not possibly have predicted.

Today we fight not only Sunni Iraqi insurgents, al-Qaeda in Iraq, and ex-Ba'athist insurgents but now we must deal with outlaw Shi'a militias who's sole purpose appears now to kill Sunnis. Because of these unlikely circumstances we have been forced to protect Sunnis that previously rejected the Coalition and even fought against them. Now al-Sadr, al-Sistani, and Hakim run the show on the Shi'a side with the Iraqi government either sitting on the fence or coverty aiding their blood stained endeavors. In al-Anbar the fight has been re-awakened for Ramadi and al-Qeada slowly finds itself on the defensive with 25 of the 31 Sunni tribes there now vowing to kill any insurgent opposing the government or trying to impose it's own brand of law on the people of al-Anbar. Our public's response is to blame everything on Bush, Rumsfeld, and a Republican Congress and push for a troop withdrawal that would undoubtedly complicate this whole mess even further.

If certain users on the anti-war side wish to use the loss of human life at the hands of these bloodthirsty terrorists as a justification for American withdrawal, then consider the fact that some of you (Terran, Thanatos, hatrickpatrick) have downplayed the barbarity and ruthlessness of the "freedom fighters" or outright have supported their actions before this mess came to be as it is now. Now that Shi'a death squads, Sunni insurgents, and militiamen from both sides are slaughtering each other and innocent people en masse what do you have to say for yourselves honestly? Over 3,000 people died due to these thugs last month, and I know you Terran are never one to say that the blood of the innocents constitutes freedom and progress at all.

(Continued)
---
Xing Daorong-[ER]-There is a path to the top of even the highest mountain.-Afghan Proverb- www.sonsof408.com
From: Finishing_Touch | Posted: 12/9/2006 12:37:34 PM | Message Detail
The notion that our military is not capable to smash an insurgency is misleading...more so than just about any other arguments anti-war users have made. Western nations historically have been atrocious at combating significant insurrection movements in colonial territories and in foreign military conflicts, why? Because we, unlike our foes, follow a strict set of rules and guidelines on what you can and cannot do in war, what you can and cannot do with your prisoners, and rules of conduct for invading soldiers. When a largely educated, sizably middle class Western public hears of water boarding, a non-lethal form of torture in CIA prisons they go ballistic, and why? Because the enemies that tried to kill our soldiers aren't being pampered and not treated as according to documents not fit for a paper shredder in reality (Kellogg-Briand Pact, UN Charter, etc...)? The "justice" and "fair treatment" our soldiers get is a kitchen knife slicing through their neck, or a bullet to the head, and all the public can do here is look on with mild expressions of disgust and ignorance?! How do you think the British crushed three separate insurrection movements in Burma? How do you think the South African government under P.W Botha obliterated the anti-apartheid SWAPO insurgency in occupied Namibia in the 1980's? How do you think the Algerian government crushed a civil war and an insurgency in ten years? Well I'll tell you now it wasn't by considering the negligible controversies in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, trusting an immensely corrupt indigenous police force to do our job, and handing out candy to kids. It was done by force, brutal decisive force, force we would be called "Fascists" for using and the insurgents "freedom fighters".

The South Koreans sent in more than twice as many troops into the Vietnam War under Park Chung Hee than we have in Iraq right now, and over the course of more than half a decade of intense warfare they came out with 5,000 dead, nothing compared to what we sustained. Why? The South Koreans were the most hated, despised, feared, and respected force to the Vietminh and the NVA. Did you ever see videos of Vietminh getting chucked out of helicopters if they did not talk to their 'interrogators'? The South Koreans did that and made a fellow captive insurgent watch his comrade die a disgusting death, he began to talk. They served in some of the most combat torn areas of Vietnam, and came out man for man less hurt than our army was. They understood that to allow victory to be an option against an insurgency you must establish a dominant mindset over your enemy by making them scared as hell to fight you or go near you. What Coalition forces are allowed to do in Iraq today is ridiculous compared to the reality of war, armchair policy makers and idealists who have never seen combat wish to re-write the reality of war. That's why we will lose if our strategy does not change quickly. Either introduce elite counter-insurgency unit such as what the Koevet did in Nambia for a "less brutal" mission, do what the Algerians did for a slow and exhausting victory, or do what the British and South Koreans did and establish fear of your armies throughout the nation you occupy. The one answer that never works in combatting insurgencies and terrorism in modern warfare is a premature withdrawal. The decision is up to our policymakers, and far be it for me to say they will do the right thing but I can only pray they will.
---
Xing Daorong-[ER]-There is a path to the top of even the highest mountain.-Afghan Proverb- www.sonsof408.com

[hyperion571]

And...the topic then spiraled into a 100+ post debate. I'm guessing that I can post most of his further replies in the event that someone else posts.
If there is no post limit here...please don't attack me. ;_;

EDIT: Sorry, krylo. As you can see by how many posts it took for FT to post all that originally, gamefaqs doesn't allow much freedom for the forum, and I thought the second post was too long originally. In addition, I don't think that the rules said anything about a post limit.

Meh. Before I came to WoT, I was at forum where there were only 20 posts a day (Loyal2NES also had an existance there). I can wait.

[Krylo]

There's a sixty post limit, but the forums move slow (you probably won't get discussion out of this until tomorrow) and we don't like double posting.

Double posting for length (as above) is fine... but that last post totally could have been edited in. We'll let it go this time, though. 'Cause I'm in a good mood.

[Fifthfiend]

Well just right off the bat:

Current Iraq Civil War (August 2005-????)
(www.icasualties.org)
Death Count: 20,819 (updated)
Average Dead per Day: About 45
Average Dead per Year: About 16,499

Icasualties.org only counts Iraqi deaths that have been reported through the media. As the site itself says, the actual count of fatalities is significantly higher.

How much higher? Well...

Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/)

BALTIMORE, Maryland (CNN) -- War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.

Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.

"Since March 2003, an additional 2.5 percent of Iraq's population have died above what would have occurred without conflict," according to the survey of Iraqi households, titled "The Human Cost of the War in Iraq."

The survey, being published online by British medical journal The Lancet, gives a far higher number of deaths in Iraq than other organizations.

The report's release came as nearly four dozen Baghdad civilians became casualties in another day of bombs and gunfire.
President Bush slammed the report Wednesday during a news conference in the White House Rose Garden. "I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does Gen. (George) Casey," he said, referring to the top ranking U.S. military official in Iraq, "and neither do Iraqi officials."

"The methodology is pretty well discredited," he added.

Ali Dabbagh, an Iraqi government spokesman, said in a statement that the report "gives exaggerated figures that contradict the simplest rules of accuracy and investigation."

Last December, Bush said that he estimated about 30,000 people had died since the war began.

When pressed whether he stood by that figure Wednesday, he said, "I stand by the figure a lot of innocent people have lost their life. Six hundred thousand -- whatever they guessed at -- is just not credible."

Researchers randomly selected 1,849 households across Iraq and asked questions about births and deaths and migration for the study led by Gilbert Burnham of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. The Center for International Studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology cooperated.

They extrapolated the figures to reflect the national picture, saying Iraq's death rate had more than doubled since the invasion.

On Wednesday, Burnham defended his team's methodology, saying it was the standard used in developing countries to survey for HIV and other major health issues he said. In 87 of the interviews conducted, the researchers asked for death certificates, and people were able to produce one 92 percent of the time, he said.

In 13 percent of the interviews, the researchers had forgotten to ask for certificates, he said.

The report said that Iraqis "bear the consequence of warfare" and compared the situation with other wars: "In the Vietnam War, 3 million civilians died; in the Congo, armed conflict has been responsible for 3.8 million deaths; in East Timor, an estimated 200,000 out of a population of 800,000 died in conflict.

"Recent estimates are that 200,000 have died in Darfur [Sudan] over the past 31 months. Our data, which estimate that 654,965 or 2.5 percent of the Iraqi population has died in this, the largest major international conflict of the 21st century, should be of grave concern to everyone."

The researchers estimated that an additional 654,965 people have died in Iraq since the invasion above what would have been expected from the pre-war mortality rate. They did not ask families whether their dead were civilians or fighters.

Violence claimed about 601,000 people, the survey estimated -- the majority killed by gunfire, "though deaths from car bombing have increased from 2005," the study says.

The additional 53,000 people who are believed to have been killed by the effects of the war mostly died in recent months, "suggesting a worsening of health status and access to health care," the study said. It noted, however, that the number of nonviolent deaths "is too small to reach definitive conclusions."

Other key points in the survey:

# The number of people dying in Iraq has risen each year since March 2003.

# Those killed are predominantly males aged 15-44.

# Deaths attributed to coalition forces accounted for 31 percent of the dead.

# Although the "proportion of deaths ascribed to coalition forces has diminished in 2006 ... the actual numbers have increased each year."

Burnham said the confidence interval of the data put the range of the number of deaths between 400,000 and 900,000. He suggested the media should not get too focused on the 655,000 number.

Professionals familiar with such research told CNN that the survey's methodology is sound.

It has been very difficult to pin down fatality numbers during the Iraq conflict.

The private British-based Iraq Body Count research group puts the number of civilian deaths at between 43,850 and 48,693. Those figures are based on online media counts and eyewitness accounts.

"The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks)," the group's Web site says. "It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion."

The latest estimates were released less than a month ahead of U.S. midterm elections that could change the balance of power in the House and Senate, now controlled by Republicans.

You can believe Bush's assertions about Lancet being "not credible" if you like, but it's pretty much the same methodology used to estimate the death count in every single other incident you cite above. If anything I've always been inclined to take the estimates as a lowball number, as one of the shortfalls they run up against conducting these surveys is they can't even get into the areas of Iraq that are the most violent.

On another note - Hyperion, huge, moderate-conservative arguments on Iraq are fine and well (well I mean, I don't agree with any part of them, but that shouldn't be any kind of deterrent to posting them), but thread titles that give no indication as to the actual content of a thread are somewhat frowned upon. Thread title and first post edited in keeping with that, and do bear that in mind for future posting.

[hyperion571]

Meh. I'm not so sure about it's credibility. Seeing as how much the news reports on Iraq, I think they have most death covered. Then again, seeing your sig, I think you might place more faith in it than me (I'm an atheist, but moderate).
Here's FT says to various arguements, in case someone wants to use them. The topic went on for quite some time, so you can still respond.

From: Finishing_Touch | Posted: 12/9/2006 1:18:02 PM | Message Detail
Any conflict is winnable, but how probable that win is and the cost of the win is something to take into effect. As for the former, how likely is this conflict to be won in Iraq? Most objective people would say: very unlikely. Especially if we continue down the same path with the same strategy as this administration is intent on doing, we'll lower our chances until there is practically none left. I hate Bush's stubborn refusal to even consider certain options, hopefully you feel the same too.

If you have read the news about the Iraq Study Group's 79 recommendations to Iraq policy and Bush's reaction to it you would know he has all options on the table in his mind now. The plan called for a brief escalation of troops in Iraq to train Iraqi Security Forces and a withdrawal of all combat forces by the first quarter of 2008, Special Ops and advisory personnal exempt.

As for the latter, as an addendum to that point, certainly we must take into the cost of losing and the necessity of a win. However, unlike the poster from that other topic, I dont consider it automatic that we lose if we pull out most of our troops. So therefore such questions of cost and necessity are besides the point and assumes a false reality

I consider it a loss if we withdraw, as do many, what else is it to our enemies and the people we are obligated to protect? To pull out most of our troops and leave training personnal and Special Forces may be very well a decent option but we do not know yet what effect that will have.

We are very very likely going to lose Iraq.

With the way our politicians are thinking today I agree, it is a regrettable unwritten law that comes with Western military invention, 'if it becomes too tough then we leave'.

To make the best of the situation, we must plan for objective reality, which is that we'll lose and we must cut our losses. Certainly by some miracle we may still yet win, but that is too unlikely a scenario to put above planning a withdrawal. If the reality on the ground doesnt change, if Bush doesnt adopt a radically different approach, then I see no reason why rational people must go down with the ship. If Iraq's going to drown, its going to take everyone around it with it. I dont want the US to be in its grip when that happens, we must plan to pull out and cut our losses.

Even with the current strategy victory is a distant possibility, all we would have to do is stay there for a long time and grind down the insurgents and death squads until they realized there was no hope at taking the Coalition troops. I don't believe this is the best option, we should improve the quality and quantity of Iraqi Security Forces, and try and isolate militia tied members from their militias. And for the record being a rational person does not comply with abandoning 27 million people to violence and anarchy on levels that surpass present levels if you could imagine, and dooming regional powers in the Middle East into violence that will undoubtedly spill over.

Thats not quitting, thats being pragmatic

Pragmatism implies you base your philosophy on lessons learned in history, your plan would be repeating a broken tactic we tried in Vietnam and Somalia.
---
Xing Daorong-[ER]-There is a path to the top of even the highest mountain.-Afghan Proverb- www.sonsof408.com
From: Finishing_Touch | Posted: 12/9/2006 1:18:16 PM | Message Detail
The other side of the coin is that Iraq's too important to lose and the catastrophic affect of losing would be dire for the US. That may be so, but I dont believe that Iraq would be totally lost if we pull out most troops. Therefore, any debate into losing the war and being bad must take that into account, or else its simply not with arguing over for me

This is a much more acceptable argument to me at least, you are not an 'all-or nothing' anti-war user in the sense that you would want less troops and different types of trooops to handle Iraq. But even then I disagree, if this is going to work we will be there for a very long time.
---
Xing Daorong-[ER]-There is a path to the top of even the highest mountain.-Afghan Proverb- www.sonsof408.com
From: Finishing_Touch | Posted: 12/9/2006 1:25:11 PM | Message Detail
So, Iraq is winnable, but only if we sink to the depths of the dictator we removed for doing exactly what you want to occur in Iraq?

It's winnable in a multitude of strategies, that is one of them, and one we must choose soon.

The United States is not a nation of barbarians. We are in compliance with the rule of law, even if our enemies are not.

Why should we bind ourselves to meaningless laws that other choose not to follow? Here's an example of what I mean. The UN passed a bill prohibiting the use of child soldiers, only two nations did not sign, Somalia and the United States (17 year olds can serve with parental consent here, and our most historically decorated soldier joined the army at age 15), yet Myanmar's army consists of tens of thousands of child soldiers, and insurgent groups use children in war as lookouts. We must stoop to their level and treat them the same way they treat us, in the most grisly and shocking manner to their followers so they will see what will happen if we capture them.

It isn't that I don't believe it CAN'T be won. We are more than capable of crushing the insurgency and placing our own puppet government to do our will.

We do not want a puppet regime either, the long term effects would be similar to those of the Shah in Iran.

Do we have the willpower to do it? No.

Of course not we are white middle class Westerners who are squemish to look at pictures from even an unpleasant car accident in our own nations why would we be patient enough to shed blood for others?

As far as wars are concerned, we stopped waging war back in the 40s in exchange for "police actions." Another problem I see is the perpetual casualty count in Iraq. Yes, as military conflicts go we've suffered few casualties. However, with nature of today's news of being the first to break the story, we hear every single casualty occurring everyday. We ARE suffering war fatigue because the perception is outweighing the reality.

That is due to the media's reporting of the War in Iraq, like when CNN aired the sniper shooting a U.S soldier last month. It precipitates war weariness in the homeland, something nations like Russia do not allow when they fight like they are in Chechnya.

Of course I want tactics to change in Iraq. What that would require is warmaking as determined by the generals in Iraq, not this zero casualty/collateral damage campaigning. More troops would be nice, but that's like putting more cops on the street and expecting crime levels to drop (more arrests =/= less crime). I don't support a pullout because it doesn't look like the Iraqi government can handle the situation in its own country.

I can understand this argument, but what strategy would you want in the long term?
---
Xing Daorong-[ER]-There is a path to the top of even the highest mountain.-Afghan Proverb- www.sonsof408.com



but thread titles that give no indication as to the actual content of a thread are somewhat frowned upon. Thread title and first post edited in keeping with that, and do bear that in mind for future posting.

Sorry 'bout that. The mods don't like when people "plagerize" other's posts, so I thought I would add that introduction. Actually, not asking permission when posting something is about as good for you as having Mossad agents on your tail...

[Krylo]

Call me crazy but once you start suggesting using children as lookouts and meat shields, you've pretty much lost all credibility.

I mean, that's just me.

You know, like he did here: yet Myanmar's army consists of tens of thousands of child soldiers, and insurgent groups use children in war as lookouts. We must stoop to their level and treat them the same way they treat us, in the most grisly and shocking manner to their followers so they will see what will happen if we capture them.

Same goes for suggesting torture and other things. I mean, we can talk about doing anything to win all we want, but what ever happened to 'when you look into the abyss the abyss also looks into you' and 'those who fight monsters should take care not to become one'? What's the point of winning a war against 'evil' if, in the process, we become no better than that which we fought?

[hyperion571]

Call me crazy but once you start suggesting using children as lookouts and meat shields, you've pretty much lost all credibility.

I mean, that's just me.

You know, like he did here:

Same goes for suggesting torture and other things. I mean, we can talk about doing anything to win all we want, but what ever happened to 'when you look into the abyss the abyss also looks into you' and 'those who fight monsters should take care not to become one'? What's the point of winning a war against 'evil' if, in the process, we become no better than that which we fought?

He didn't suggest that we use them; to be frank, it's better to use trained soldiers than children. Also, we arn't that depleted when it comes to numbers.

I might add, there is no good and evil. FT more/less proposes that we stoop to their level when fighting them. That doesn't mean that we go into marketplaces and blow people up. It means we toture and kill the ones who do that.

It's controversal, like I said. I'm closer to being a total centrist, so I don't support FT totally. Many arguements involved Israel's policy of demolishing the homes of suicide bombers early in the Second Intifada. I don't agree with this; it's a totally different scenerio. Here's one of his views:


"Oh but there is a way to win Cthulu , the South Africans occupied Namibia for over seven decades and were fought tooth and nail by the indigenous population on more than one occasion. The last president of South Africa under the Apartheid system, Pieter Wilem Botha, while being an admittedly racist bastard was an innovator in the field of counter-insurgency warfare. He formed a group of elite South African officers with combat experience to lead highly trained bands of native Namibian troops known as the Koevet. They destroyed a tenacious insurgency (SWAPO) in five years as opposed to the decades it took the South African Army to temporarily pacify Namibia. If we escalated the war to 600,000 troops as you suggest won’t work the war would end rapidly in our favor, massive amounts of combat operations coupled with a pickup in infrastructure development would seal the fate of the insurgents and militias as viable protectors. That will not happen; therefore we must find an alternate solution to this, one that does not involve withdrawal or utter annihilation of Iraq."

[Fifthfiend]

I'm not so sure about it's credibility. Seeing as how much the news reports on Iraq, I think they have most death covered.

Like I said, you can be sure of what you like, but then you should probably be revising down the death count in every single other incident you cited by a factor of twenty, cause they get those numbers the same way.

You can't travel down the road to the airport in Iraq without fifteen thousand dollar's worth of armed guards, I can't imagine how some brigade of reporters is supposed to be criss-crossing the country at will tallying up every new body.

Anyway, working my way down the list:

Because we, unlike our foes, follow a strict set of rules and guidelines on what you can and cannot do in war, what you can and cannot do with your prisoners, and rules of conduct for invading soldiers. When a largely educated, sizably middle class Western public hears of water boarding, a non-lethal form of torture in CIA prisons they go ballistic, and why? Because the enemies that tried to kill our soldiers aren't being pampered and not treated as according to documents not fit for a paper shredder in reality (Kellogg-Briand Pact, UN Charter, etc...)? The "justice" and "fair treatment" our soldiers get is a kitchen knife slicing through their neck, or a bullet to the head, and all the public can do here is look on with mild expressions of disgust and ignorance?!

Um, they go ballistic because it's torture, which is utterly repugnant and absolutely depraved. Ballistic because they "aren't being pampered"? No, to the extent that people go ballistic over people being tortured, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with those people not being pampered, and everything to do with those people being tortured.

Oh and also: Torture doesn't work (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showpost.php?p=438448&postcount=9). Not at all, ever, even a little (http://forum.nuklearpower.com/showpost.php?p=439586&postcount=17).

[hyperion571]

Um, they go ballistic because it's torture, which is utterly repugnant and absolutely depraved. Ballistic because they "aren't being pampered"? No, to the extent that people go ballistic over people being tortured, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with those people not being pampered, and everything to do with those people being tortured.

I remember a Saudi posting a song mocking Syria. I remember one part (this is very inaccurate, but I didn't memorize it): "Yesterday an American kicked my ***, and I just smiled, because he'll be screaming in a cell".

FT's more/less saying "Do it to us, we'll do it to you". And I agree.

Oh and also: Torture doesn't work. Not at all, ever, even a little.

If that's what you think, and I can't convince you otherwise, through the countless times in history where toture has worked, then this discussion on torture ends. Months of WoTing have taught me that forums lack a "teach" or (for trolls) "stab" button. ;)

[Fifthfiend]

If that's what you think

What I think? No, it's what CIA interrogators, Soviet dissidents who themselves endured torture, and Army intelligence officers think, which is pretty exhaustively gone over in the two posts to which I just linked. If you're going to "teach" me where I'm supposed to toss all of that out the window, you're going to have to do a whole lot better than vague, unsourced intimations about some point or another in ancient history during which every single reason why torture fails to work had somehow not yet come to apply.

[hyperion571]

What I think? No, it's what CIA interrogators, Soviet dissidents who themselves endured torture, and Army intelligence officers think, which is pretty exhaustively gone over in the two posts to which I just linked. If you're going to "teach" me where I'm supposed to toss all of that out the window, you're going to have to do a whole lot better than vague, unsourced intimations about some point or another in ancient history during which every single reason why torture fails to work had somehow not yet come to apply.

I'm sorry, but Frederick the Great, Alexander the Great, various terrorist cells, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and several million others (many who are now dead) would disagree with that. And I don't mean "teach" you, I mean the various others who wander into WoT saying "ZOMG BUSH IS TEH SUXXORS! (we get this alot, and I will sadly admit that I said something along the lines of that when I first arrived), or, worse, the religious right (very rare, but very annoying when it comes along).

While I will say that torture generally doesn't work, it can. Taken directly from the initial arguement:
"The South Koreans sent in more than twice as many troops into the Vietnam War under Park Chung Hee than we have in Iraq right now, and over the course of more than half a decade of intense warfare they came out with 5,000 dead, nothing compared to what we sustained. Why? The South Koreans were the most hated, despised, feared, and respected force to the Vietminh and the NVA. Did you ever see videos of Vietminh getting chucked out of helicopters if they did not talk to their 'interrogators'? The South Koreans did that and made a fellow captive insurgent watch his comrade die a disgusting death, he began to talk. They served in some of the most combat torn areas of Vietnam, and came out man for man less hurt than our army was. They understood that to allow victory to be an option against an insurgency you must establish a dominant mindset over your enemy by making them scared as hell to fight you or go near you."

"When Guy Fawkes was arrested for his role in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 he was tortured until he revealed all he knew about the plot. This was not so much to extract a confession, which was not needed to prove his guilt, but to extract from him the names of his fellow conspirators. By this time torture was not routine in England and a special warrant from King James I was needed before he could be tortured."-Wikipedia, Ethics of torture

Look, it's 3:00 AM. Let me track down FT to respond to you, although he's often not on. I'll make an ATTN: topic on WoT, then crash. Good night.

[Tydeus]

Hyperion, I must absolutely, and without qualification or reservation side with fifthfiend regarding torture. It's unacceptable, and it is basically useless. Hell, even the Romans established under Justinian that torture could not be used in the courts to prove guilt. Even when torture was more commonplace in Rome, people at least knew to take the information gathered with a grain of salt, and indeed try to find information from other sources. Are you really saying that you don't think we can or should live up to a moral standard that's over 1500 years old? That we should simply revert to the Dark Ages, and forget the progression of civilization?

That would be pathetic and shameful. If we cannot win a war without becoming monsters, without treating human beings in the most sadistic and degrading manners we can think of, then we should not have started such a war, and do not deserve to win it.

Briefly, regarding fifth's taking issue with the death count -- I gotta agree with fifth again. Though hyperion's figure doesn't start the death toll until August 2005, the tally still seems awfully low, unless you're somehow suggesting that the first two years of the war were twenty times more lethal than the last one-and-a-half, despite the fact that hostilities have in fact escalated recently.

Oddly, I'm a bit of a fascist myself, and quite in favor of raising troop levels dramatically, and digging in for the long haul. I just think that there must be some moral purpose behind such actions, or we are merely greedy, self-interested tyrants. I would gladly have us be Imperial, and I would gladly be Imperator myself (because I'm something of a megalomaniac), but, of course, one must remember the archetype of the benevolent Dictator -- Caesar. He did what was necessary -- no more. Now, of course, in his time, there was much more that was acceptable, and torture was not frowned upon, and such brutality was commonly held to be necessary. And it probably was -- he had to control a nation that it took him weeks to traverse. His rule had to be more iron-fisted.

Point is, Caesar did what he considered necessary and did no more. He knew the moral, personal, and political cost of superfluous brutality. Listen -- I'm all in favor of slaughter, if it's necessary. But, problem is, torture's never, ever necessary. If anything, it's counter-productive. Iraqis are not impressed or scared of torture -- it's nothing new to them. But they would be impressed and inspired by a morally upstanding army, disciplined and ethically bound like none they've ever seen before.

We aim to be liberators, we aim to be masons, laying a foundation of democracy strong enough to weather any disaster. Instead, we are fast becoming thugs and bandits, and little more.

Might I suggest, Hyperion, that you take a peek at the "Big Thread O' Iraq" further down on the Discussion page? for your convienience, fifthfiend and I have already compiled two pages of debate, which produced an agreement on the best course of action in Iraq, which I think is pretty hard to argue with, especially considering that a pansy pinko hippie liberal like fifth and a corporate fascist capitalist pig like me could agree on it.

[Fifthfiend]

You know not that I much go in for labels, but inasmuch as they've already been used I sort of keep coming back to the same question on this - by what standard is it that this is somehow supposed to be a moderate-conservative position on Iraq? I mean hyperion, you're arguing for what, here? Or I mean, some guy on Gamefaqs for whom you're arguing is arguing, or whatever. Child soldiers? Legitimized torture? Basically unrestrained, unrepentant slaughter? I mean just for point of reference, what exactly would you propose an extreme-conservative argument is supposed to look like - concentration camps? Nuclear holocaust? What?

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

You know not that I much go in for labels, but inasmuch as they've already been used I sort of keep coming back to the same question on this - by what standard is it that this is somehow supposed to be a moderate-conservative position on Iraq? I mean hyperion, you're arguing for what, here? Or I mean, some guy on Gamefaqs for whom you're arguing is arguing, or whatever. Child soldiers? Legitimized torture? Basically unrestrained, unrepentant slaughter? I mean just for point of reference, what exactly would you propose an extreme-conservative argument is supposed to look like - concentration camps? Nuclear holocaust? What?

Fifth's got a point here. I consider myself a moderate conservative, and I agree with very little (or anything) that is being said here by hyperion. Even more unusual, I find myself in a unique position of understanding some of what Tydeus was saying (ladies and gentlemen, hell has just frozen over).

Most of us moderate conservative types believe that the initial war was justified, but its gone way past that point. Conservatives also typically believe that they are "the good guys" and generally try not to do, or support, things that allow them that illusion. So how is stooping to the level of a sociopath like Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam a conservative view, much less a moderate one at that? I really fail to see anything that you proposed that is either accurate of a conservative position, or acceptable in Western society.

[Dragonsbane]

Call me crazy but once you start suggesting using children as lookouts and meat shields, you've pretty much lost all credibility.

I mean, that's just me.

You know, like he did here:

Same goes for suggesting torture and other things. I mean, we can talk about doing anything to win all we want, but what ever happened to 'when you look into the abyss the abyss also looks into you' and 'those who fight monsters should take care not to become one'? What's the point of winning a war against 'evil' if, in the process, we become no better than that which we fought?
He didn't suggest that we use them; to be frank, it's better to use trained soldiers than children. Also, we arn't that depleted when it comes to numbers.

I might add, there is no good and evil. FT more/less proposes that we stoop to their level when fighting them. That doesn't mean that we go into marketplaces and blow people up. It means we toture and kill the ones who do that.

It's controversal, like I said. I'm closer to being a total centrist, so I don't support FT totally. Many arguements involved Israel's policy of demolishing the homes of suicide bombers early in the Second Intifada. I don't agree with this; it's a totally different scenerio. Here's one of his views:


"Oh but there is a way to win Cthulu , the South Africans occupied Namibia for over seven decades and were fought tooth and nail by the indigenous population on more than one occasion. The last president of South Africa under the Apartheid system, Pieter Wilem Botha, while being an admittedly racist bastard was an innovator in the field of counter-insurgency warfare. He formed a group of elite South African officers with combat experience to lead highly trained bands of native Namibian troops known as the Koevet. They destroyed a tenacious insurgency (SWAPO) in five years as opposed to the decades it took the South African Army to temporarily pacify Namibia. If we escalated the war to 600,000 troops as you suggest won’t work the war would end rapidly in our favor, massive amounts of combat operations coupled with a pickup in infrastructure development would seal the fate of the insurgents and militias as viable protectors. That will not happen; therefore we must find an alternate solution to this, one that does not involve withdrawal or utter annihilation of Iraq."

Nietzche, whom Krylo was quoting, was correct. If we must stoop to the level of our enemies to win, then we did not deserve the victory in the first place. Besides, I tend to look askance at anyone suggesting we use the tactics of Pieter Wilem Botha, and the caveat of "but of course that will not happen" is absolutely no comfort.

Um, they go ballistic because it's torture, which is utterly repugnant and absolutely depraved. Ballistic because they "aren't being pampered"? No, to the extent that people go ballistic over people being tortured, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with those people not being pampered, and everything to do with those people being tortured.

I remember a Saudi posting a song mocking Syria. I remember one part (this is very inaccurate, but I didn't memorize it): "Yesterday an American kicked my ***, and I just smiled, because he'll be screaming in a cell".

FT's more/less saying "Do it to us, we'll do it to you". And I agree.

Oh and also: Torture doesn't work. Not at all, ever, even a little.

If that's what you think, and I can't convince you otherwise, through the countless times in history where toture has worked, then this discussion on torture ends. Months of WoTing have taught me that forums lack a "teach" or (for trolls) "stab" button. ;)

...and Ghandi aptly said "an eye for an eye, and all the world is blind."

Actually, torture is effective only in getting confessions, not for actually solving crimes or separating the innocent from the guilty. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in the past.

[hyperion571]

"Hyperion, I must absolutely, and without qualification or reservation side with fifthfiend regarding torture. It's unacceptable, and it is basically useless. Hell, even the Romans established under Justinian that torture could not be used in the courts to prove guilt. Even when torture was more commonplace in Rome, people at least knew to take the information gathered with a grain of salt, and indeed try to find information from other sources. Are you really saying that you don't think we can or should live up to a moral standard that's over 1500 years old? That we should simply revert to the Dark Ages, and forget the progression of civilization?"

Calm down. I didn't say that we should use a constant stream of torture against every single one of our enemies. I suggested that if we capture someone who directs suicide bombings against civilians, we be given a blank check on what we can do with them. I might add, that that study is not perfect. I will admit that torture is rather useless. However, look at technology in 10-20 years, and it's back in fighting.

"That would be pathetic and shameful. If we cannot win a war without becoming monsters, without treating human beings in the most sadistic and degrading manners we can think of, then we should not have started such a war, and do not deserve to win it."

Original point. Entering a marketplace full of random innocents for the sole purpose of blowing them up isn't very far from being a "sadistic and degrading monster".

"Briefly, regarding fifth's taking issue with the death count -- I gotta agree with fifth again. Though hyperion's figure doesn't start the death toll until August 2005, the tally still seems awfully low, unless you're somehow suggesting that the first two years of the war were twenty times more lethal than the last one-and-a-half, despite the fact that hostilities have in fact escalated recently."

We're not talking about total war. For example, look at Japanese actions in China during WWII. Unit 731? Nanjing? Meant to inspire fear. Instead inspired anger, resistance, etc. However, there's a massive difference. We have more support than our enemies. Our main problem is the fact that everyone's demanding a pull-out.

If you want to see brutal, that's nothing. Brutal is using planes indiscriminatly against our enemies.

"We aim to be liberators, we aim to be masons, laying a foundation of democracy strong enough to weather any disaster. Instead, we are fast becoming thugs and bandits, and little more."

Thugs and bandits? -_-

[I]If we must stoop to the level of our enemies to win, then we did not deserve the victory in the first place.

And if we can get the best results for a nation by stooping to that level, it isn't worth it?

...and Ghandi aptly said "an eye for an eye, and all the world is blind."
If you want for us to desend to the level of a suicide bomber, that's easily done. 1. Planes move. 2. ??? 3. (Lack of) Profit!

"Same goes for suggesting torture and other things. I mean, we can talk about doing anything to win all we want, but what ever happened to 'when you look into the abyss the abyss also looks into you' and 'those who fight monsters should take care not to become one'? What's the point of winning a war against 'evil' if, in the process, we become no better than that which we fought?"

*Sigh*
Because we arn't torturing many people.
I will admit though, my ideas have too many flaws for them to be implanted with precision. As I stated, the knowledge that someone might cut you up alive if you fight them can either drive you to hide- or fight.

[Tydeus]

And if we can get the best results for our
nation by stooping to that level, it isn't worth it?

There. I fixed it for you. Because, really, this is what you mean, isn't it? If we crush resistance under our remorseless iron heel, there shall be enough of an illusion of stability for us to make an "honorable" exit. We shall again remember the power of war, and perhaps lose some of our resistance to its use, to brutality's application, if we again experiene "success."

What kind of depraved society would we leave behind? Fear works only as a prelude. Problem is, we aren't conquerors (unfortunately -- I'd much rather have Iraq made the 51st state myself), and brutality would be prelude simply to more brutality. Iraq cannot benefit from iron-fisted rule under our cowardly model of "nation building." You know how many years it will be before Iraqis are ready to rule themselves? Probably at least twenty, maybe forty or fifty.

Your system of petty retribution, of declaring human beings as inhuman (lying, essentially), of ignoring what drives people to awful acts, of immaturity, of revenge (what purpose does it ever serve? Remind me?) has no end. As long as wrongs are committed, wrongs will be committed in turn. How long could we maintain this? How does this lead to progress? How would Iraqis not learn to integrate this into their society themselves? How would we not learn to integrate this into our society?

There is strict rule, and there is depravity. You recommend the latter. I recommend the former. Many troops, and harsh penalities, but reasonable ones. Ones aimed not at "righting wrongs" or similar bullshit, but at producing ends. Desirable ones. Torture is counter-productive. History shows us that. It has very, very little value other than to induce innocent people to incriminate themselves. I believe in justice. I would rather my nation fail than "succeed" in such an interminably unjust and ultimately harmful fashion.