Y'all are a bunch of wankers!

yep.  this is why we kicked their ass.


I have noticed that the arabs apparently cant run a decent, centralised, efficient, effective war to save their lives.

but they _can_ run a brilliant distributed campaign.

the same things that make them such hopeless soldiers in a centralised army, apparently make them very effective in a distributed one.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 2nd, 2007 3:37am
It's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" all over again! Next thing you know, Open Source won't be labeled as communist anymore, now it's terrorist.
Permalink Send private email a2800276 
July 2nd, 2007 4:35am
Yup, December 1999.  BEFORE the Iraq war, but after the Kuwait war.

I don't think they make very effective 'distributed' warriors either.  They've ONLY managed to kill 3,000 US soldiers out of 100,000 possible targets, after all, in FOUR YEARS.

Shoot, at that rate, old age will take out the opposing army before the Iraqi's will.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 2nd, 2007 7:43am
I wouldn't make light of the casualty numbers. We considered our 258 out of around 15,000, a very high rate of casualties, and that's lower in percentage terms. Of course, that was over less than 2 months.

The key thing though, is whether the casualties are enough to sap the nation's will.  Clearly US casualties in Iraq have been - and that's why the insurgents are winning.
Permalink s 
July 2nd, 2007 8:03am
Yeah, we heard LOTS of "sap the nation's will" about Viet-Nam too.  And the issue was similar there.

Which is -- you're backing a solution which can't possibly work, given the people on the ground.  It's not about "will" -- that's just politicians complaining that their latest fuck-up is being called a fuck-up.  The politicians would LOVE to keep escalating the situation with additional force -- that's the Gambler's Fallacy after all -- if ONLY I had a little more money, I could turn this losing situation into a win.

Except in a war, it's not money you're losing, it's people's lives -- and especially, what OTHER situation you can't correct (like Afghanistan) because you're fully committed to a cluster-fuck (Iraq or Viet-Nam).

The Nation's Will is completely committed to defense against Terrorism.  The problem is the war in Iraq is spawning terrorists.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 2nd, 2007 8:54am
Yes Iraq is spawning terrorists.

Yes the particular methods used in Iraq are spawning more terrorists than subtler methods. American forces really ought to listen to the Brits on this one.  Compare Malaya or Kenya, to Vietnam,  or Northern Ireland to Baghdad.

But the real fundamental problem is that the Iraq war was never properly justified, to the world, to the domestic public, or to the Iraqis in the first place.  This is much more apparent in the UK: Over here the problem isn't the casualties, we accept casualties happen in wars more so than most other Western countries, but rather the fact that we're involved in what is perceived as an unnecessary war in Iraq.
Permalink s 
July 2nd, 2007 9:00am
Well said, 's'.  Though I might add that the Iraqi war wasn't sufficiently justified (even WITH the "mushroom clouds over New York City"?  You didn't buy that?) because it couldn't be sufficiently justified.

The more truth came out, the more it would appear to be a good thing to have Saddam Hussein sitting on the heads of his Sunis and Shiites and maintaining a dictatorship.  Compared to the alternative, anyway.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 2nd, 2007 9:07am
There's nothing wrong in Iraq that couldn't be solved by nuking them.  Nuke them until even the cockroaches stop twitching, then a little more just to be safe.

The present army is the wrong instrument to handle this.  It either needs to be managed as a diplomatic and law enforcement situation, or we need to kill every last military aged male in the country.  Conquest or cooperation are the only options that are going to work, and I think it's way too late for the cooperation option.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
July 2nd, 2007 9:36am
True.  Except "we saved them by killing them all" is way too 1984'ish even for THIS administration.

Except for Lieberman -- for some reason, he's willing to state publically that a first strike on Iran would be a good thing.  I think he's been drinking the kool-aid too much.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 2nd, 2007 9:45am
We should stage a mock trial before we nuke them. Like in Planet of The Apes. That would be awesome.
Permalink anoneemouse 
July 2nd, 2007 9:45am
It's funny, but "disarming Iraq" has never been proposed as a solution, I wonder why?

I mean, even at a wedding there's 20 or 30 guys firing AK-47's into the air.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 2nd, 2007 9:46am
I don't think they'll hand anyone their AK just because they ask nicely.

What would happen if you tried to disarm Alabama?
Permalink JoC 
July 2nd, 2007 10:17am
> It's funny, but "disarming Iraq" has never been proposed as a solution, I wonder why?

That what happens when the NRA is in government!
Permalink s 
July 2nd, 2007 10:23am
True, but Alabama doesn't have a group of hard-core militarists firing their AK-47's in the air.  Even for the 4th of July they don't get out their shot-guns and fire into the air.

Nor do they have two different militias, driving around in their SUV's and shooting each other up with their AK-47's.  I think if they DID start behaving that way, the National Guard would not have much hesitation to start...

Hey, wait a minute!  Fully automatic AK-47's ARE illegal in the US!  We've ALREAY removed them from the populace.

Why can't the Iraqi's... be more like Us?
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 2nd, 2007 10:33am
The stuff about needing an AK to protect yourself from a tyrannical state or heavily armed criminals is bullshit in the US.  It's not enough firepower to stop the state, and I've never heard of a crime (except on snopes) being stopped using a semi or fully automatic weapon.

In Iraq however, neither argument is bullshit.  Ask the Kurds.

In any case, it's not AKs that the insurgents are using.  It's roadside bombs.  Trust me, if all the Iraqis who owned AKs were opening up on coalition forces, we'd have orders of magnitude more casualties.
Permalink s 
July 2nd, 2007 10:40am
> I have noticed that the arabs apparently cant run a decent

Oh, I don't know about that.
Permalink Xerxes 
July 2nd, 2007 10:56am
Xerxes had PERSIANS, not Arabs.

And the Greeks still kicked his ass, so Western Civilization rocks, y'all.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 2nd, 2007 11:13am
> Xerxes had PERSIANS

Only persians make that distinction. Our empire was vast. One of the largest in history.

> Greeks still kicked his ass,

A minor battle. Barely noticed in the empire.
Permalink Xerxes 
July 2nd, 2007 11:16am
At the time of Xerxes, the Arabs were you know, sitting around playing boce with camel balls in Arabia. Syrians, Anatolians, Babylonians were not Arab.
Permalink Send private email strawberry soubriquet 
July 2nd, 2007 11:29am
Arabs culturally no good at organized warfare?

Hmmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Age_of_Caliphs.png

Don't forget the 2 strongest military powers of the day stood in their way when they did that. They conquered one and crippled the other.
Permalink s 
July 2nd, 2007 11:35am
Wow, that looks like about half of the "known world".

Yet they lost it all, or most of it.  I wonder how THAT happened?
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 2nd, 2007 12:49pm
They only lost some of it.  The peripheries in Spain and Persia.  The rest, and then some, is still ruled by Arabs.

All empires decline and fall eventually, but the Arabs left a pretty deep mark across their entire domain.
Permalink s 
July 2nd, 2007 1:01pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics