# How to create insurgents



## Spr.Earl (23 May 2004)

Yes, we all know; comparisons between the British empire and contemporary American power are old hat. Nevertheless, certain aspects of the Boer War and the war in Iraq - though fought in different centuries, hemispheres and circumstances - present food for thought. 

Britain's decision to go to war 104 years ago, thousands of miles away, was seen as rooted partly in the question of how South Africa's massive natural wealth was going to be used. Would it buttress the forces of good in the world (the British empire) or those of evil (anyone else)? Stressing the similarity with the US today, the historian of empire Niall Ferguson has written that Britain unfailingly acted in the name of liberty, even when its own self-interest was manifestly uppermost - therefore, the grab to control the goldfields was clothed in stirring ideals such as democracy and human rights. Referring to his fellow-writer's passionate belief in the war, Joseph Conrad said, 'If I am to believe Kipling, this is a war undertaken for the cause of democracy. C'est ÃƒÂ  crever de rire'. 

After several excuses were concocted and believed by a public who fanatically supported the war, tens of thousands of British troops set sail for South Africa in October 1899, expecting to be home by Christmas. Early defeats were apparently rectified in 1900, the commander-in-chief Lord Roberts declaring that the war was 'practically over'. Colleagues of Roberts, struck by his naive belief that he was fighting a conventional war and that capturing the capital and exiling the president would suffice, warned him that guerrilla warfare would break out in the districts left behind during the rapid advance. They were ignored. 

It was immediately recognised that Britain had blundered by underrating the enemy's persistence. The war seemed to be over, but huge British armies (supplemented by the Dominions who were anxious to prove their devotion and contributed about 10 per cent of the troops) soon became tied down by roaming irregulars who melted into the population and carried out raids 'inspired in the hope of vengeance, rather than victory'. The struggle degenerated, in James Morris's words, into a messy and inglorious manhunt, soured by recriminations and reprisals, executions in the field, arson and broken oaths. 

To smash Boer resistance, the British adopted brutal and shortsighted tactics, winning hearts and minds not being Kitchener's forte, or priority. Lord Milner, the proconsul in charge of post-war occupation and reconstruction, was determined to use the opportunity to spread his country's influence throughout the region in order to turn it into a source of political and economic strength. His intention was to rule without popular participation and to crush Afrikaner nationalism. The only problem was that Johnny Boer didn't want his nationalism crushed. And in the words of one historian, far from destroying it, Milner and Kitchener 'were the greatest recruiting agents it ever had'. The British also had to contend with local religious leaders who continued to whip up resistance to the occupation. 

The result was that guerrilla warfare made much of the country ungovernable, and 22,000 imperial soldiers lost their lives in an exercise that cost British taxpayers an astronomical (at the time)  £200 million (about  £13 billion in today's money). 

At the beginning of the war, Britain was gripped by unquestioning national paranoia and jingoism. One of its cheerleaders proudly wrote that such was the wave of feeling over the country that it was impossible to hold a peace meeting anywhere without a certainty of riot and denunciations of treachery. Not all, however, succumbed to the collective madness. The Labour MP Keir Hardie, for instance, believed that the jingoism was fomented by business leaders in the hope that working men, blinded by patriotic fever for foreign wars, would forget about growing economic inequalities at home. 

Meanwhile, the occupying power's feelings of righteousness were shared by virtually nobody else. Although no foreign government assisted the Boers, hundreds of volunteers came to fight beside them. Public opinion everywhere was massively anti-British. The Tsar and Leo Tolstoy each made similar comments about their passionate joy of reading news of British defeats, while the former flirted with the idea of a French-German-Russian alliance against the superpower of the day. 

All the while, the British were bone-headedly uncomprehending that what to them was justified self-sacrifice could appear to others like bullying, sanctimonious greed. Some of the schadenfreude over the British getting their come-uppance was hypocritical - Ibsen wondered incredulously if Europeans could really be on the side of Kruger's bible-bashing bigotry. (In today's circumstances, it would be similarly bizarre if anti-war opinion were to derive much enjoyment from the war party's discomfiture at the hands of reconstituted Baathists and the Taleban.) 

Sir Brian Urquhart has written how the occupation of Iraq, a vast increase in US military spending, Washington's rejection of important international treaties and its unconcealed contempt for international organisations and conventions have created uproar and foreboding in many parts of the world. The future South African Prime Minister JC Smuts described Britain's violation of every international law as 'very characteristic of the nation which always plays the role of chosen judge over the actions and behaviour of all other nations'. And there was almost universal moral revulsion over Britain's internment camps for Boer families, which has continued in some quarters to this day. 

The US neoconservatives, says Anatole Lieven, have made it clear that they want to see 'a long-term imperial war against any part of the Muslim world which defies the US and Israel'. It was recently asked in the New York Times whether President Bush ever wondered if the neocons had duped him and hijacked his foreign policy. (Salisbury privately felt he had been bounced into the Boer War by Milner, whose fault it was that 'we have to act upon a moral field prepared for us by him and his jingo supporters - and all for people whom we despise'.) 

Excessive hubris and underpreparation were charges levelled at the British, with Kipling raging against the 'bullock-stupidity' of this 'bum-headed army'. The late Hugo Young commented as early as last May on the lack of planning for the post-victory phase. Not only, he said, was it not foreseen that Iraqis would turn to guerrilla warfare, but the US didn't bring policemen, let alone nation-builders, 'and its first cohort of proconsuls has already been deemed incompetent and sent home'. 

At the beginning of the Boer War, the British public was bamboozled by imperial hardliners. But in the face of lengthy guerrilla warfare, the haemorrhaging of national wealth, and sustained moral criticism of British strategy and tactics, the jingoism eventually dissipated. 

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote an instant history, The Great Boer War, expressing incredulity that anyone could doubt the just and essential nature of Britain's cause. Could it be shown, he rhetorically asked, that there was not ' adequate cause' behind the war, surely it was certain that 'an explosion of rage from the deceived and the bereaved' would have already driven the ministers responsible 'for ever from public life?' 

For what it's worth, Salisbury won the 'khaki election' of 1900, and the Conservatives stayed in power until 1905. Still, this week's welcome moves by the US towards improved co-operation with the United Nations in Iraq could perhaps reflect a growing belief that what lay behind Conan Doyle's question may need addressing, very fast. 


 http://www.antiwar.com/spectator/spec32.html


----------



## Figure11 (23 May 2004)

This makes for an interesting comparison. Yet Smuts went on to serve as a General officer in World War 1 with the British army and the subsequent Union of South Africa stood with the UK in 1914 and 1939. 
I read somewhere once, that upon the conclusion of the Boer war, Britain agreed to pay something like 10 million pounds in restitution after the last of the "bitter-enders" had been rounded up in 1902. 
Although it seems likely that the US will be handing out cash by the truckload, I think that this guerrilla war will be going on for a lot longer than two years, and our American friends will be able to count on a lot less support from a future Iraqi government than what the Brits received from Smuts and co.


----------



## Slim (23 May 2004)

I don‘t think that the differences were as stark with with Smuts as they are with the Muslim hard-liners verses the west. Shame, as there are some really interesting parts to that culture...I feel that we will be at was or very nearly at war with them for quite a long time to come.

Personaly I feel that this will be the next great world conflict and these are just the opening moves...


----------



## Marauder (23 May 2004)

I can‘t wait to see how badly the UN phucks up once they become lodged in Iraq. You think Somalia and the Balkans were one unending screwup after another, I feel confident in saying the UN hasn‘t shown us anything yet.
Say what you will about Dubya, but he had the stones to do what was right.


----------



## nbk (23 May 2004)

Its interesting to see how history repeats itself.

The first and second decades of the 1700s saw large scale conflicts and war. The conflicts in first decade of the 1800s led to massive war during the second decade. The first decade of the 1900s led to massive war during the second decade.

With the way the world is today, it does not make one optimistic about the near future.


----------



## K. Ash (23 May 2004)

So what does that make us (man) if we fail to recognize and learn from our mistakes?


----------



## nbk (24 May 2004)

> Originally posted by absent_element:
> [qb] So what does that make us (man) if we fail to recognize and learn from our mistakes? [/qb]


Makes us merely human...


----------



## K. Ash (24 May 2004)

Touche.

Do you think we‘ll ever be able to avoid the mistakes of the past?


----------



## 1feral1 (31 May 2004)

We are on the cusp of something big (I wish I was wrong), and it anit gonna go away. Its gonna be a fight of east vs west, a clash of cultures and its already started. I SEE and FEEL the hatred here in Sydney daily, and it truly frightens me.

Some of the lads from my unit watched in total disgust, the recent Berg slaughter, and when we heard those crys of 'allah ackbar', our hairs stood on end. Truly one of the most sickening and horrific things I have seen.

With their 13th century mentality with 21st century technology (which we either sold them or gave them) = one dangerous and bumpy ride for us infidels. Hang on!

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Smoothbore (31 May 2004)

There will be no clash of Western culture with the Middle Eastern societies. If such a clash were to occur that race of people would be wiped out within a few hours. As an advanced and civilized Western society we learn on our previous mistakes and know that racial hatred leads nowhere. When money starts flowing into those afflicted areas we will see a dramatic decreas in anit-Western sentiments and eventually, the entire Jihadist, infidel rhetoric will dissintegrate. The key to success is to industrialize that region, i.e. the UAE are a prosperous and open society, because they've had a taste of the cash. Remember, it all comes down to economics.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jun 2004)

I wonder if the Kurds or the Shia might not produce a "Smuts" in the long term.  Both of them have significant portions of the population reasonably well-disposed to the West (if we are doing the us vs them thing).  Moqtada notwithstanding.

As to the comment about man not learning, one of the problems, even amongst the Westerners is that youngsters don't learn/appreciate history.   The problem is worse amongst the youngsters educated in the Madrassas.

Just like youngsters all think they invented sex, they also all think that what is happening around and to them has never happened to anyone before.

I take comfort in being a pessimist.  Wars happen. People die. We're still here.

Cheers.


----------



## 1feral1 (1 Jun 2004)

Ya, Smoothbore, you just keep your head in the sand. :


Wes


----------



## Smoothbore (1 Jun 2004)

In that case Wes, what would you propose? Total annihilation or my variant, which the US is currently trying to employ with limited success?


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Jun 2004)

You got a lot to learn Smooth. Talk is cheap. The real world is not in a social studies class. When you have some serious TI not only in life as an adult, but in the Defence Force, get back to me.

Stop looking at the world thru rose coloured glasses, and maybe listen to people on here who are a wealth of knowledge, and have vast life experience,   not only in Defence matters, but life in general.

Its beyond economics, its about religion and idealism, and an intended world domination by a twisted bent side of islam, who want nothing better than to KILL people lke YOU and I.

Maybe you need to come down to Cronulla Beach by my house, at Duningham Park and see the   marble memorial (often lit candles flicker in remberance) with the pictures of the local people ( all under 30, and their crime was having a few drinks with friends in an Australian dominated local pub) who were MURDERED at the Sari nightclub in Bali by islamic terrorists on 12 Oct 02.

BTW, that bombing killed 202 people (more than the recent bombing in Spain), of which 89 were Australians, and even wiped out entire families, and a man from Wynyard Saskatchewan was also vapourised too, so Canada was also a victim.

This cowardly act was not the result of economic matters, but religious idealism of radical islam, and a hatred for anything western. Try www.dfat.gov.au or see things from the islamic side from a Sydney based website www.islamicsydney.com and check out their current affairs forum, and get an eye opener. Try doing a search for "wahibi islam australia"

 Here is two more www.news.com.au www.dailytelegraph.com.au

Our ever vigilent Australian anti-terrorism authorities in the past weeks have arrested many of these dangerous extremists right here in Sydney, thwarting at least one bombing. One was picked up today, and another was sentanced to 9 yrs for organising a bombing of an embassy in Canberra, our nation's capital. Other islamic terrorists are currently being held in the most secure prison in Australia, while some have escaped Australia to the ME on forged passports. One was picked up in Beruit, on terr charges there and faces death or life ( in a notorious shyte hole ME prison) if found guilty. 

Wake up to yourself!

Remember that next time you post.

Wes


----------



## finbar (2 Jun 2004)

Well said Mr. Allen. It's about more than just a simple economic analogy.  These small, but ruthless group of ba$tards won't stop until they get a chance to make their mark and offer themselves up to martyrdom.  If we fail to sort then out now, then we are in for long and continued existence under threats and cowardly acts of mass murder.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Jun 2004)

Whats up smooth? Not enough intestinal fortitude for a reply? :gunner:

Wes


----------



## Smoothbore (3 Jun 2004)

In school right now, I'll muster up a response when I get back, although there is a lot of truth to what you are saying. But if you wish to eradicate the problem search for root causes, you well know that the show of force and excessive retaliation tactics will not work out, these are people that can survive in extreme conditions, they're children are brought up with an AK from the age of 6, and the Isreali-Palestinian conflict well illustrates that no matter how much violence you use to confront them, they'll strike back with barbaric attacks.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Jun 2004)

Smooth, you are not even worth a waist of an argument! In fact I am totally disgusted in your attitude, and a newbie at that, shame on ya! Any genuine person can admit if he/she overstepped the boundries.You just keep on believing what you want to ( that was a freedom paid by over 100,000 gallant Canadians killed in 20th century wars so you can have your freedoms instead of being hung for what you believe), while others try to do the right thing. 'Pi$s off.   :rocket:


----------



## Smoothbore (3 Jun 2004)

???

Did I say anything offensive?


----------



## bossi (3 Jun 2004)

Manners, please.  Thanks.



> "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."
> - Winston S. Churchill


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Jun 2004)

Smoothbore, go find another site to troll on.  :evil:


----------



## F.U.B.A.R. II (4 Jun 2004)

Wesley, how do you call a redneck in Australia?


----------



## Goober (4 Jun 2004)

You would think on a board like Army.ca people could have a discussion without resulting to childish name calling.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jun 2004)

FUBAR, you moron.  You really don't take the hint to well.

There is no possiblity for parole around here, troll.


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Jun 2004)

No offense Wes, but:

A)  You really are bieng excessively rude with very little cause, and

B)  The man has a point.  I mean, yes, there is no excuse for the type of fanaticism displayed by those groups, however, indiscriminate violence will only create more of them rather than less.  We need to fight terrorism, yes, and that certainly does involve killing people and blowing shit up.  However, it also involves winning over those who haven't turned into fanatics quite yet.  You can either help them rebuild a school and win them over to your side, or blow up their homes and send 'em over to the other side.  I think that's what Smoothbore was getting at.  And it's something you have to agree with if you've studied military history spaning the last few decades.  The old "Give us your hearts and minds or we'll burn your goddamn huts down" mindset didn't work in Vietnam, it's not working in Palestine, and it would be an even bigger disaster in the rest of the Middle East.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Jun 2004)

absent_element said:
			
		

> So what does that make us (man) if we fail to recognize and learn from our mistakes?



I don't see "us" as having made any mistakes, if you mean Canada.  I think once again we are victims of aggression and certainly not instigators.  Perhaps our only mistake has been to be too trusting of others.


----------



## jrhume (4 Jun 2004)

Smoothbore and 48Highlander,

You both talk of 'excessive violence' and 'indiscriminate violence' as if US forces were routinely using weapons in a mindless manner.  I suggest you both quit reading leftist garbage on the subject and go check out actual accounts from reporters who are on the scene.  Check out Robert D. Kaplan's article in opinionjournal.com for May 31.  He will have a longer article in the Atlantic Monthly for July/August.  Mr. Kaplan was with the Marines in Fallujah.  Also read Brendan Minitner, opinionjournal.com for June 1.

Then do a little checking in SpiritofAmerica.net to see what sort of support US troops are seeking in helping the people of Afghanistan and Iraq.  Do some research into the US military's large and small projects in rebuilding Iraq.

The aftermath of any war is confused and violent.  Iraq is no exception.  Mistakes have been made -- and corrected -- but don't expect to see much mainstream reporting on the corrections.  If you want to get closer to the truth, you have to go beyond the usual media outlets.

Friendly advice -- if you find yourself repeating what some one else told you, it's probably wrong.  Check it out for yourself.


----------



## bossi (4 Jun 2004)

Um, I hate to sound like a CIMIC weenie, but ... "Give us your hearts and minds or we'll burn your goddamn huts down" is so wrong it isn't even on target (and, no - I'm not suggesting you're a proponent of it, I'm just saying it's so wrong I couldn't let it go without commenting).

The hearts and minds thing is best done when it's "positive only" (i.e. the bad part is best left unsaid, or even better - when the bad part becomes the sole domain of the bad guys ... that's when you really start winning this battle, or even the war ...).

Kinda like referees in hockey - with one notable exception, they don't throw punches (i.e. they just step in when a fight gets ugly and protect the guy that's losing - most players respect that ... and appreciate it).

And, the local populace aren't stupid - they eventually recognise that only the bad guys are burning down schools, murdering to intimidate, etc. and that the good guys are only killing terrorists/guerillas.

Okay - I'll shut up now (it was a kneejerk thing, but I had to do it ... the voices made me ...)


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Jun 2004)

:gunner: I have always preferred that famous quote "when you got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow" :gunner:

For those who constantly give into pressure from the left, the snivel libertarians, bleeding hearts, and the do gooders, all this does is buy the EN time, and he laughs at us all, as we have let him into our house, and he pissses in the corner of your living rooms. He has no respect for us, our families, our culture, and our way of life, but sees the vastness and riches of western lands such as Canada, USA and Australia as a greener place to start his colonisation, and if anyone is thick enough to believe otherwise, you better take a long look thru the big picture of what really happening.

I am not saying wipe out a culture, just wipe out (with extreme prejudice) the radical fundimental extreme side of islam. Full stop!

I reckon one must have to have a wee bit of fear (and respect for todays terrorist) to taste to understand this extreme islamic threat, rather instead of trying to be politically correct by not offending anyone. Those days are about to abruptly end when Canada, or Australia (or any other westrern nation) has its first major attack, and don't get me wrong, it will come. I wish I was wrong, but our turn in the terror 'wheel of fortune' will arrive, sooner than later.

We gotta get tough now, taking the fight to the EN in his shtyeland before it get s on our shores, but we know its here, so tougher laws taking away a few civil rights aint gonna hurt any of us law abiding 'western animals' (quote from an islamic terr caught in Sydney). I would rather be safe than dead, or worse having my family murdered by a buch of insane extremists who value DEATH as much as you and I value our lives and the lives of our children.

As for attitudes like Smooth, FUBAR II and 48, I find that generally weak, and its that type of thought, which these terrs thrive on, and the complacency you both have is generic to the cause loss of life (here on our shores).

One more day of doing nothing, is one ore day he has over us. Don't be afraid to stand your ground, and speak out. be alert, not inert.

Time to take the gloves off. When diplomacy fails PHUCK EM! Dont stop til you're finished. Pound em hard, show no mercy. No quarter drawn or given. This war has not even begun yet. 

For the Spanish kids on the train, remember. For the unaccompanied kids on those flights on the S11 attacks, remember. For the kids with their mums and dads who were vapourised in the Sari nightclub, remember. The next time, it might be in your town.   Remember that!

dont be so phucking blind!

We are ready here, and take the threat as real is it comes as we have already been blooded.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## F.U.B.A.R. II (7 Jun 2004)

You are paranoid, you're probably the type of person that has a nuclear bunker in your basement and forces your children to do chemical attack drills 4 times a day.
Your behaviour resembles the attitude of terrorists themselves, ideological (second wave of colonisation...pff), strongly indoctrinated, naive and ignorant. What makes you believe that by killing some militants you will defeat them, you will just the induce the rest of the arab world to become radical. Show of force tactics are useless, they are not afraid of us, we are terrified of them (as you are an excellent example). Besides they are very clever by adopting guerilla tactics, its just like when the British army and French armies faced native americans in the 18th century. The Europeans all dressed up in their bright red and blue uniforms were shocked when indians would attack like partisans and not line up nicley in rows and bright uniforms to make it easier to shoot them.


You are a dinosuar form the Vietnam era that should be extinct. You believe that war is a glorious affair between men, you fight for God, the Queen and...oh yeah Freedom! (btw how the phuck can you save your freedom by shooting some pathetic and poor goat herders?)


----------



## Figure11 (7 Jun 2004)

FUBAR-  how would you recommend that we negotiate some form of peaceful co-existence with a group capable of flying a 'plane full of people into a skyscraper?


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (7 Jun 2004)

Wes,

Keep talking like that and maybe eventually you'll convince these monkeys that this is not an easy task that we have facing us. There have been some good points brought up by both sides of this. 

To the three stooges,
Do you think the filthy little terrorists are having debates right now on the moral justification of their actions? Do you think that they have people wringing their hands in sorrow for cutting some saps head off for the Internet? Maybe they went to confession this morning and reneged on their pledge to kill any Christian or Jew wherever they find them. Perhaps you might see them as freedom fighters doing what any one of us would do if we were invaded by a foreign army. Open your eyes you damned fools! What wrong did we do to Muslims that some lunatic fringe element would take up their cause and attack civilian targets such as NY, Madrid, NY again in 2001, Kenya, Pakistan, Bali and Jerusalem? Shall I keep going? This is not some normal clearly defined war that both sides can agree to the pre established LOAC whereby we will both be ensured that captured prisoners will be treated ethically, temporary cease fires to evacuate wounded combatants, not engaging medical personnel and minimizing collateral damage. This is a war to the finish for them and so it should be for us. 

As for creating insurgents, well I think that they are creating their own insurgents. Every part of their lives is strictly controlled. The leaders of the terrorist groups are not themselves going out on these attacks. They are recruiting some 16yr old with a tapeworm and a runny nose. They are not sending out the rich intelligentsia out to do battle with us as they have the means to see both sides of this issue therefore are much more informed. No, they are recruiting the poorest most uneducated as they have the least to lose, are most influenced by the strictly controlled media and traditionally will follow what their mullahs tell them to. This is who we are fighting against, a generation of older more influential men sending of their children, the flower of their culture off to do battle against tanks. We will stumble and make some mistakes, some we will gloss over and others will be blown far out of proportion (prisoner scandal and the media being mostly the only ones "outraged"). Remember this, we suffered setback after setback in WW1 and WW2. We came but a battle or two from losing both of those. Somehow, thanks to good leadership and realistic thinking and actions by people like us we won. Us, the good guys.


----------



## karpovage (7 Jun 2004)

Wes, I couldn't agree more with your comments. 

FUBAR, when someone close to you gets murdered and chopped into little pieces simply because they are from a western country or worship a different god then I'm sure your pacifist, appeasing attitude will change to a more offensive posture. The arguement is very simple. 9/11 was like someone sneaking in your home and killing your family as they slept in their beds. Your way of thinking says to me that a few hugs and forgiveness is the right way to solve the problem from ever happening again. However, your way of thinking is on the wrong side of history. In order to stop the next murder of the next family on the street in your neighborhood you must eliminate the cancer, eliminate the murderer from being in that position again. Yes, go in and wipe out the root cause of the cancer - the radical Islamic fundamentalists.   Wes is absolutely correct and his experience can speak of it. You say this will breed more murderers. It probably will. But we also cannot stop eliminating the cancer as it spreads and one day there will be a cure. That cure is the realization of the terrorists that everytime they act against us we will respond overwhelmingly to continue trying to wipe them out by all means necessary. That's life bro. That's reality. There is no Utopia. There is no Kumbiya love and kisses for fellow human beings. There never was. Man hates man. Always has always will. Whether your stealing someones sneakers in the ghetto and get shot for it or whether you just happen to reside in a particular western country. The reasons for killing one another are endless. The solution is to be strong to deter it and show the consequences of the crime from happening agian. 

Economics was brought up as a solution. Let the money flow in a postee said. Again, that is incorrect thinking on the wrong side of history. However much money you bring into your adversaries backyard to raise him up in the world won't change his way of thinking. The World Bank, The IMF, The UN and the United States have all pumped countless billions into these types of countries and the money has not made a difference in the least to curb one's thinking of killing us. In fact, this only breads corruption and embezzelment of funds and allows enemy leaders to purchase higher technology weapons systems to use against us. The lesson that works is what Wes says works. Bitch slap the enemy into submission until he learns that killing innocent westerns is not a good thing to do. FUBAR, it is unfortunate that man has to do this to one another and believe me I wish there was a solution that doesn't hurt anyone but this war isn't about territorial gain or greater riches or about weakening an enemy's army or stabilizing a region. This war is about keeping my/your family alive. And it's a worldwide fear. This war has no boundaries.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jun 2004)

Don't bother debating with FUBAR, he is a troll who was banned on the previous board and we have banned him again on the new software.


----------



## karpovage (7 Jun 2004)

Now that is some great news! That prick had shit for brains. I don't blame Wes for telling him to piss off. This forum is seriously one of the few where you can have a serious debate on issues. - and that's a big thanks to the moderators and Mike Bobbit. most forums degenerate into mudslinging and sheer stirring the pot as FUBAR did.

Gotta run now to see the Bolts take the Stanley Cup from you canuckers! it's 7:59 PM EST and it's time to hit the ice - and a cool Labatts!

cheers guys.


----------



## Smoothbore (7 Jun 2004)

I believe it was me that Wes told to piss off for whatever reason, although I hadn't made any personal remarks....not the Fubar (didn't I hear that name in SPR?).


----------



## Smoothbore (7 Jun 2004)

Karopvage, although I agree with your post concerning terrorism, you are however completely mistaken with your previous post:



			
				Karpovage said:
			
		

> Gotta run now to see the Bolts take the Stanley Cup from you canuckers! it's 7:59 PM EST and it's time to hit the ice - and a cool Labatts!
> 
> cheers guys.



It is a well known fact that Calgary will serve Tampa a hellacious arse-whomping.


----------



## Scratch_043 (7 Jun 2004)

Karpovage said:
			
		

> Gotta run now to see the Bolts take the Stanley Cup from you canuckers! it's 7:59 PM EST and it's time to hit the ice - and a cool Labatts!
> 
> cheers guys.


it does not matter which team wins, because most of the players on both teams are canadian.

P.S. you obviously have a great sense of national pride (I'm judging from your post), so tell me, why are you not drinking american beer?:-X;D


----------



## Goober (8 Jun 2004)

ToRN said:
			
		

> Karpovage said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol


----------



## Spr.Earl (8 Jun 2004)

Karpovage said:
			
		

> Now that is some great news! That prick had shit for brains. I don't blame Wes for telling him to piss off. This forum is seriously one of the few where you can have a serious debate on issues. - and that's a big thanks to the moderators and Mike Bobbit. most forums degenerate into mudslinging and sheer stirring the pot as FUBAR did.
> 
> Gotta run now to see the Bolts take the Stanley Cup from you canuckers! it's 7:59 PM EST and it's time to hit the ice - and a cool Labatts!
> 
> cheers guys.


Ah well,we Canadians won the Cup again.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Jun 2004)

:fifty:

This really arcs me up and shytes me off to no end!

I am beginning to think fubarII and smoothbore are one of the same. As for a VN dinosaur, I was 15 when the war ended back in 1975, and just a kid. That almost sounded like a quote directed to Gunny Highway in the movie   Heartbreak Ridge.

Thanks for banning this *****wit (Aussie term for waste of rations, skin, time, and air). Its stains like that bloke who seem to get some kind of twisted enjoyment of creating unrest, and he is/was being a terrorist here on this site. Good riddence!

Excuse my rudeness but, why *****'s mum did not cop it ** *** **** or *******, we'll never know. Another classic reason why some animals in the wild eat their young. Anyways enough said on another used ****** of society, and I am sure he'll be smoking bongs with his lefty student and unemployed friends drinking daddys warm beer stolen from the   fridge.

As for war, any professional soldier hates it, but it is sometimes its necessary as a last resort. Any soldier who feels otherwise or glorifies any war should not be wearing the uniform. We are an insurance policy which at times is opened, and the price paid for this policy is our lives, as the weak and wus sit back and play with their play stations, and watch CNN. Only commenting to criticise.

As for the weak ones like fubar, smoothbore and 48, who live in a sheltered environment (home with mum, dad and sis), maybe what they need is to have some life experience in the real world, not watching Blackhawk Down or Saving Pte Ryan (BTW these are great movies). Real life is far different than a wknd militia ex at Meaford!

Try seeing the trauma and feeling the horror on victims of terror, or seeing and smelling a corpse of a victim split wide open ripening in the hot Indonesian sun. Families flying in from Sydney to try to   identify crisp charred remains of their loved ones in un-refrigereated areas at 40C and 100% humidity a week after the bombing while standing in body fluids 3cm deep. Imagine how it must have felt for them. So, you boys and I use that term loosley, you should hang your heads in shame for your silly unthought of comments, and even hang them lower for the deliberate ignorant comments you have made.
 :cam:

I think I have said enough for now. Time for a dinner and a Jack D, then back to work til late! 

Its not the goat herders I am worried about, its the greasy little cowards right now who are comtemplating or planning   a terror act in your city.


Cheers from another warm wintery day here on Australia's eastern coast,


Wes 

[moderator note:   edited for language, in order to maintain a "PG" rating for this post]


----------



## finbar (8 Jun 2004)

Wes,  Et al: Have a look at this link to a recent Ralph Peters paper. It characterizes a number of themes in this war on terrorism. Make no mistake, it is a war. A good read indeed. 

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04summer/peters.pdf

"We need plain talk, honest answers, and the will to close with the enemy
and kill him".


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jun 2004)

Old Guy:      Thanks for the attempt, but I never stated or insinuated that excessive or indiscriminate violence was occuring in Iraq "all the time".   It obviously IS happening, but I beleive it's getting better.   America has plenty of it's own Wesleys though, and as long as his ilk exist within the military, the PR machine will have to work in overdrive if Americans plan on keeping any friends instead of making more enemies.

Wesley:     If you truly beleive that "when you got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow", you're living in a dream world.   Think about how you would react if a ME country invaded Australia, made you all worship Allah, imposed a secular government with a dictator you couldn't vote for, and then went about shooting any of your relatives who opposed them as well as, once in a while, those who cooperated.   If your "heart and mind" followed your balls, you'd be one weak kneed mother*****r.   Any man who isn't a complete waste of skin would only fight harder.   You think your attitude makes you strong?   You think wanting to indiscriminantly kill off one of the worlds major religions somehow makes you "tough" or more of a man?   Hitler had an attitude very similar to yours my friend.   He beleived that the Jews were ruining his country, and that the only way to protect his people against them was with a "tough" attitude like yours.   I didn't much like his ideas, and I deffinitely don't like yours.   And before you start trying to tell me that you don't want to kill of all Muslims, please, don't bother.   Hitler never claimed to want the death of all Jews either.   He simply wanted them controlled.   He wanted to "grab 'em by their balls" so their hearts and minds would follow.   Now, do you want to hear about someone with a "weak" attitude like mine?   During the Seond World War, David Stirling, the founder of the Brittish SAS threw a granade into a room and killed several Germans.   He didn't do it to achieve his aim, and he bitterly regreted it.   He said it was a waste of life, and it pissed him off.

Padraig:   I'm not even going to bother with this one.   We've already established that you're a racist, psychotic *******.   Move out of the trailer park, and seek help.   Goodbye.

Karpovage:   I tried to read your post, but I'm not sure that it was written in English.   From what I did understand, it seems that you beleive that the only way to kill a cancer is by killing the host, and that human beings are destined to kill eachother over anything and everything untill we're all wiped out.   I think that's pessimism at it's extreme.   I'd like to beleive, from what I see in NATO countries, that we humans can learn and can change.   That as long as we keep trying, we CAN find a better way.   I think you and Wesley are trying to take the easy way out.   And even if I'm wrong...I would gladly give my life to further the ideals of our society...but I would NEVER fight for beleifs like yours or Wesleys.

Edited for profanity - muskrat89


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jun 2004)

..at least not from my hiding spot anyway... :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jun 2004)

Lad,
Although Wes is very passionate about what he says, I NEVER read anywhere that he advocated taking out a whole religion. Stop reading what you want to read. He does advocate taking out the militants that are the cause of our current problem.
You say that you would gladly give your life to further the ideals of our society, well maybe some people don't plan on doing that by just sitting in a nightclub having a drink. 
You would NEVER fight for beliefs that did'nt coincide with yours? Well get out now just in case you get tasked to go somewhere that disagree's with you.
EDIT: ..and a demote won;t change a thing, son.


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jun 2004)

Lad, thanks, but I somehow doubt the CF will ever task me to go around wiping out people indescriminantly, so I don't plan on leaving.  If you haven't seen Wes advocating things of that nature, you must not have been reading his post fully.  Yes, defending our ideals does involve fighting.  I have no problem shooting a suicide bomber before he can set himself off, taking out terrorist at their ammunition dumps and training facilities, or arresting those linked with terrorist networks.  What I do have a problem with is those who perpetuate hate based on their own perceptions of a culture or a religion.  What I DO have a problem is killing innocents in order to get to the criminals, when those killings would have been avoided if the innocents had been white instead of brown, or had worn a baseball cap instead of a turban.  And what I DO have a problem with is the idea that all of the worlds problems can magically be solved through violence.  People have been trying that for thousands of years, and it has never worked.  Violence deffinitely has it's place, but if that's all we rely on, we'll NEVER stop fighting.  We need a better way.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jun 2004)

> We need a better way.



Well, until you find it, why don't you quit preaching to us and throwing around your accusations of racists and trailer parks.


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jun 2004)

Silly me, I was under the impression that these forums exist for coming up with, and debating ideas.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jun 2004)

It is.

But you've given your ideas and it has been shot down.  Instead of trying to provide evidence to back up your claims, you've labeled Wes of wanting genocide, Padraig of being psychotic trailer trash, and Karpovage of being unable to write in English.

All you've done is provide this as an idea.



> And what I DO have a problem with is the idea that all of the worlds problems can magically be solved through violence.



Tell that to the Carthaginians.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jun 2004)

Now you're pissing me off. Go back to  post # 42 and see where you allowed for anything to be debated.
Stop hiding behind words you don't mean when someone turns on the heat. Sad


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jun 2004)

Wow.  Are you two TOTALY out of touch with reality?


A)  My ideas have been "shot down" by with remarks like "that sort of thinking is weak" and "we need to grab 'em by the balls goddamit".  That's not a logical response, nor does it in any way adress the issues I've tried to bring up, so ofcourse I'm going to attempt to debate the issue.
B)  Neither the Carthegians nor the Romans exist any more, which is a damn good example that violence did not solve their problems.
C)  Bruce, your condescending attitude is pissing ME off.  If you want to discuss anything, please refrain from calling me "lad", and try to keep a bit of an open mind.  I left plenty of room for debate in my post.  Wesley is free to reply and correct me on any points I may have been mistaken about, or he's free to continue to flame me and others who advocate using brains in addition to muscle.  As he has done repeatedly in this thread.


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Jun 2004)

Obviously this is a high-powered issue - let's stay on track or I'll kill the thread.

48Highlander - I edited one of you other posts. Someone as intellectual as you claim to be shouldn't need to use mother*****r to make a point. Not just military people use view these forums


As far as the broad range of opinions presented.....

I guess Nicholas Berg needed better negotiating skills - that was the problem...    :


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jun 2004)

I never claimed to be an intelectual, but you're right.  I assumed the word would be automatically censored, and did not notice that it was not.

And who ever said anything about negotiating with terorists?  That's a horrible idea.  In the past, whenever the US violated it's policy of not negotiating with terrorists, it's only worsened the situation.  But there's a big difference between refusing to negotiate with terrorists and hostage takers, and indescriminantly killing and torturing civilians and detainess.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jun 2004)

..but the moment the terrorist becomes a detainee treat him with kid gloves?...No,regretably the old POW way of thinking cannot apply to these people.


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Jun 2004)

> indescriminantly killing and torturing civilians and detainess



That's the point, that everyone is trying to make. I can't see where Wes or anyone else has advocated the *indiscriminate* killing and torturing of civilians or detainees.

Nor is that a policy of the United States - yes, several isolated incidents, but not policy

You know what else? If throwing a pair of panties and a leash over the head of an Afghani "detainee" had yielded information that would have saved Canadian lives - I'd be all for it.


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jun 2004)

Bruce:  And what about the civilian who becomes a detainee because we mistakenly beleive him to be a terrorist?  Beat him senseless untill he confesses to crimes he did not commit?

Muskrat:  Here's what I said to wesley earlier:

"We need to fight terrorism, yes, and that certainly does involve killing people and blowing crap up.  However, it also involves winning over those who haven't turned into fanatics quite yet.  You can either help them rebuild a school and win them over to your side, or blow up their homes and send 'em over to the other side."

He replied by saying my point of view was "weak" and "sheltered" and suggested I get out in the "real world".  Now I don't know about you, but that certainly seems to suggest that he thinks indiscriminate bombings and killings are ok.

I know that it's not a US policy, I never meant to suggest otherwise.  It just seems to me that it's the personal policy of Wesley and his ilk.

As for throwing a pair of panties over a prisoners head and saving lives and all that...yeah sure, fine.  If it saves lives, why not?  But that's a very big if.  Are you going to humiliate every single prisoner, guilty or innocent, on the off chance that one of them might tell you something useful?  I'm all for beating the crap out of a detainee if it'll save lives too.  But beating the crap out of all of 'em and hoping one tells you what you need to know?  Why don't we move on to torture next?  Or how about holding their families hostage?  Where do you draw the line?  Once you start modifying your own moral code, and start treating people in a way you KNOW is wrong, it becomes that much easier to go the next step.  Germany did not decide to take over the world and exterminate the Jews overnight.  It's a slow, slippery slope, with each step generating more momentum towards the next one.  It's much easier to keep yourself from taking the first step than to try and stop once you're already moving.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Jun 2004)

In case you did'nt notice, a couple of days ago was the 60th anniversary of thousands of people "modifying" thier moral code. I'm sure untill that day most had never shot at a human being before. My father seemed to recover from "that slippery slope" just fine, thanks.


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jun 2004)

In case YOU haven't noticed, there's absolutely nothing in most peoples moral codes that prevents them from shooting someone in self defence.  Let's not be silly here Bruce.


----------



## Padraig OCinnead (8 Jun 2004)

I suppose violence never solved anything. No, violence didn't solve  problems like Nazism, Fascism. It never solved the slavery in southern US or cessesion. It never solved the death camps. It never solved Japanese imperalism. As for calling me a racist...buddy until you actually meet me face to face and realize what a retarded statement that is you'll just have to take my word that I am not. I never ever advocated violence or harrassment based on skin colour, ethnicity, religion. Only to those terrorist. Read a post or two of mine you'll see that though I'm no liberal that last thing I am is a racist psychopath.


----------



## bossi (8 Jun 2004)

Okay, gents.  Back to your corners, cool down.
When the bell sounds, you can resume the bout - but, no hititng below the belt.

As somebody said, it's "... a slippery slope ..." (and, there's a lot of slippage going on here).

"Ding!"


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Jun 2004)

About balls, hearts and minds, etc. Its a famous quote which I like, and I find it humourous, anyone who takes what I said seriously is really looking for a weak point to start an argument.

Hey 48, ever considered joining the Peace Corps? If you are a member of the CF, I would not want you in my PL or worse in Section! In an operational environment, I am sure you would be fragged by your own friends. If you ever get down this way, I'll take to into some radical islamic areas of Sydney, in which you will truly be afraid for your life. Being Canadian is not bulletproof protection, as these mainly wahibi sect extremists would love to kill you quicksmart because of your religion, and as long as you are a westerner you are targets. Listen to a Sydney based mainstream so called 'moderate' muslim website, and what many have to say on www.islamicsydney.com and go to forums and then current affairs. What they have to say about the Berg video is shocking enough! These are people right here in Sydney.

The media (ABC TV crew) have been nearly killed on one occasion ( when attacked by 100's at the Lakemba mosque), others, including female journalists have been also assaulted, and this is not in Baghdad, but right here in the Olympic city of Sydney. 

We have now arrested and detained many muslim terrorists right here. Lebanese, Pakistani, Eqyptian, and Jordanian muslims of the extreme right wing. These arrests have prevented loss of Australian lives. Other Sydney based muslims have been arrested overseas and are now being held in Beruit on terr charges there, and could even get the death penalty.

Radical extreme islam is growning here in Australia, and one day a group will get thru, and do their dash here. Thats a fact. we have every right to be nerous too, with the Bali bombings, and the worlds largest muslim country to our north with about 280,000,000 muslims living on over 13,000 of the 16,000 islands which make up Indonesia. Many are radical and hate Australia over the East Timor liberation. Go to www.dfat.gov.au for the travel warnings, and see for yourself.

So before you go off on another do gooder snivel libertarian tanty, take hed in what I have said and others have said.


Regards,

Wes


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jun 2004)

I've never been to Australia so I really don't know how accurate what you're saying is.  I do however have an australian friend whom I've known for roughly 7 years now.  Her brother is in the ADF reserve.  When I told them what you said about militant muslims in Sidney, they said you were "talking out your arse".  Personaly, I think someone with your attitude and beleifs is likely to see enemies where there are none.  Certainly, having pre-conceived notions about what certain "types" of people are like will influence the way you look at them.  And the way you treat them will change the way they react to you.  Either way, you wouldn't have to worry about working with me.  If you were tasked to my section I'd request that you be transfered immediately.  I don't need any of my troops poisoning our relationship with the locals.

Capt. Bossi:  I hope this reply is acceptable.  Let me know if I get out of line and I'll modify whichever part of the post you find offensive.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Jun 2004)

48: For the record about baseball caps vs turbins. The latest terrorist to cop a 9 yr sentance for planning to blow up the Israeli embassy in Canberra was infact a muslim convert, UK born good ole meat pie eating white boy. So leave the skin colour out of it.

Willie Briget (was organising a terr strike here in Sydney) too was an islamic convert too, and he was deported to France from here and is being held on terr charges there. 

Listen Mate (and I use that term loosly) dont EVER go comparing me to a Hitler or an Nazi. I have relatives who are buried at Vimy and Passchendaele and in Normandy graves   from WW2, and my reason for signing on was in their honour!

Its not about wiping out ALL muslims, the majority are just like you and I (god fearing genuine people), but its about wiping out the dangerous sect of them, who would rather see you and your family DEAD because of your beliefs.

Was you Chocko friend Sydney ( spelled with a Y BTW) based? Have   they not ever heard of Lakemba, Punchbowl, Fairfield, Wiley Park, Auburn and the rest? Anyone who denies there is a problem here is not banging on all four cylinders. Even our PM has acknowledged an attack will come. So is our PM too talking out his arse? Are wthe SAS and other anti terr squads talking out their arses too? Are the guards on the Harbour Bridge protecting it from attack talking out their arse too? Is the biggest anti terr exercise ever conducted in the history of Australia last week organised by more arse talkers?   Is DFAT talking out its arse?   Get rooted mate! You got alot to learn. Were the 89 Australians who were murdered by radical islam talking out their arses too?

Arguing with you is pointless as you are totally blind to the TRUTH, and your vison might only come back once the danger is on your door step, or worse once someone you love is MURDERED in cold gutless fashion.

Please feel free with more demotes.

Turn in your kit!

Out.

Wes


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jun 2004)

Here wes:

(Link deleted by Army.ca DS - we don't need hits on that site from here, and the material is drivel anyhow.)

I thought you might enjoy that.   There you can talk to some people who share your views.   I especially like the disclaimer at the bottom.

I don't really care who you have that died where.   I do also, as do many, MANY people on here.   Having relatives who died fighting Nazis doesn't excuse your attitude nor does it somehow make you more noble or correct.   Even the most dishonourable man must have at least one honourable relative.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jun 2004)

This thread has left the realm of relevance and utility.

Since it has devolved from an attempt to actually debate anything, just take it to the PM's please.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jun 2004)

As well, I'd like to see a solution.

48, you obviously feel that pounding them into an oblivion wouldn't work.  So what do you propose we do to eliminate the clear and present danger of radical Islam?


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2004)

O great programmer of the forum server

Please, Please, Please, just this once let me karmically demote that character parading as highlander without having to wait an hour.  He is so deserving of karmic punishment.

Huh, can I? Just once?

I wonder. Do you suppose he is regimental? Or is he one of those poor types that puts a silk lining in his kilt?

It makes me ashamed to be Scots.

48th.  You joined for a sojer.  On the day that you joined you agreed to give yourself over to your Sovereign and obey the commands of those folks she put in command of you.  And if your CO is silly enough to promote you, you will be expected to relay those commands to other folks just like yourself.  

Your Sovereign acts on the basis of advice given to her by her Canadian government, with or without the approval  parliament and the Canadian populace.  She is definitely not waiting around to hear your opinion.

When your superior commands you have two options: obey or take your complaint up before a court-martial.  You had better be gey sure of your case.

If you don't like the situation of being told to do things you don't like, you don't think are right, you think are morally repugnant then you should follow the advice of others on this forum with longer service  than either of us and get out.

You volunteered to do the Queen's bidding.  Not only when you understand or agree with the instruction but also in circumstances where you are not as familiar with the details and the rationale as the higher command.  You agreed to trust the command.

To be fair, it is admirable that you do trust your chain of command enough that you believe they will never put you in a moral quandary.  

But the Queen and her government are planning on you living up to your side of the bargain and doing what you are told.  Their decisions may be right or wrong but they must be able to count on the forces acting in accordance with the wishes of her government which democratically elected to make those decisions.

Have you considered what might have happened if things had gone bad in Montreal in 1970 or at Oka in 1980?  Those troops of your age could have found themselves ordered to fire on Canadians.  Are you ready to do that?  Because that is what is implied in your terms of service.

The only real comfort that a serving soldier can take is that leaders are (or maybe I should say were) schooled never to give a command that will not  be obeyed.  A mutinous body of troops is bad for an officer's prospects of promotion, not to mention it can have a deleterious effect on his long-term health.

But a soldier first and foremost is a servant of the state.


----------



## bossi (8 Jun 2004)

(sigh ... maybe it's just the high humidex reading today ... and everybody will rediscover their errant Forum manners tomorrow after a good night's sleep ...)

Anyway - it's interesting to note their fund-raisers aren't stupid.
Rather than traffic illegal narcotics, they've latched onto "minor" smuggling to stay "under the radar"
(i.e. lesser penalties, but high stakes nevertheless).
Perhaps, similar to the way they nailed Capone for tax evasion, another converging attack is to cut the terrorists' legs out from under them is to strangle their cashflow ... (hmmm ... sounds familiar, doesn't it?  When Thatcher finally convinced the United States to stop the flow of funds, the IRA's demise began ...).  And, we know several governments have already taken steps in this direction ... hmmm ... maybe they're on to something ... ?
"Starve them to death" financially, "Choke them to death" vis-a-vis recruiting by winning over the hearts and minds of potential recruits thereby denying cannon fodder to the extremists, and outright kill them when they stand up to take a shot at "us" ... ?  Hmmm ...



> Cigarette Smuggling Linked to Terrorism
> By Sari Horwitz, Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, June 8, 2004; Page A01
> 
> ...


----------



## 48Highlander (8 Jun 2004)

Infanteer:  The boys in afghanistan at the moment are doing a pretty damn good job.  Follow their lead.

Kirkhill:  My "soverign" has, through the chain of command, ordered me to obey the laws of Canada, and the Geneva Conventions.  I don't think that's about to change.  If it does, I'll have to reconsider my commitment to her.


----------



## winchable (8 Jun 2004)

*ding ding*

I'm going to back Bossi on this one, gentlemen to your corners, and come out tommorow.


Must be the heat.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jun 2004)

Fair enough 48th.

Cheers


----------



## Smoothbore (9 Jun 2004)

I believe that once we finally find an alternative power source and become independent of those crude oil fields under the scorching sands of Saudi Arabia, this current conflict will eventually just fade away magically, trust me. Our (Western) involvement in those regions will minimise and become non-existant. With that, anti-Western rhetoric claiming that the US, under the influence of American Jews (Zionists as the Arab world loves to call them) is making enormous profits off their sacred lands will diminish. 
One serious issue however remains, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From an Arab point of view the Palestinians - with no armed forces, occupied and generally divided - are abused by Israel, which is a local superpower funded by the US. The only way Palestinians can fend themselves and fight for their ideals is through irregular warfare, and that is what they are doing and causing Israel to retaliate in a similar manner (shooting up refugee camps). I see no solution to this problem. Both sides are stubborn jackasses, they're just creating unrest and dividing the rest of the world.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Jun 2004)

> I believe that once we finally find an alternative power source and become independent of those crude oil fields under the scorching sands of Saudi Arabia, this current conflict will eventually just fade away magically, trust me. Our (Western) involvement in those regions will minimise and become non-existant. With that, anti-Western rhetoric claiming that the US, under the influence of American Jews (Zionists as the Arab world loves to call them) is making enormous profits off their sacred lands will diminish.



Ideally, yes.  But I think a major geopolitical shift will take place in the region before the West will be capable of developing this technology to the extent that it can migitate our need for petroleum (remember, besides cars, planes, trains, transport trucks, plastics, oils and lubrications all require petroleum as well).  I can't see the energy situation being resolved in the next decade, so we shouldn't put all our hopes into waiting for that solution to come around.



> One serious issue however remains, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From an Arab point of view the Palestinians - with no armed forces, occupied and generally divided - are abused by Israel, which is a local superpower funded by the US. The only way Palestinians can fend themselves and fight for their ideals is through irregular warfare, and that is what they are doing and causing Israel to retaliate in a similar manner (shooting up refugee camps). I see no solution to this problem. Both sides are stubborn jackasses, they're just creating unrest and dividing the rest of the world.



I think the neutering of terrost organizations by targeting their leaders seems to be working.  Again, I don't see this issue being resolved until a significant enough event takes place in the region to force change upon both parties.


----------



## Smoothbore (9 Jun 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I can't see the energy situation being resolved in the next decade, so we shouldn't put all our hopes into waiting for that solution to come around.
> I think the neutering of terrorist organizations by targeting their leaders seems to be working.  Again, I don't see this issue being resolved until a significant enough event takes place in the region to force change upon both parties.



That is correct, there will be no major technology shift for another 30 or so years. 
The geopolitical situation will however drastically change when someone becomes desperate enough to detonate a nuclear device in Tel Aviv or Haifa (and unfortunately this is where we're heading right now, the US has got militant Islamic organizations cornered, thus making them more susceptible to take drastic action - if you don't already consider 9/11 drastic)..We shouldn't wait for that to happen. Certain steps should be taken to avoid this, occupation and military action haven't been working for the past 25 years. Targeting leadership? Can you come forth with some particular examples of where and how this has worked?
Any thoughts on how to avoid this prelude to disaster?

48th, Wes - Hug!


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Jun 2004)

Hey 48, I see alot of other pers agreeing with you (NOT). Just keep the blinders on, and you'll be alright. Oh, BTW dont forget to demote me again.

Personally I find your posting of a KKK website which promotes nothing but the purest of hatred, murder, and unrest in very bad taste, and QUITE OFFENSIVE yet comparing me to such a filthy organisation which I believe should also be put down. 

Not only are you grasping at straws, but this also really tells me the quality of  being you are, and I find you reaching the rank of MCPL simply another mistake of   'one falling thru the cracks and getting away'.

You are lower than low, and I almost feel embarrassed for you.

Shame on ya for promoting hatred on this fine website. You should have your membership revoked ASAP, and I hope you do.

Dont forget to turn in your kit next Tuesday night.

Wes


----------



## Goober (9 Jun 2004)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> > indescriminantly killing and torturing civilians and detainess
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That may be the policy now.. but it could change at anytime. Here is a snippet from an AP article

""The president has made it clear that U.S. policy is that the Geneva Convention applied in Iraq and that detainees elsewhere are treated consistent with the Geneva accords."

One of the memos, cited in a March 2003 Pentagon policy paper, stated that the president's broad wartime national security authority may override anti-torture laws and treaties, including the Geneva Conventions, in certain circumstances."

Full story here... http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=040609&cat=news&st=newsd833at900&src=ap


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Jun 2004)

Folks I am locking this as you do not want to seem to play nice and before it turns into an even nastier flame war it ends here!


----------

