Can The War On Terror Be Won?

Timmythemoonpig · January 2005

I mean a terrorist is a human being prepared to kill other innocent human beings for their beliefs right? but the coalition military is indirectly doing just that in Iraq at the moment....the line is now blurred and those who were sent there to stop torture, oppression and the killing of innocents are now hypocritically doing just those things....those acts cause revenge...and so on...how can you win a war against that? with a war?

It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Epidemic · January 2005

Violent attitude begets agression.

Nemesis_Zero · January 2005

To expand the points made above a little before Marine comes in:

Terrorists are, almost by the current definition, nigh to insignificantly small networks of heavily radicallized persons. The notion of a military defeat in the sense of the arrival at a point where the fight is just not sensible anymore is just alien to the underlying philosophy of such fighters. In other words: The only way of achieving military victory over them is to kill every last one of them, which quickly becomes an impossible task when we assume that <i>any</i> army on this planet will create collateral damage, thus almost inevitably radicallizing a nigh to insignificantly small number of people.

Jammer · January 2005

Yes, but it would require a total cultural shift within the Middle East for that to happen. That's Bush's current goal. It remains to be seen if that policy can sustain itself through ungodly amounts of incompetence.

(sup guys <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /> )

Marine0I · January 2005

Nem has it. You cannot win a war on Terror in a conventional sense, any more than you can win a war on crime. No matter how hard you try, no matter how many you arrest, there will always be someone willing to steal/rob etc. What you are really trying to do in a "War on Crime" is to deal swiftly and effectively with the hardest cases, and then create a culture that is not inducive to that behaviour. This will require reorganisation of the police force, and a continued and ongoing commitment - which may reduce the problem to tolerable levels, but you'll never get rid of it completely.

In the same way, GWB feels he is dealing with the toughest cases by hitting Afghanistan and Iraq, stripping away places of support for terrorists, and then rebuilding them to create levels that do not encourage terrorism. He hopes that success in both will become an example of another working democracy in the Middle East, except this time they will be Muslim's instead of Jews, and other nations will recognise that their countries are dirty little hovels not because of the Jews or the Americans, but because of their leaders. You might not think that plan is working, but that's the GMEI in a nutshell I think.

You might remember GWB saying about a month before the election "I dont think the War on Terror can be won". He was admitting what should have been obvious - you never win this stuff, you just make it real hard for terrorists. I'm just glad he took it back and didnt try to clarify what he meant, or he probably woulda let the cat out of the bag and told them how terorrism is a plot by Bushitler, halliburton etc to kill asians by using explosions in Iraq to put gaia out of alignment and send huge waves onto indonesia etc. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

EDIT something that I think bears pointing out Nem - a lot of these fanatics dont need their house destroyed at all to be radicalised. Those Saudi Arabian 9/11 terrorists were rich, and had nothing personal against the US. Many of the Palestinian terrorists get their house bulldozed <b>after</b> redecorating a market.

Silicon · January 2005

Has the war on drugs been won?

Timmythemoonpig · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Nem has it. You cannot win a war on Terror in a conventional sense, any more than you can win a war on crime. No matter how hard you try, no matter how many you arrest, there will always be someone willing to steal/rob etc. What you are really trying to do in a "War on Crime" is to deal swiftly and effectively with the hardest cases, and then create a culture that is not inducive to that behaviour. This will require reorganisation of the police force, and a continued and ongoing commitment - which may reduce the problem to tolerable levels, but you'll never get rid of it completely.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The more you throw at crime the more it will go down. Fighting terrorism is not the same. It should be done with a surgical approach, not a big blunt object like what is happening now. Theres no such thing as a tolerable level in terrorism, there's been peace in Northern Ireland, one single small bomb shatters that.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In the same way, GWB feels he is dealing with the toughest cases by hitting Afghanistan and Iraq, stripping away places of support for terrorists, and then rebuilding them to create levels that do not encourage terrorism. He hopes that success in both will become an example of another working democracy in the Middle East, except this time they will be Muslim's instead of Jews, and other nations will recognise that their countries are dirty little hovels not because of the Jews or the Americans, but because of their leaders. You might not think that plan is working, but that's the GMEI in a nutshell I think.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

On paper that sounds good, but a country needs to be at such a level of almost collapse that it will accept an occupation as a liberation, Afghanistan barely fit the criteria, it will work in the long long term, but you sure aren't gonna holiday in that country for the next 20 years. Its not working in Iraq because that country was not even close to the stage that post-war Germany and Japan were at. Iraq is an absolute mess and a failure of this policy.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You might remember GWB saying about a month before the election "I dont think the War on Terror can be won". He was admitting what should have been obvious - you never win this stuff, you just make it real hard for terrorists. I'm just glad he took it back and didnt try to clarify what he meant, or he probably woulda let the cat out of the bag and told them how terorrism is a plot by Bushitler, halliburton etc to kill asians by using explosions in Iraq to put gaia out of alignment and send huge waves onto indonesia etc. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

In the Cuban missile crisis world opinion mattered to the superpowers. Right now world opinion is against the coalition in Iraq and specifically against the US. This is extremely detrimental to the 'war on terror' because terrorists feel that if not the world is on their side, it is not on their enemies side. Carefully thought out plans for the democratisation of the middle east using force just get more and more ridiculous by the day. Its sheer and utter ignorance of other people's culture and pride and a moral superiority over them which is so blatantly obvious to the rest of the world that is fuel for terrorism. The day GWB and co used the war on terror to grab the gas and kick Saddam's **** was the turning point. People aren't up in arms over Russian war crimes in Chechnya or China's human rights because those aren't preaching sickenly hyprocritial moral high values.

The war on terror is in a quagmire now, not a complete lost hope, but has definitely turned into something else. I know this liberal thinking probably turns your stomach a bit, but I swear the next time I see 'fisherprice tomy's my first plan for changing the middle east into happy land' I am gonna puke.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>EDIT something that I think bears pointing out Nem - a lot of these fanatics dont need their house destroyed at all to be radicalised. Those Saudi Arabian 9/11 terrorists were rich, and had nothing personal against the US. Many of the Palestinian terrorists get their house bulldozed <b>after</b> redecorating a market.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ooookaaayy.

Marine0I · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The more you throw at crime the more it will go down. Fighting terrorism is not the same. It should be done with a surgical approach, not a big blunt object like what is happening now. Theres no such thing as a tolerable level in terrorism, there's been peace in Northern Ireland, one single small bomb shatters that.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Terror is a little more organised than crime. This means that if you cut off support and destroy their abilities to communicate and organise, then their life becomes a whole hell of a lot harder and therefore attacks reduce. I am convinced this is what happened in Afghanistan, and that was done with a big, blunt instrument. The Israeli's tried the surgical approach, and still do unfortunately, and it doesnt do much good for them. They launch rockets at individual cars, go house to house clearing rather than simply destroying every house - there is some blunt force, but not as much as I'd like to see <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' />

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>On paper that sounds good, but a country needs to be at such a level of almost collapse that it will accept an occupation as a liberation, Afghanistan barely fit the criteria, it will work in the long long term, but you sure aren't gonna holiday in that country for the next 20 years. Its not working in Iraq because that country was not even close to the stage that post-war Germany and Japan were at. Iraq is an absolute mess and a failure of this policy.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I do not believe Iraq is a mess. I believe mistakes have been made, but I also believe you have been duped by the media into thinking its a god awful disaster. When a man hears nothing but bad news, he tends to believe that that is all that is happening.

<a href='http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/11/good-news-from-iraq-part-15.html' target='_blank'>so read these</a>

<a href='http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/12/good-news-from-iraq-part-16.html' target='_blank'>and then we discuss Iraq</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In the Cuban missile crisis world opinion mattered to the superpowers.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That's because there were two superpowers. The terrorists dont give a rats about popular support - if it exists they claim everyone loves them, if it doesnt then Allah will burn them all anyway.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Right now world opinion is against the coalition in Iraq and specifically against the US. This is extremely detrimental to the 'war on terror' because terrorists feel that if not the world is on their side, it is not on their enemies side.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Explain to me how that translates into better planning, better training, and more frequent attacks? It doesnt. The only threat here is that Americans will catch the defeatist disease that the main stream media is so desperate to pass on: omg everyone hates you and thinks you are stupid and its all because of Iraq because its a quagmire and Bush is evil. Fortunately, for the Iraqi's and your nation - at least 51% of your population seems to be immune

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Carefully thought out plans for the democratisation of the middle east using force just get more and more ridiculous by the day. Its sheer and utter ignorance of other people's culture and pride and a moral superiority over them which is so blatantly obvious to the rest of the world that is fuel for terrorism.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Its not rediculous, and its not sheer ignorance. We seem to have pulled it off in Afghanistan, which are Shi'ites if I'm not mistaken, so there goes culture and pride reasons. So if their the same religion, then why the difference? Maybe because we have ex-Baathists running around, Sunnis realising the glory days are over and a big ego doesnt translate into a big voting block, more Islamofascist filth from over the border getting shipped in with a wink wink nudge nudge from Syria, and Shi'ites who are tired off life and want the Americans to assist them on their way to eternal paradise for fighting the infidel.

All of these groups are fighting an uphill and losing battle - the only reason you dont realise as much is because thats simply not as interesting as 3 dead US soldiers on the 6 oclock news. In Baghdad, one of the 4 hot zones in Iraq that US commanders have said they cannot guarantee safety, the city that was supposedly "shocked and awed" - the lastest polls show 76% of Iraqi's are heading out to vote come the 30th. But... But.... I thought all Iraqi's had bombs strapped on, hated the American infidel and wanted to return to brutal dictatorships.....

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The day GWB and co used the war on terror to grab the gas and kick Saddam's **** was the turning point. People aren't up in arms over Russian war crimes in Chechnya or China's human rights because those aren't preaching sickenly hyprocritial moral high values.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

People arent up in arms over Chechnya because they are too busy whining about the US. Close on 1,000,000 people died in Rwanda - where were the peace protesters? Why do we only ever heard people "preaching sickenly hypocritical moral high values" when the US goes to war and kill several thousand people, but dead silence when the US is not involved. Orwell knew why:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists,<b> one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States</b> …</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Interestingly enough, his claims cover both your "we have no moral superiority/one side is as bad as the other", and the standard practise of singling out the Americans for criticism. You think people only criticise the US because they try to hold themselves to high standards then the rest of the world? The US is hated because it is the US - which is why its always entertaining to hear people spewing the most unutterable bile about the nation, the president, the small minded fools that voted for him, the child killing butchering soldiers, then go "oh.... but we only hate them because of the innocents in Iraq".

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The war on terror is in a quagmire now, not a complete lost hope, but has definitely turned into something else. I know this liberal thinking probably turns your stomach a bit, but I swear the next time I see 'fisherprice tomy's my first plan for changing the middle east into happy land' I am gonna puke.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Next time I hear French try and tell the US "just leave brutal dictators alone and trade with them like us - its profitable and rests easily with the peace protesters" I'm going to puke. The war in Iraq is not a quagmire - 1.3k odd dead soldiers does not make it so. I look forward to the day when I ram this quagmire talk down a lot of peoples throats - people who will try and pretend that they actually supported the war the whole way along, they just didnt agree with the implementation. People who protested so the Iraqi's could stay under Saddam, the media that campaigned ceaselessly against the war against insurgents, and university students who will, somehow, recover and find some new excuse to hate America - the same way as they recovered from discovering Reagan was right, the USSR/Communism was evil, and the US arms race and threatening was completely justified.

Timmythemoonpig · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Terror is a little more organised than crime. This means that if you cut off support and destroy their abilities to communicate and organise, then their life becomes a whole hell of a lot harder and therefore attacks reduce. I am convinced this is what happened in Afghanistan, and that was done with a big, blunt instrument. The Israeli's tried the surgical approach, and still do unfortunately, and it doesnt do much good for them. They launch rockets at individual cars, go house to house clearing rather than simply destroying every house - there is some blunt force, but not as much as I'd like to see <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I have no problem really with what happened in Afghanistan, I wasn't against that action, noone I knew really was either. I don't want to get into the Israel thing but thats a whole different kettle of fish really.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I do not believe Iraq is a mess. I believe mistakes have been made, but I also believe you have been duped by the media into thinking its a god awful disaster. When a man hears nothing but bad news, he tends to believe that that is all that is happening.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I don't get my news from fox, nor do I read aljazeera, I don't like sensationalist or biased stuff. Alot of good news isn't mentioned you're right, but there isn't enough airtime for the bad news, you don't hear about the 7 ukrainian soldiers blown up, or the mass kidnappings and murders of Iraqi lawyers, doctors, etc. Right now the 3 most dangerous countries in the world for journalists are Chechnya, Somalia and Iraq in no particular order, I would describe Chechnya and Somalia as a 'mess'. I read the links although the first one is bloody long. The British government can do all the good in the world for its people, but just one case of sleaze or corruption can brings it to its knees, you give the Iraqi's a free society then bad news travels much faster than good news.

From the economist - <a href='http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/economist.html' target='_blank'>http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/economist.html</a>

Its long so heres a jist...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><i>The old man should have read the bilingual notices that American soldiers tack to their rear bumpers in Iraq: “Keep 50m or deadly force will be applied”. In Ramadi, the capital of central Anbar province, where 17 suicide-bombs struck American forces during the month-long Muslim fast of Ramadan in the autumn, the marines are jumpy. Sometimes, they say, they fire on vehicles encroaching within 30 metres, sometimes they fire at 20 metres: “If anyone gets too close to us we freaking waste them,” says a bullish lieutenant. “It's kind of a shame, because it means we've killed a lot of innocent people.”</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'></i>

Moving on...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That's because there were two superpowers. The terrorists dont give a rats about popular support - if it exists they claim everyone loves them, if it doesnt then Allah will burn them all anyway.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Some terrorists are more hardline than others. For instance, in Northern Ireland, the IRA was constantly embroiled in bitter infighting between 'softer' and more hardline terrorists. Coded warnings were given before bombs, some wanted no warnings and to kill as many people as possible, some just wanted to hit military and police targets, etc. Mass horror and outrage was instrumental in the IRA's decline and severe unpopularity. Yes some terrorists and terrorist organisations don't give a toss, but others do. World opinion against the US + coalition is definitely helping to swell the ranks of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Explain to me how that translates into better planning, better training, and more frequent attacks? It doesnt. The only threat here is that Americans will catch the defeatist disease that the main stream media is so desperate to pass on: omg everyone hates you and thinks you are stupid and its all because of Iraq because its a quagmire and Bush is evil. Fortunately, for the Iraqi's and your nation - at least 51% of your population seems to be immune</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Why wasn't there so much outrage at Afghanistan? why was the world so up in arms against the attack on Iraq before it happened? Iraq was handled very badly in an almost arrogant rushed botched way before it even began, then it just got worse, thinktank organisations with complete predictions of what would happen were completely ignored. The list goes on and on and on of crap that could have been prevented. Over the last 2 years I've lived in 3 different countries and as I said before I don't regularily watch US news or the likes of Aljazeera. I didn't get the impression at all that the mainstream media in those countries were desperate to spread the 'defeatist disease'.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Its not rediculous, and its not sheer ignorance. We seem to have pulled it off in Afghanistan, which are Shi'ites if I'm not mistaken, so there goes culture and pride reasons. So if their the same religion, then why the difference? Maybe because we have ex-Baathists running around, Sunnis realising the glory days are over and a big ego doesnt translate into a big voting block, more Islamofascist filth from over the border getting shipped in with a wink wink nudge nudge from Syria, and Shi'ites who are tired off life and want the Americans to assist them on their way to eternal paradise for fighting the infidel.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No, I thought I already explained this somewhere, about there being a crucial difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq under Saddam in the eighties had a very good health system, pretty good infrastructure, a large middle class, and so on and so on (still a nasty dictatorship before anyone freaks out) ...Afghanistan has been a hellhole of pure war for the last decades, basically in absolute turmoil with an Islamic fundamentalist government (the Taliban)
The people of Afghanistan have had it much and I mean MUCH worse than the Iraqi's. Just reading the history and watching documentaries about the Afghans is very depressing stuff. That country can be liberated, bombed, occupied. The people's pride is nonexistant...just like Germany after WW2 or Japan. American soldiers on their soil is a welcome relief after what they went through with the Taliban. Iraq was not at that stage. The most hardcore right wing hawks in the white house will tell you that the people of North Korea would be a hell of alot more welcoming than the people of Iran for exactly the same reasons.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>All of these groups are fighting an uphill and losing battle - the only reason you dont realise as much is because thats simply not as interesting as 3 dead US soldiers on the 6 oclock news. In Baghdad, one of the 4 hot zones in Iraq that US commanders have said they cannot guarantee safety, the city that was supposedly "shocked and awed" - the lastest polls show 76% of Iraqi's are heading out to vote come the 30th. But... But.... I thought all Iraqi's had bombs strapped on, hated the American infidel and wanted to return to brutal dictatorships.....
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Three dead US soldiers doesnt even make the news anymore from where I'm from. Iraq is one of the most dangerous places on earth right now mainly because the violence has developed a vicious cycle to it, a downward spiral, retaliations by both sides breeding more retailations. I thought 'shock and awe' was just a tv ratings stunt no? Theres nice peaceful areas of Iraq, there are fancy new cybercafes, there's new schools, but there's still Americans and Coalition in their country..and now theres alot of terrorists...and alot of bombs are going off and alot of people are dying that we don't even hear about...but they're supposed to shutup and take it because everything will be just dandy after we win the war...capture Saddam...hand over control...take Fallujah....hold elections...and on and on...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>People arent up in arms over Chechnya because they are too busy whining about the US. Close on 1,000,000 people died in Rwanda - where were the peace protesters? Why do we only ever heard people "preaching sickenly hypocritical moral high values" when the US goes to war and kill several thousand people, but dead silence when the US is not involved. Orwell knew why:</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I think you missed the point of what I was saying. With plenty of innocents in Guantanamo and torture in Iraq Bush gets up and preaches to the rest of us. Thats what drives people mad, thats why theres so much 'interest' in Iraq, thats what **** everyone off so much. Russia and China don't patronise us with their high moral values, they just commit crimes and soak it up. One million people died in Rwanda where was anyone? the leader of the Hutus didn't grab the world stage and start telling us that genocide was wrong, that Hutus were such a noble godfearing people. People were angry over Iraq and all the other little facts came out....how does Bush get up there and spout his 'holier than thou' argument when he doesnt sign the landmine treaty, or doesnt bother with the kyoto treaty, or ignores the geneva convention, etc. Thats just us, we're not being invaded by hypocrits.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The US is hated because it is the US</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No, thats false. Its like saying Australia is hated because it is Australia. This isn't my opinion its just simple fact. You should probably say something like America has become hated since the controversial decision to go to Iraq and its current foreign policy including the way its dealing with the war on terror. To be more precise Bush and his administration have become hated (along with the people who voted for him if you want to push it)

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Next time I hear French try and tell the US "just leave brutal dictators alone and trade with them like us - its profitable and rests easily with the peace protesters" I'm going to puke. The war in Iraq is not a quagmire - 1.3k odd dead soldiers does not make it so. I look forward to the day when I ram this quagmire talk down a lot of peoples throats - people who will try and pretend that they actually supported the war the whole way along, they just didnt agree with the implementation. People who protested so the Iraqi's could stay under Saddam, the media that campaigned ceaselessly against the war against insurgents, and university students who will, somehow, recover and find some new excuse to hate America - the same way as they recovered from discovering Reagan was right, the USSR/Communism was evil, and the US arms race and threatening was completely justified."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well in that case it must really kill you to know that Mobutu was a guest to the white house... I am glad the French sicken you...at least you know what its like to be sickened by such hypocracy. I thought the war in Iraq ended long ago? I don't think the US military keeps a civilian bodycount because that would be just plain scary. I look forward to the day that Bush and his administration get their act together and stop being so damn incompetant so that they can help the Iraqis pull themselves out of this mess before it completely spirals out of control. You know if Bush actually did something right I think those that supported him wouldnt know what to do they'd be so happy that for once, since the war began, they have one single thing to ram down someone's throat.

So Reagan is spinning in his grave over the nice friendly loooove relationship America has with the next great communist superpower? I don't think so. The cold war fundamentally created most of the problems the US is experiencing today.

Jaysus that was a long one. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' />

illuminex · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Why wasn't there so much outrage at Afghanistan? why was the world so up in arms against the attack on Iraq before it happened? Iraq was handled very badly in an almost arrogant rushed botched way before it even began, then it just got worse, thinktank organisations with complete predictions of what would happen were completely ignored. The list goes on and on and on of crap that could have been prevented. Over the last 2 years I've lived in 3 different countries and as I said before I don't regularily watch US news or the likes of Aljazeera. I didn't get the impression at all that the mainstream media in those countries were desperate to spread the 'defeatist disease'.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Here's a history brief on the media in America:

Many of the idealistic and European-influenced youth of the 1960's (hippies, as they are affectionately known as) became educators and members of the media. Both of these areas of American culture were already somewhat known for being more European influenced to begin with, and with this influx of new blood, these areas strengthened even more so that they actually began to show up in traditionally conservative TV and print news sources. As time went on, their views on presentation of news began to take ahold of American media, not in a dramatic fashion, but in subtler ways.

Today there are three or four major American news networks, with Foxnews playing the "middle right" and CNN playing the "left." The other one or two are in between these two major networks, but typically are center/left on most things.

When Marine01 speaks about "defeatist" news, he's speaking about the more liberal news networks presentation of stories and the editorialist comments that go along with them. As much as I hate the idea of an American soldier dying, 1300 soldiers for a conflict that's a year or so old isn't much. In fact, it's pretty damn good. But media networks obsess about it because of ratings and the fact that they personally despise all war. This breeds a "defeatist" mentality among a large number of people who watch the news networks that really go over these stories, such as CNN.

Now, I'll sit back and keep watching the fun. It feels good to be back.

Jammer · January 2005

Blogger/Writer Andrew Sullivan is starting to considering the War in Iraq Lost... from his blog (www.andrewsullivan.com)
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Like many other smart analysts, the pro-war Stratfor military experts have concluded that the war to control the Iraq insurgency or to erect democratic institutions in Iraq has been lost (subscription required). I think it's time to start truly absorbing this possibility. Why lost? Because we blew the opportunity to control the terrain with insufficient troops and terrible intelligence; because all the institutions required to build democracy in Iraq have already been infiltrated by insurgents; because at key moments - they mention the fall of 2003 or spring of 2004 - we simply failed to crush the insurgency when we might have had a chance of success. Short version: we had a brief window of opportunity to turn our armed intervention into democratic liberation and we blew it. Money quote:

"The issue facing the Bush administration is simple. It can continue to fight the war as it has, hoping that a miracle will bring successes in 2005 that didn't happen in 2004. Alternatively, it can accept the reality that the guerrilla force is now self-sustaining and sufficiently large not to flicker out and face the fact that a U.S. conventional force of less than 150,000 is not likely to suppress the guerrillas. More to the point, it can recognize these facts: 1. The United States cannot re-engineer Iraq because the guerrillas will infiltrate every institution it creates. 2. That the United States by itself lacks the intelligence capabilities to fight an effective counterinsurgency. 3. That exposing U.S. forces to security responsibilities in this environment generates casualties without bringing the United States closer to the goal. 4. That the strain on the U.S. force is undermining its ability to react to opportunities and threats in the rest of the region. And that, therefore, this phase of the Iraq campaign must be halted as soon as possible."

They recommend withdrawing U.S. forces to the periphery of Iraq and letting the inevitable civil war take place in the center. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I don't entirely agree with it. I think that holding elections, despite violence, would do a great deal to disrupt the insurgency. People will be quick compare this situation with the early years of the Vietnam war. Indeed, there are many similarties... Government intervention, terrorism, diplomatic and military incompetence. There are 2 big differences, in my mind.

1. The United States realizes this is a must-win situation. The Vietnam was was 100% winnable. The US had not ever 'lost' a battle in the Vietnam war. It was political damage, not military, that forced the United States out of the war.

2. The insurgency does not have huge support. In Vietnam, the NVA was funded by the Russians and the Chinese. The Iraqi insurgency is funded by other Middle Eastern nations. The amount of money going into the organizations is not comparable. Even further, many in South Vietnam were tired of the oppressive, dictatorial mess of a government they previously had and supported the communists as a result. The insurgency does not have broad popular support in Iraq.

There is no doubt Bush and his crew have absolutely botched the process. Fallujah should have been taken down as soon as it became a threat, instead of waiting till after the election to prevent losing votes should the operation go poorly. Rebels should have been taken out while in the army and they could be organized.

Marine0I · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't get my news from fox, nor do I read aljazeera, I don't like sensationalist or biased stuff. Alot of good news isn't mentioned you're right, but there isn't enough airtime for the bad news, you don't hear about the 7 ukrainian soldiers blown up, or the mass kidnappings and murders of Iraqi lawyers, doctors, etc.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Hey, maybe you dont - but I hear it all the time over here. "Continuing spiral of violence" "3 more American soldiers, and many more Iraqi soldiers were killed today amid worsening fears that the election may have to be postponed." Every single day. Compare that to the amount of good news I have heard from the MSM about Iraq - nothing. In over a year I havent heard a damn single bit of good news on the TV. It can be found in the paper if you hunt for it in the editorials, and even then its a trash sandwhich - little slivers of good news sandwhiched between "omg quagmire, 100,000 Iraqi's killed US slaughtered Vietnam".

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Right now the 3 most dangerous countries in the world for journalists are Chechnya, Somalia and Iraq in no particular order, I would describe Chechnya and Somalia as a 'mess'. I read the links although the first one is bloody long. The British government can do all the good in the world for its people, but just one case of sleaze or corruption can brings it to its knees, you give the Iraqi's a free society then bad news travels much faster than good news. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It's not the Iraqi news that bothers me - its the way that AP, Reuters, BBC etc would die before publishing anything remotely positive.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>From the economist - <a href='http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/economist.html' target='_blank'>http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/economist.html</a>

Its long so heres a jist...

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><i>The old man should have read the bilingual notices that American soldiers tack to their rear bumpers in Iraq: “Keep 50m or deadly force will be applied”. In Ramadi, the capital of central Anbar province, where 17 suicide-bombs struck American forces during the month-long Muslim fast of Ramadan in the autumn, the marines are jumpy. Sometimes, they say, they fire on vehicles encroaching within 30 metres, sometimes they fire at 20 metres: “If anyone gets too close to us we freaking waste them,” says a bullish lieutenant. “It's kind of a shame, because it means we've killed a lot of innocent people.”</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'></i></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Denial of sources is banned around here - but allow me to cast strong suspicion upon this website and its claims. First of all - every single on of its staff and editors are anonymous.

<a href='http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663377#About_Economistcom' target='_blank'>The Economist</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Why is it anonymous? Many hands write The Economist, but it speaks with a collective voice. Leaders are discussed, often disputed, each week in meetings that are open to all members of the editorial staff. Journalists often co-operate on articles. And some articles are heavily edited. The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. As Geoffrey Crowther, editor from 1938 to 1956, put it, anonymity keeps the editor "not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself. You can call that ancestor-worship if you wish, but it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You cannot maintain credibility when you refuse to release details of your staff. I find it very hard to swallow the sins of Americans, and if that economist article is to be believed, their sins are frequent, foul and callously executed, when it is coming from an unsourced, anonymous author. If you are going to make extreme claims like that, then you are going to need a higher standard of journalism. You cant even check to make sure that their journalist was in Iraq - let alone embedded.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Some terrorists are more hardline than others. For instance, in Northern Ireland, the IRA was constantly embroiled in bitter infighting between 'softer' and more hardline terrorists. Coded warnings were given before bombs, some wanted no warnings and to kill as many people as possible, some just wanted to hit military and police targets, etc. Mass horror and outrage was instrumental in the IRA's decline and severe unpopularity. Yes some terrorists and terrorist organisations don't give a toss, but others do. World opinion against the US + coalition is definitely helping to swell the ranks of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organisations.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The IRA doesnt really count - its apples and oranges when compared to Islamic Fundamentalism. The IRA have achievable goals, and wish for concessions, rely on the population for their support, and are not so insane as to wish for death. The terrorists have none of the above. You dont swell the ranks of Al Qaeda - being a terrorist isnt a "more the merrier" affair, or else they could just go to the West Bank and recruit a few thousand. You need planning, training and financial backing - the US makes all those harder, and continues to do so with its action in Iraq.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Why wasn't there so much outrage at Afghanistan? why was the world so up in arms against the attack on Iraq before it happened? Iraq was handled very badly in an almost arrogant rushed botched way before it even began, then it just got worse, thinktank organisations with complete predictions of what would happen were completely ignored.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I blame shock. The 9/11 attacks gave the Americans the popular support and momentum they needed to destroy an evil regime. By the time Iraq rolled around, everyone had done their token grieving and vengance supporting, and were ready to go back to business as usual. The US recognised that you cant just whack one country and expect terrorism to dry up on its own, so it tried to keep the momentum going. It failed, miserably. Think tank organisations predicted on both sides of the fence, one of them was always going to be right.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The list goes on and on and on of crap that could have been prevented. Over the last 2 years I've lived in 3 different countries and as I said before I don't regularily watch US news or the likes of Aljazeera. I didn't get the impression at all that the mainstream media in those countries were desperate to spread the 'defeatist disease'.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Its a war - you could list 100's of things that could have been done better and been prevented in WWII. Rumsfeld was crazy if he thought the Iraqi's would welcome us, but this stuff happens. No plan survives first contact with the enemy. I get that impression of left wing biased news because they refuse to report anything that is good in the country - plus they jockey to get photos of things going wrong. How do you think it was that those 4 BBQ'd American security contractors in Fallujah ended up captured on film and into your newspaper? The AP was there - same again for the election official executed in Baghdad.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No, I thought I already explained this somewhere, about there being a crucial difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq under Saddam in the eighties had a very good health system, pretty good infrastructure, a large middle class, and so on and so on (still a nasty dictatorship before anyone freaks out) ...Afghanistan has been a hellhole of pure war for the last decades, basically in absolute turmoil with an Islamic fundamentalist government (the Taliban)
The people of Afghanistan have had it much and I mean MUCH worse than the Iraqi's. Just reading the history and watching documentaries about the Afghans is very depressing stuff. That country can be liberated, bombed, occupied. The people's pride is nonexistant...just like Germany after WW2 or Japan. American soldiers on their soil is a welcome relief after what they went through with the Taliban. Iraq was not at that stage. The most hardcore right wing hawks in the white house will tell you that the people of North Korea would be a hell of alot more welcoming than the people of Iran for exactly the same reasons.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You're probably onto something here - that would definately explain why this war is a whole lot tougher than Afghanistan, but it in no way proves that it cannot be won. Given that failure is not an option, and my firm belief that the "Disaster" status of this war is being overstated, I still support the US and will continue to do so.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Three dead US soldiers doesnt even make the news anymore from where I'm from. Iraq is one of the most dangerous places on earth right now mainly because the violence has developed a vicious cycle to it, a downward spiral, retaliations by both sides breeding more retailations. I thought 'shock and awe' was just a tv ratings stunt no? Theres nice peaceful areas of Iraq, there are fancy new cybercafes, there's new schools, but there's still Americans and Coalition in their country..and now theres alot of terrorists...and alot of bombs are going off and alot of people are dying that we don't even hear about...but they're supposed to shutup and take it because everything will be just dandy after we win the war...capture Saddam...hand over control...take Fallujah....hold elections...and on and on...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Its not retaliations from both sides - you are locked into this thinking that Iraqi's only ever attack when they have been treated unfairly, and Americans only kill Iraqi's to retaliate for previous attacks. I still dont know how you dont hear about this stuff - they report bombed mosques, bombed churches, bombed police stations on ABC news here in Australia. No one is supposed to shut up - they are supposed to recognise that things can and will get better, and that there are several steps along the way towards this process.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I think you missed the point of what I was saying. With plenty of innocents in Guantanamo and torture in Iraq Bush gets up and preaches to the rest of us. Thats what drives people mad, thats why theres so much 'interest' in Iraq, thats what **** everyone off so much.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Torture in Iraq? What? That's not true.

<a href='http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001989.html' target='_blank'>Take the Quiz</a>

<a href='http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_terrorists.html' target='_blank'>Then enter the world of US Interrogators</a>

Being angry at the US for taking the moral highground over brutal dictators and head hacking islamofascists is like taking the high ground over the police because you've heard that an officer had been caught breaking the law. Moral equivalence like you are preaching is an ugly thing - the US is not perfect, the US has a long, dirty history, but to dredge that up when they are trying to help another country is twisted and wrong.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Russia and China don't patronise us with their high moral values, they just commit crimes and soak it up. One million people died in Rwanda where was anyone?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I can speak for one leader at least - he was in the Oval Office wondering about the diverse applications of the simple cigar in relation to female human anatomy. I can also speak for Kofi Annan, who was telling the Canadian general screaming for a military response to "stand down". But what really stuns me is your first sentence. You criticise the US, and claim others do likewise, for <b>attempting to hold itself to a higher standard then other nations, and claim you'd have more respect if they just went completely nuts like China and Russia</b>? So the Americans try harder than the rest of the world, and you think that denotes them as objects for scorn?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>the leader of the Hutus didn't grab the world stage and start telling us that genocide was wrong, that Hutus were such a noble godfearing people. People were angry over Iraq and all the other little facts came out....how does Bush get up there and spout his 'holier than thou' argument when he doesnt sign the landmine treaty, or doesnt bother with the kyoto treaty, or ignores the geneva convention, etc. Thats just us, we're not being invaded by hypocrits.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Its hard to stand up and take the world stage when you have a machete in your stomach. When the hell have the US ever said "We believe in God therefore we are superior". Bush claims to believe in God - big woop. If you are so blinded by religious intolerance cant tell the natural superiority of a nation whose leader believes in God and attempts to topple a murdering secular dictator over said secular dictator, then you should have a serious rethink of your position.

To hell with the kyoto treat - its a waste of money and time, with highly questionable returns. The claim of ignoring the geneva convention is false, the fact that you bring it up makes it clear that you havent actually read the document yourself. Google ftw:

<a href='http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm' target='_blank'>Geneva Convention</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

© That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Terrorists and Iraqi insurgents fail a, b, c and d. And even then we STILL treat them humanely. They are not protected by the Convention - please do not invoke it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No, thats false. Its like saying Australia is hated because it is Australia. This isn't my opinion its just simple fact. You should probably say something like America has become hated since the controversial decision to go to Iraq and its current foreign policy including the way its dealing with the war on terror. To be more precise Bush and his administration have become hated (along with the people who voted for him if you want to push it) </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No - America is hated merely for its existance. It has been hated and despised as such since at least 1960, as Orwell testified to. The movement had not gained much momentum, and as such went by unnoticed for many years, then reared its head in the 70's and has remained since. As a former member of the "I hate America" club, I can testify to the fact that you are hated by a lot more people than you realise, and these people will switch seamlessly between reasons for hating America. First it was because of Vietnam, then it was because America was too stupid to realise that communists werent that bad, then it was because America was going the wrong way about terrorism. Excuses are always easily at hand, and are changed as easily as underwear.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well in that case it must really kill you to know that Mobutu was a guest to the white house... I am glad the French sicken you...at least you know what its like to be sickened by such hypocracy</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Damn straight - you should not accomodate dictators like Mobutu, that is hypocritical in the extreme.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I thought the war in Iraq ended long ago? I don't think the US military keeps a civilian bodycount because that would be just plain scary. I look forward to the day that Bush and his administration get their act together and stop being so damn incompetant so that they can help the Iraqis pull themselves out of this mess before it completely spirals out of control. You know if Bush actually did something right I think those that supported him wouldnt know what to do they'd be so happy that for once, since the war began, they have one single thing to ram down someone's throat. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The war in Iraq ended ages ago. Combatting the insurgency is what is currently taking up our time. Bush's administration has sodded up plenty, but as of now I think they are doing just fine. This belief of mine was further confirmed when I realised tha the Rumsfeld Humvee Armour scandal was a hoax - the MSM is merely out to make Bush officials look like incompetent, nasty fools. Its a war people - if it plays out unhitched, then you are watching a movie, not the news.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So Reagan is spinning in his grave over the nice friendly loooove relationship America has with the next great communist superpower? I don't think so. The cold war fundamentally created most of the problems the US is experiencing today.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I dont believe that - and even if it is true, the Cold War was <b>definately</b> worth what we are suffering now.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Blogger/Writer Andrew Sullivan is starting to considering the War in Iraq Lost... from his blog (www.andrewsullivan.com)
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Ahhh Andrew Sullivan - used to be a good read, then he went down like a spanish voter <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' />. I dont buy into that "more troops" business - there were over 500,000 in Vietnam at its peak, and it didnt help that much there. I think its simply a simplistic answer that plays well with people who think that the larger the number the better things will be.....

BlackMage · January 2005

it's hard to win a war when you can't see your enemy unless the reverse is also true

Legat · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Terrorists and Iraqi insurgents fail a, b, c and d. And even then we STILL treat them humanely. They are not protected by the Convention - please do not invoke it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

guantanamo detainees from Afghanistan (taliban) do factor into the conventon, yet they are held captive without trials since the war.
The iraqi insurgents also fight openly.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hey, maybe you dont - but I hear it all the time over here. "Continuing spiral of violence" "3 more American soldiers, and many more Iraqi soldiers were killed today amid worsening fears that the election may have to be postponed." Every single day. Compare that to the amount of good news I have heard from the MSM about Iraq - nothing. In over a year I havent heard a damn single bit of good news on the TV. It can be found in the paper if you hunt for it in the editorials, and even then its a trash sandwhich - little slivers of good news sandwhiched between "omg quagmire, 100,000 Iraqi's killed US slaughtered Vietnam".</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes there is improvement, namely the elections. That was on the news. On the other hand, there is not any sign of actual improvement. The terrorits are successfull in preventing the oil exports from running on, the humanitarian aid is virtually eliminated, Water is still short, electricity is failing every other day......

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The IRA doesnt really count - its apples and oranges when compared to Islamic Fundamentalism. The IRA have achievable goals, and wish for concessions, rely on the population for their support, and are not so insane as to wish for death. The terrorists have none of the above. You dont swell the ranks of Al Qaeda - being a terrorist isnt a "more the merrier" affair, or else they could just go to the West Bank and recruit a few thousand. You need planning, training and financial backing - the US makes all those harder, and continues to do so with its action in Iraq.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The Iraqis terrorists campain has actually achievable goals. One of them was to draw the US into an unpopular conflict. Another one was to eliminate humanitarian aid and the rebuilding of infrastructure, to stucturally weaken the country and thus prevent the US from getting the the Oil industry running. Effectively, the war does not pay off as planned. The first US companies retreated from their contracts in rebuilding Iraq. The plan on keeping the whole reconstruction in US hands has failed.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I blame shock. The 9/11 attacks gave the Americans the popular support and momentum they needed to destroy an evil regime. By the time Iraq rolled around, everyone had done their token grieving and vengance supporting, and were ready to go back to business as usual. The US recognised that you cant just whack one country and expect terrorism to dry up on its own, so it tried to keep the momentum going. It failed, miserably. Think tank organisations predicted on both sides of the fence, one of them was always going to be right.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No. The people understood the reason and nessecity for the Afghanistan war. The Taliban did not hand over Bin Laden and were effectively harbouring his organisation.
Everybody understood that the WTC attack had to be answered. In fact, I was surprised how carefull Bush handled that matter He gained quite some credit back then in my eyes.
Also, people were aware of the horrible situation under Taliban reign, as a massive media campain was launched worldwide. (quite similar to the one predating Desert Storm, to show the brutal occupation of Kuwait)

However, the claim that Iraq was responsible for the Al Quaeda network is absurd and nothing but a reason to justify the war, exactly like the WMD, which haven't been there either if I may remind you...
Why not attacking Saudi Arabia first? They pump alot more money into terrorism than anybody else, just to keep their own extremists happy.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I can speak for one leader at least - he was in the Oval Office wondering about the diverse applications of the simple cigar in relation to female human anatomy. I can also speak for Kofi Annan, who was telling the Canadian general screaming for a military response to "stand down".</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

And where was the Australian UN embassador valiantly trying to convince everybody to send troops? We all have our share of guilt on what happened in Rhuanda so don't point on single Persons when you accuse others of doing so in the first place.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You're probably onto something here - that would definately explain why this war is a whole lot tougher than Afghanistan, but it in no way proves that it cannot be won. Given that failure is not an option, and my firm belief that the "Disaster" status of this war is being overstated, I still support the US and will continue to do so.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

There even more factors that lead to the quick defeat of the Taliban.
Military experts predicted desaster back in Afghanistan. They did under estimate two major factors.
The Afghans fighting the Russians were supported by outside powers ( the US) and had the sympathy of their own people.
The Taliban however had not much public support.
Also, the Mudjahedin back then had an excellent strategic position in the northern region of Afgahnistan. In the mountains, there is plenty of opportunity to operate unseen and the ground is very fertile in several areas, which made them self sustaining.
That strategic position was covered by the Nothern Alliance. As we know, they managed to hold their ground for years without foreing support againts the Taliban.
Its not like the Taliban did not know where they were hiding. The Soviets knew too. However the position was too easy to defend. The Soviets tried several times to directly push against their fortresses, with massive assaults by armored units and aircrafts. The wreckages are still there...
So the Taliban had simply a very bad tactical situation.

The Iraq war was started with the glorious success of Afghanistan in mind and nobody had a doubt that it would be a quick campaing like Desert storm. The problem was that those factors above did not count this time.
Also, many people had a deep distrust against the US because of the aftermath of Desert Storm
More so, the Iraq has become the new Mekka of Extremists and the US have become the new enemy of the Muslim people. Like the sovjets had been back them. From all over the world, they flock to Iraq, an endless stream of volunteers and financial support.

They will not stop, because they have what they ever wanted. They have the US in their reach, where they can attack their troops, their pride, their economy and theirs standing among nations.

They have managed to achieve every one of that goals so far and its not going to stop anytime soon.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The war in Iraq ended ages ago. Combatting the insurgency is what is currently taking up our time. Bush's administration has sodded up plenty, but as of now I think they are doing just fine. This belief of mine was further confirmed when I realised tha the Rumsfeld Humvee Armour scandal was a hoax - the MSM is merely out to make Bush officials look like incompetent, nasty fools. Its a war people - if it plays out unhitched, then you are watching a movie, not the news.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The war never ended. Bush has declared himself as the victor. The heavy resistance we are currently experiencing is well planned, supplied and organised. It is far from over.

Scylla · January 2005

The Iraq war IS a military and political disaster and I fear it will get also an economic disaster.
As a former military member I’m not against war if it’s serves a good purpose and getting rid of Saddam Hussein and creating a democracy is a good purpose

But the way it was done pathetically by the US administration. They behaved like a bull in a china shop to get a justification for that war and many people are offended and worried by such behaviour. That way you won’t convince other governments and their people.

And on the military side; ok the war went good and well organized with a minimum of casualties or soldiers and civilest (even if that statement sound bitter it’s true from a military point of view).
They messed it up at the time the Iraqi army brake apart and there was no longer nameable resistance anymore. Completely without any plan of the time after the victory they allow to turn Baghdad into a big crime scene with plundering, robbing, killing, and so on. This time crushed the trust into the US Soldiers. Also the time afterwards the soldiers acted not appropriate to establish normal civil life.
And afterwards – as it’s not even enough came Abu-Ggireib. US solders disobeyed human rights and Geneva Convention and as it looks with the knowledge of the administration.
Every soldier should know that only by obeying the Geneva Convention you can claim the own treatment for yourself. In the German army you have the duty to refuse the execution of orders disobeying the Geneva Convention. It’s a shame for the US Army allowing that such things happen.

Beside the thing you can’t win “the war on terror” - and I also heavily doubt the reason for the Iraq war was to fight terror – the US took a very big step back in stemming “global terror”.

A war will never solve a problem – sometimes it gives you a possibility for a political solution. The seed of terrorism is always injustice.

At least I hope this will take a good end - for the Iraq people and the US soldiers out there.

Wheeee · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Jan 11 2005, 12:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The war in Iraq ended ages ago. Combatting the insurgency is what is currently taking up our time. Bush's administration has sodded up plenty, but as of now I think they are doing just fine. This belief of mine was further confirmed when I realised tha the Rumsfeld Humvee Armour scandal was a hoax - the MSM is merely out to make Bush officials look like incompetent, nasty fools. Its a war people - if it plays out unhitched, then you are watching a movie, not the news.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

The war never ended. Bush has declared himself as the victor. The heavy resistance we are currently experiencing is well planned, supplied and organised. It is far from over.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Erm, I'd just like to point out that combat with what's now considered to be mostly foreign paramilitary forces does not qualify as a "war." Especially now that the various terror attacks are shifting towards Iraqi civilians and politicians. The war ended ages ago; some people didn't feel like admitting it. Remember the battle of New Orleans? It happened after the peace treaty was signed in the war of 1812.

Grendel · January 2005

I doubt that people can ever be truly free from terror.

At least not if they happen to disagree with America. Terror will be swiftly be visited upon them via cruise missiles and F-117s.

Wheeee · January 2005

In bombs we trust. Amen.

Marine0I · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>guantanamo detainees from Afghanistan (taliban) do factor into the conventon, yet they are held captive without trials since the war.
The iraqi insurgents also fight openly.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Proof. Lets see it. My understanding was that Taliban forces didnt not convene to the rules regarding insignia - preferring to blend in to the population rather than wear uniforms. In this day and age, its a bit rough for the Geneva convention to ask military forces opposing the US to wear big crosshairs on them to enable easier airstrikes and artillery barages, but those are the laws that were laid down, and those that you are trying to invoke.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yes there is improvement, namely the elections. That was on the news. On the other hand, there is not any sign of actual improvement.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Two statements. The first you made the call that the election's good news, then in the second you claim thats not a sign of any actual improvement. That dichotomy of thought was my initial point - the only thing they report as possibly good news is treated as though it is no real good news at all. The way in which you claim there is no sign of actual improvements demonstrates that the media refuses to point anything irrevocably positive, and also that you didnt read the two links I posted above. Allow me to refresh your memory:

<a href='http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/12/good-news-from-iraq-part-16.html' target='_blank'> Good news from Iraq part 16</a>
<a href='http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/2004/11/good-news-from-iraq-part-15.html' target='_blank'>Good news from Iraq part 15</a>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The terrorits are successfull in preventing the oil exports from running on, the humanitarian aid is virtually eliminated, Water is still short, electricity is failing every other day......</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I want proof of all 4 statements, which is going to be exceedingly difficult in light of the two links above. One blown pipeline does not equal failed oil exports, (oil prices have fallen steadily for the last 6 weeks) care international pulling out does not equal eliminated humanitarian aid, water shortages in one city does not equal widespread dehydration problems, and a few blown powerlines does not equal widespread powershortages. What's hilarious is that often towns are reported to be "without power and clean water", when they've been without power and clean water for 5 years. I have provided evidence that the problems you assume are so widespread above are being dealt with - now you provide evidence to the contrary.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Iraqis terrorists campain has actually achievable goals. One of them was to draw the US into an unpopular conflict. Another one was to eliminate humanitarian aid and the rebuilding of infrastructure, to stucturally weaken the country and thus prevent the US from getting the the Oil industry running. Effectively, the war does not pay off as planned. The first US companies retreated from their contracts in rebuilding Iraq. The plan on keeping the whole reconstruction in US hands has failed.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Drawing the US into an unpopular conflict was never a goal. Who planned that, what scheme did they have in development? Could it be that they are just reacting to the situation, rather than calling it on their own terms, which imho can only be a good thing. Rebuilding of infrastructure is clearly continuing at a great pace, again see the above links. Who cares if the plan to keep the whole reconstruction in US hands have failed? First of all everyone accused the US of being greedy dogs for hogging the contracts, now they are being shared around and its further evidence of their failure. Heads the US wins, tails they lose.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No. The people understood the reason and nessecity for the Afghanistan war. The Taliban did not hand over Bin Laden and were effectively harbouring his organisation.
Everybody understood that the WTC attack had to be answered.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Exactly, the WTC attack had to be answered for - vengeance. Everyone is up for a bit of vengeance, no one is up for tough liberation.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Also, people were aware of the horrible situation under Taliban reign, as a massive media campain was launched worldwide. (quite similar to the one predating Desert Storm, to show the brutal occupation of Kuwait) </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again I agree - everyone knew of the horrible situation under the Taliban, but that was no less worse than under Saddam. When the choice was between the US invasion and supporting the Taliban, everyone chose the US. When the choice was between supporting a US invasion and supporting Saddam, everyone chose Saddam. Clearly then no one honestly cares about evil regimes, there must be other reasons for their decisions to back dictators. Anyone who opposed the Afghanistan war based around "the innocents in Afghanistan" would have been laughed at like a fool - what happened in Iraq to change that?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>However, the claim that Iraq was responsible for the Al Quaeda network is absurd and nothing but a reason to justify the war, exactly like the WMD, which haven't been there either if I may remind you...</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

No one claimed they were responsible for Al Quaeda, they merely claimed that they had links to Al Quaeda, which they now believe was a mistaken belief. The same applies to the weapons of mass destruction. While chemical gases have been found, they are isolated, minor cases and are not the predicted stockpiles. I do not feel angry at the US government over this mistake - there are reports reaching back to the early 90's outlining WMD ambitions and fears for Iraq, long before any thought of total war came up. Pretty much every intelligence service in the world save Russian intelligence believed that WMD's were there - everything was pointing in that direction. It was just wrong. To paraphrase Tony Blair before the war: "I believe that if we invade Iraq and no WMD's are found, eventually history will forgive us. I am convinced, however, that if we do not invade Iraq and no WMD's are found, history will not forgive us." Then after the war, he said this: "Let us say one thing. If we are wrong (about WMD) we will have destroyed a threat that, at its least, is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive."

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Why not attacking Saudi Arabia first? They pump alot more money into terrorism than anybody else, just to keep their own extremists happy.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Why do that? The Saudi Royalty is no real friend of Islamic fanaticism, although members of them may have sympathies that way, and make large donations. The Saudi's <a href='http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.html' target='_blank'>attempt</a> to fight terrorism because it is a real threat to their government. Trying to combat terrorism beats the hell out of making donations to Hamas bombers in Israel, which Saddam was doing. He may not have supported international terror, but he was all in favour of terror in the backyard. And hey, maybe you are right, and they should be dealt with eventually - but you do not bite off more than you can chew. Saddam was the best target in the reason, as his own neighbours didnt even like him, so he was the obvious top of the list. Given what the administration believed about his WMD ambitions, doubly so.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And where was the Australian UN embassador valiantly trying to convince everybody to send troops? We all have our share of guilt on what happened in Rhuanda so don't point on single Persons when you accuse others of doing so in the first place.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Australia did what every other nation did, offered our condolences and mock outrage. However, those in the world that actually had the power to stop it - Mr Clinton and Mr Annan, did nothing. The hippies of this world who turned out enmass to save Saddam did nothing.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>an endless stream of volunteers and financial support.

They will not stop, because they have what they ever wanted. They have the US in their reach, where they can attack their troops, their pride, their economy and theirs standing among nations.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Just to cut down on post length - I agreed with your analysis of Afghanistan and Iraq up to this point. That stream of volunteers is not endless, nor is that financial support. Iraq is already saturated in small arms and explosives, and these are really the only weapons the insurgents can use effectively. Extra funding doesnt really help much here - though of course the more money you have the better. Getting the money to the extremists is another matter though.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>They have managed to achieve every one of that goals so far and its not going to stop anytime soon.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

They havent achieved anything. Mass uprisings against the US? No. Destruction of oil industry? No. We'll see how things go on the 30th of January, but even then I have a suspicion both you and the media will find some way of presenting that as a setback for the US and Iraqi governments.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The war never ended. Bush has declared himself as the victor. The heavy resistance we are currently experiencing is well planned, supplied and organised. It is far from over.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Bush didnt declare himself the winner. No President does that - he said America had triumphed over Saddam. He went to war with Iraq, and he defeated the Iraqi army and took control of its capital and most of its cities, and then took captive their leader - thats a victory. Counter-insurgency does not count as a war.

The summation of the insurgency is thus:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>All things considered, then, I feel safe in predicting that Bush will not reverse course in his second term, and that he will continue striving to implement the doctrine bearing his name throughout the greater Middle East—that, in short, he will go on "sticking to his guns, literally and figuratively," as Time put it in naming him "Person of the Year." But I feel equally safe in predicting that the forces opposing him, both in the region and at home, will persist in their struggle to nip this immense enterprise in the bud.

In Iraq, the insurgents—a coalition of diehard Saddamists, domestic Islamofascists, and foreign jihadists—have a simple objective. They are trying to drive us out before the seeds of democratization that we are helping to sow have taken firm root and begun to flower. Only thus can the native insurgents hope to recapture the power they lost when we toppled Saddam; and only thus can the Iranians, the Syrians, and the Saudis, who have been dispatching and/or financing the foreign jihadists, escape becoming the next regimes to go the way of Saddam’s under the logic of the Bush Doctrine.

The despots tyrannizing these countries all know perfectly well that an American failure in Iraq would rule out the use of military force against them. They know that it would rob other, non-military measures of any real effectiveness. And they know that it would put a halt to the wave of reformist talk that has been sweeping through the region since the promulgation of the Bush Doctrine and that poses an unprecedented threat to their own hold on political power, just as it does to the religious and cultural power of the radical Islamists.

But the most important thing the insurgents and their backers in the neighboring despotisms know is that the battle for Iraq will not be won or lost in Iraq; it will be won or lost in the United States of America. On this they agree entirely with General John Abizaid, the commander of the U.S. Central Command, who recently told reporters touring Iraq: "It is all about staying the course. No military effort that anyone can make against us is going to be able to throw us out of this region." Is it any wonder, then, that the insurgents were praying for the victory of John F. Kerry—which they all assumed would mean an American withdrawal—or that the reelection of Bush—which they were not fooled by any exit polls into interpreting as anything other than a ratification of the Bush Doctrine—came as such a great blow to them?

But too much is at stake in Iraq for them to give up now, especially as they are confident that they still have an excellent shot at getting the American public to conclude that the game is not worth the candle. General Abizaid again: "We have nothing to fear from this enemy except its ability to create panic . . . and gain a media victory." To achieve this species of victory—and perhaps inspired by the strategy that worked so well for the North Vietnamese3—they are counting on the forces opposing the Bush Doctrine at home. These forces comprise just as motley a coalition as the one fighting in Iraq, and they are, after their own fashion, just as desperate. For they too understand how much they for their own part stand to lose if the Bush Doctrine is ever generally judged to have passed the great test to which it has been put in Iraq.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Pepe_Muffassa · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Jan 12 2005, 08:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I doubt that people can ever be truly free from terror.

At least not if they happen to disagree with America. Terror will be swiftly be visited upon them via cruise missiles and F-117s.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I see that the media machine has got you too!

In order for America's actions to be called terror, they have to fall in line with what terror actually is.

For instance, we would have to be intentionally targeting and killing unarmed civilian population. We would not be wearing uniforms, we would not be coming in the form of a military. We would use killing squads to round up families and execute them in fields.

No, America is not perfect. I'm sure some of its soldiers commited war crimes, I'm sure there were "innocent civilians" killed. I am sorry for them, but that is not the issue here.

The issue is weather or not America deserves to be preceived as a terrorist country. Is liberating Iraq good? Is supporting Israel good? Is trying to stop Al Queda good? or removing a Bathist regime? Heck, lets bring this over to another area of the globe - is American tsunami aid enough? - are we a stingy people or not?

It seems to me that America tries to do more good in the world than any other country, and gets ridiculed for it more than any other country. Aparently, we owe the world more than we can give. I see more "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenerios in world politics when America is involved than with any other country.

So you see why I take offence at being called a member of a terrorist country? It is an uncalled for, hostile, blanket statement that has no bearing in reality. If I didn't know better, I'd call it a Troll - in which case, this reply is feeding you quite nicely.

Marine0I · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Jan 14 2005, 02:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Jan 12 2005, 08:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I doubt that people can ever be truly free from terror.

At least not if they happen to disagree with America. Terror will be swiftly be visited upon them via cruise missiles and F-117s. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I see that the media machine has got you too!

In order for America's actions to be called terror, they have to fall in line with what terror actually is.

For instance, we would have to be intentionally targeting and killing unarmed civilian population. We would not be wearing uniforms, we would not be coming in the form of a military. We would use killing squads to round up families and execute them in fields.

No, America is not perfect. I'm sure some of its soldiers commited war crimes, I'm sure there were "innocent civilians" killed. I am sorry for them, but that is not the issue here.

The issue is weather or not America deserves to be preceived as a terrorist country. Is liberating Iraq good? Is supporting Israel good? Is trying to stop Al Queda good? or removing a Bathist regime? Heck, lets bring this over to another area of the globe - is American tsunami aid enough? - are we a stingy people or not?

It seems to me that America tries to do more good in the world than any other country, and gets ridiculed for it more than any other country. Aparently, we owe the world more than we can give. I see more "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenerios in world politics when America is involved than with any other country.

So you see why I take offence at being called a member of a terrorist country? It is an uncalled for, hostile, blanket statement that has no bearing in reality. If I didn't know better, I'd call it a Troll - in which case, this reply is feeding you quite nicely.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
I'm not sure that that is exactly what Grendel is referring to Pepe - I dont think he's calling America terrorists, I think he is more like.... playing with words without any point behind them.

However, you make good points. Isnt it funny that its always liberals who start talk of "shades of grey" but see everything in black and white?

As RWN put it:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Liberals often accuse conservatives of "seeing things in black and white" and being unable to comprehend that everything is actually a wondrous shade of grey. That's a fair point. Conservatives are often willing to take a stand and say "That's right and that's wrong" even as liberals are just starting a long diatribe about nuances & tolerance.

But, have you ever noticed that myriad of distinctions the left likes to refer to go right out the window when liberals discuss defending America? Listen to liberals talk about the military & war and you'll often find that...

-- To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, liberals seem to see little "moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest" -- at least when a Republican is in office.

-- Liberals often seem to be unable to tell the difference between things like sleep deprivation and let's say chopping someone's fingers off. To the left, it all just seems to fall under "torture."

-- Where their precious Geneva Convention is concerned, the left seems to see no difference between professional, uniformed soldiers who attempt to follow "rules of war" and terrorists who wear no uniforms, deliberately target civilians and behead captives.

-- When it comes to how we treat prisoners, the left is unable to see any significant difference between small numbers of unsupervised National Guardsmen getting out of hand and few more interrogators going too far and the entire military being directly ordered by the Bush administration to torture detainees.

-- The left sees no little difference in how we should legally handle American criminals who have been captured by the police and Al-Qaeda terrorists who may have been captured using sensitive intelligence data, in foreign nations, during a time of war.

-- They seem unable to tell the difference between "insurgents"/terrorists deliberately murdering civilians and American soldiers accidentally killing them -- that is, if they don't just blame the Americans in both cases.

A big part of the reason that the modern left, on the whole, is so entirely ineffectual during times of war is because they are either unwilling or unable to see & understand the moral distinctions in the sort of situations I've described above. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

BathroomMonkey · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Jan 13 2005, 06:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Liberals often accuse conservatives of "seeing things in black and white" and being unable to comprehend that everything is actually a wondrous shade of grey. That's a fair point. Conservatives are often willing to take a stand and say "That's right and that's wrong" even as liberals are just starting a long diatribe about nuances & tolerance.

But, have you ever noticed that myriad of distinctions the left likes to refer to go right out the window when liberals discuss defending America? Listen to liberals talk about the military & war and you'll often find that...

-- To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, liberals seem to see little "moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest" -- at least when a Republican is in office.

-- Liberals often seem to be unable to tell the difference between things like sleep deprivation and let's say chopping someone's fingers off. To the left, it all just seems to fall under "torture."

-- Where their precious Geneva Convention is concerned, the left seems to see no difference between professional, uniformed soldiers who attempt to follow "rules of war" and terrorists who wear no uniforms, deliberately target civilians and behead captives.

-- When it comes to how we treat prisoners, the left is unable to see any significant difference between small numbers of unsupervised National Guardsmen getting out of hand and few more interrogators going too far and the entire military being directly ordered by the Bush administration to torture detainees.

-- The left sees no little difference in how we should legally handle American criminals who have been captured by the police and Al-Qaeda terrorists who may have been captured using sensitive intelligence data, in foreign nations, during a time of war.

-- They seem unable to tell the difference between "insurgents"/terrorists deliberately murdering civilians and American soldiers accidentally killing them -- that is, if they don't just blame the Americans in both cases.

A big part of the reason that the modern left, on the whole, is so entirely ineffectual during times of war is because they are either unwilling or unable to see & understand the moral distinctions in the sort of situations I've described above. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, while I would argue that occasionally, some conservatives view the world with a sense of oversimplified absolutism, I would <i>never</i> claim that they were incapable of nuance.

Take Reagan (and later Bush 1)-- under his administration, our bold, stand taking moralists managed to maintain a pretty flexible philosophy regarding terrorists and Middle Eastern states armed with WMD, among other items.

Same with **** Cheney's 'deeply held convictions' on terrorist states and sanctions.

And of course, if you want to have a good ol' time, ask the same Conservatives who interperet Leviticus literally to condemn homosexuals to rationalize the bit about Jesus explaining the rich man's relative difficulties entering the kingdom of Heaven.

A digression, but I just wanted to point out that this quaint little game can be played in both directions, all day, without actually demonstrating any sort of superiority either way.

And this list seems legitimate and clever from a distance, but the closer you get it's nonsense-- let's pick one apart:
(and we'll just ignore the strawman 'liberal' upon whose fictional, composite reactions these are all predicated)
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>-- Liberals often seem to be unable to tell the difference between things like sleep deprivation and let's say chopping someone's fingers off. To the left, it all just seems to fall under "torture."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Er, they <i>are</i> both torture. One is much worse than the other, but they're both designed to inflict pain and suffering on another individual for (ostensibly) purposes of interrogation/punishment. That's definition, not absolutism. To put it another way: Both torture, but in RGB shades of grey, one is 225 225 225, and the other is roughly 51 51 51.

If it's a mild drizzle or a torrential downpour, they're still both 'weather', right? So sure, it looks silly when you use simplified examples that are essentially issues of semantics, but take a situation infinitely more complex-- for example, declaring to the world that 'You're either with us or against us', and that's where the absolutism starts to seem clumsy and untenable.

But just for fun, I IM'd my friend, who <b>I</b> consider to be a shrill raving liberal (which should give you an idea of the ballpark we're playing in) and asked the following:
Me: Yes or no-- are sleep deprivation and the lopping off of digits both torture?
Him: Yes.
Me: Are they morally equivalent?
Him: I'd say no.
Me: That's not a 'yes' or 'no' like I asked, but it's close enough.

This is a kool-aid slurping Move-On.org member, I might add.

And:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, liberals seem to see little "moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest" -- at least when a Republican is in office.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again, pure subjective semantics. Especially in situations where, say, 'liberation' is your fourth or fifth fall-back rationale for why you invaded a country. Sorry if I'm too cynical to see that the morality isn't determined by the actual 'intent', but by whether or not you managed to shoe-horn the word 'Freedom' or 'Liberate' into the title of a military maneuver.

So, to even further paraphrase Reagan: "If I am forced to use the laughable excuse that this military action is expressly meant to liberate a people, I would appreciate it if you would ignore all evidence to the contrary and pretend that that's what I'm really trying to do."

Marine0I · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well, while I would argue that occasionally, some conservatives view the world with a sense of oversimplified absolutism, I would <i>never</i> claim that they were incapable of nuance.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, to start off I should apologise. People tend to classify their opposition by its loudest member, so when they say liberals, they are referring to the loony left defined by Moore, Soros, the entire university population etc that holds that the bad guys are Americans, the good guys are the insurgent "minute men", and that the sooner the US gets a good thrashing in Iraq the better. This definately doesnt apply to you - as I saw demonstrated when you replied to Reasa's post about Iraqi's turning on insurgents. You saw that as hopeful whereas the type of liberal that segment was decrying would see them as traitors.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Take Reagan (and later Bush 1)-- under his administration, our bold, stand taking moralists managed to maintain a pretty flexible philosophy regarding terrorists and Middle Eastern states armed with WMD, among other items.

Same with **** Cheney's 'deeply held convictions' on terrorist states and sanctions. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Couldnt agree more. Nor could Bush - see my sig.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And of course, if you want to have a good ol' time, ask the same Conservatives who interperet Leviticus literally to condemn homosexuals to rationalize the bit about Jesus explaining the rich man's relative difficulties entering the kingdom of Heaven.

A digression, but I just wanted to point out that this quaint little game can be played in both directions, all day, without actually demonstrating any sort of superiority either way. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Hypocracy, its everywhere. I could refer to Limousine Liberals who campaign against Bush for alledged compassion for poor people, etc, there is hypocracy on both sides of the political spectrum. However, this little piece of hypocracy is interesting in that they are uttered usually within two sentences of each other by the offending party. Bush is dumb for not recognising the shades of grey that exist in international politics and evil dictators, and has for that reason committed black and white war crimes for starting an vicious, torturing vile war.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And this list seems legitimate and clever from a distance, but the closer you get it's nonsense-- let's pick one apart:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>-- Liberals often seem to be unable to tell the difference between things like sleep deprivation and let's say chopping someone's fingers off. To the left, it all just seems to fall under "torture."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Er, they <i>are</i> both torture. One is much worse than the other, but they're both designed to inflict pain and suffering on another individual for (ostensibly) purposes of interrogation/punishment. That's definition, not absolutism. To put it another way: Both torture, but in RGB shades of grey, one is 225 225 225, and the other is roughly 51 51 51.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'm quite sure you are mistaken:

tor·ture
1.
1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

That is the dictionary definition of torture. Sleep deprivation doesnt qualify as severe physical pain. I highly recommend reading this <a href='http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_1_terrorists.html' target='_blank'>This</a> excellent article on American interrogation methods and restrictions. A very small extract:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Kandahar interrogators reached the following rule of thumb, reports Mackey: if a type of behavior toward a prisoner was no worse than the way the army treated its own members, it could not be considered torture or a violation of the conventions. Thus, questioning a detainee past his bedtime was lawful as long as his interrogator stayed up with him. If the interrogator was missing exactly the same amount of sleep as the detainee—and no tag-teaming of interrogators would be allowed, the soldiers decided—then sleep deprivation could not be deemed torture. In fact, interrogators were routinely sleep-deprived, catnapping maybe one or two hours a night, even as the detainees were getting long beauty sleeps. Likewise, if a boot-camp drill sergeant can make a recruit kneel with his arms stretched out in front without violating the Convention Against Torture, an interrogator can use that tool against a recalcitrant terror suspect.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Again, pure subjective semantics. Especially in situations where, say, 'liberation' is your fourth or fifth fall-back rationale for why you invaded a country. Sorry if I'm too cynical to see that the morality isn't determined by the actual 'intent', but by whether or not you managed to shoe-horn the word 'Freedom' or 'Liberate' into the title of a military maneuver.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Definately disagree. Anyone who pre-war was under the impression the Americans werent going to try and topple Saddam and install a democracy was either insane, a poster at Indimedia, or probably both. If I decide to do 10 odd jobs and then pick you up from work and take you home, but spend all day yakking about how hard those jobs are going to be, does that mean that my offer to give you a lift should be viewed with extreme suspicion? I might not have given you said lift if I wasnt in the area, already out in my car - but I was out in the area, I had said I'd give you a lift, and I am currently picking you up. I dont see anything wrong here. Liberation was promised, liberation was delivered, and now democracy is being fought for tooth and nail - how anyone can remain cynical of those objectives in light of the current situation is a source of great wonder for me.

Liberation was a secondary objective to taking down Bin Ladin and destroying the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, yet it was also promised and delivered.

EDIT:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But just for fun, I IM'd my friend, who I consider to be a shrill raving liberal (which should give you an idea of the ballpark we're playing in) and asked the following:
Me: Yes or no-- are sleep deprivation and the lopping off of digits both torture?
Him: Yes.
Me: Are they morally equivalent?
Him: I'd say no.
Me: That's not a 'yes' or 'no' like I asked, but it's close enough.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Wierd, how'd I miss this. I'd think you edited your post but can see no evidence of an edit. I believe you have made the mistake of asking outright which is worse without context. If you claimed the US was superior to the Iraqi insurgents because it didnt torture prisoners, they would claim "but the US tortures Iraqi's too, Guantanamo bay etc", and claim moral equivalence. That's why we consider it a strange kind of hypocracy, because if, like you, the question is asked in its simplest form, which form of torture (though sleep deprivation isnt torture at all, but bear with) is worse, they see a difference. If it is asked in the context of America and Insurgents, then they see no difference - both sides torture, so they get what they deserve, except the Iraqi's are trying to defend themselves while the Americans are just stealing oil

BathroomMonkey · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>People tend to classify their opposition by its loudest member</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Agreed. In my first edit, I prefaced the first instance of 'conservatives' with 'some conservatives'. Got to stop painting with that wide brush . . .

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Hypocracy, its everywhere. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Indeed. As I said, we could go back and forth all day on that score and never really get anywhere.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm quite sure you are mistaken:

tor·ture
1.
1. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
2. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.

That is the dictionary definition of torture. Sleep deprivation doesnt qualify as severe physical pain. I highly recommend reading this This excellent article on American interrogation methods and restrictions. A very small extract:</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'm trying to find information on the use of sleep deprevation used in Iraq, but I haven't found any specifics (other than the fact that it was used). However, conceding that perhaps it isn't 'torture' if used judiciously, it's still an odd point. Are people up in arms about sleep deprivation specifically, or the host of horrors which have come to light thus far? It seems like that point was created to evoke imagery of liberal anger at torturous practices in general, and then tie it directly to the most innocuous of practices.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Definately disagree. Anyone who pre-war was under the impression the Americans werent going to try and topple Saddam and install a democracy was either insane, a poster at Indimedia, or probably both. If I decide to do 10 odd jobs and then pick you up from work and take you home, but spend all day yakking about how hard those jobs are going to be, does that mean that my offer to give you a lift should be viewed with extreme suspicion? I might not have given you said lift if I wasnt in the area, already out in my car - but I was out in the area, I had said I'd give you a lift, and I am currently picking you up. I dont see anything wrong here. Liberation was promised, liberation was delivered, and now democracy is being fought for tooth and nail - how anyone can remain cynical of those objectives in light of the current situation is a source of great wonder for me.

Liberation was a secondary objective to taking down Bin Ladin and destroying the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, yet it was also promised and delivered.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That's precisely the problem-- liberation is such a warm and fuzzy promise, that you can tack it onto <i>anything</i> as a secondary motivation to absolve you of any selfishness in your primary (with an ancillary benefit where the retort to any opposition becomes "well, they must not like freedom"). To use your example, I see you walking along the road as I'm driving to your house, and I pick you up. When we get there, I walk inside, into your room, grab any valuables I can find, and walk out the door. When you come screaming after me, I turn indignantly and say, "Hey, you got a ride home, didn't you?"

It's too <i>easy</i> to play the liberation card to convince people that your plans are noble. So while I agree that it's a wonderful secondary benefit, it's also often used as a wonderful trojan horse.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Wierd, how'd I miss this. I'd think you edited your post but can see no evidence of an edit.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

You just don't read closely enough? <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' />

Actually, during some board reorganization everyone in the dev group ended up with mod privs for some reason . . . not that I ever use them, but for some reason it masks my edits. It took me awhile to track that guy down for my questioning.

Marine0I · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm trying to find information on the use of sleep deprevation used in Iraq, but I haven't found any specifics (other than the fact that it was used). However, conceding that perhaps it isn't 'torture' if used judiciously, it's still an odd point. Are people up in arms about sleep deprivation specifically, or the host of horrors which have come to light thus far? It seems like that point was created to evoke imagery of liberal anger at tortorous practices in general, and then tie it directly to the most innocuous of practices. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

A lot of people got conned by Abu Grahib and hyperbolic claims that this was merely the Iraqi manifestation of Guanatanmo bay - rather than a few rogues in the prison system. The link I posted in my previous post and the <a href='http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001989.html' target='_blank'>Abu Grahib quiz</a> are very helpful for dispelling that impression. They do however, note that no ones knows what the CIA is doing, or how they are doing, and I have a suspicion none of us really want to know either.....

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>That's precisely the problem-- liberation is such a warm and fuzzy promise, that you can tack it onto <i>anything</i> as a secondary motivation to absolve you of any selfishness in your primary (with an ancillary benefit where the retort to any opposition becomes "well, they must not like freedom"). To use your example, I see you walking along the road, and I pick you up. I drive you home but when we get there, I walk into your house, into your room, grab any valuables I can find, and walk out the door. When you come screaming after me, I turn indignantly and say, "Hey, you got a ride home, didn't you?"

It's too <i>easy</i> to play the liberation card to convince people that your plans are noble. So while I agree that it's a wonderful secondary benefit, it's also often used as a wonderful trojan horse.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Okay valid point - it shouldnt be automatically swallowed at face value, or else we'd have China liberating Taiwan before we knew it. To rephrase my analogy, suppose I had to pick you up before I went and did my jobs, so I could con you into paying for my petrol, in order to let me drive to the rest of my jobs. You dont really want to pay, nor do you really want to come along with me to do the rest of my jobs, but it will get you home in the end. If I dont pick you up, I might get a couple of jobs done, but not the whole lot, and I'll be stuck without fuel. Picking you up is essential for the success of my outing - and in the same way liberating and delivering democracy to Iraq is essential to US plans. They could have just ensured the Iraqi's had no WMD, then dumped them, but it wouldnt have served their ends. In fact, anything less than liberation and democracy dealing would be considered a disaster for the US.

The pragmatic, self interested side of US foreign policy and the "arent we lovely helping everyone" side are in complete agreement over the correct course of action. For those reasons, rather than just because the US said they would, I was and am convinced the US is going the distance and will do the right thing.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You just don't read closely enough? tounge.gif

Actually, during some board reorganization everyone in the dev group ended up with mod privs for some reason . . . not that I ever use them, but for some reason it masks my edits. It took me awhile to track that guy down for my questioning.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I knew it, I kept telling myself the voices were wrong, but they wouldnt listen - I'm not crazy!!!

Grendel · January 2005

14 Int Factlet.

Sleep deprivation is both one of the most succesful and one of the most unpleasant forms of torture, leading to insanity more swiftly than physical abuse. The fact that it leaves no external marks is just a side benefit.

If people are being physically tortured during an investigation, then it's either because they are sending a political message or because the people doing it are getting kicks from it.

BaconTheory · January 2005

You can't win "a war on terror" by conventional means. Terror is something that is just "there" and you really can't beat it because there is no one thing to conquer or defeat. Terror is a collective idea and will always be present in some people's minds. Sure, we can get rid of Osama or Saddam, but that won't stop other people out there from carrying on the ideals behind terrorism.

Wheeee · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel @ Jan 14 2005, 12:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> 14 Int Factlet.

Sleep deprivation is both one of the most succesful and one of the most unpleasant forms of torture, leading to insanity more swiftly than physical abuse. The fact that it leaves no external marks is just a side benefit.

If people are being physically tortured during an investigation, then it's either because they are sending a political message or because the people doing it are getting kicks from it. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
source please?

*edit* also, are you implying that US interrogation methods lead to such extremes? On what basis?

*edit2* if you think sleep deprivation is torture and evil, then you have never been to college.

BlackMage · January 2005

possible source: <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_deprivation</a>

"Sleep deprivation is an overall lack of the necessary amount of sleep. A person can be deprived of sleep by their own body and mind, insomnia, or actively deprived by another individual. <b>Sleep deprivation is sometimes used as an instrument of torture.</b>

Lack of sleep may result in irritability, blurred vision, slurred speech, <b>memory lapses</b>, <b>overall confusion</b>, <b>hallucinations</b>, <b>nausea</b>, and eventually <b>death</b>."

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>*edit2* if you think sleep deprivation is torture and evil, then you have never been to college</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
ok, you are to stay awake for the next 96 hours. should you begin to nod off an LED light will turn on exposing your eyes to approximately 50000 candella. only 50000? remember that your eyes are closed (a typical helicopter based searchlight is one million candella). oh, if the light doesn't work an air raid siren will sound. also, you will be caffinated. oh yeah, don't leave your white room.

done with your 96? try another 72.

edit: there's a difference between a sleep defecit and deprivation. you, sir, need to go back to shcool.

Armageddon · January 2005

Well, after watching the movie "the siege" i don't think the war on terror will ever be won.

Soon terrorism is going to evolve into cyberterrorism when everything in the world gets automated.

BathroomMonkey · January 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>if you think sleep deprivation is torture and evil, then you have never been to college. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Prime difference: In college, my (and most, I would suspect) sleep deprivation was self-inflicted and voluntary (and the toll for not doing my work according to a more reasonable schedule). <b>Big</b> difference when you're forced sans alternative.

Can The War On Terror Be Won?

Comments