US Sacks Iraqi Army, Beurocracy, 400,000 all told

[HemlockGrey]

Technically, Bush and the Pentagon are terrorist's, Shock and Awe.

Shock and Awe was basically to terrorize the people enough to not fight the Americans, therefore, it is an act of terrorism, and those perpetrating it are terrorists.

You go on thinking that in that little bubble world where you are King.

[Joe]

Don't take the bait. Ignore it.

[Wicked Pilot]

I can never tell if Ted is a left winger, right winger, or simply an idiot.

That doesn't sound baseless to me. I can't tell either.

[Beowulf]

I can never tell if Ted is a left winger, right winger, or simply an idiot.

That doesn't sound baseless to me. I can't tell either.

Nor, for that matter, can I...

[Ted]

Technically, Bush and the Pentagon are terrorist's, Shock and Awe.

Shock and Awe was basically to terrorize the people enough to not fight the Americans, therefore, it is an act of terrorism, and those perpetrating it are terrorists.

You go on thinking that in that little bubble world where you are King.

So you say terrorism is an act that does not cause terror?

Shock and Awe is basically the same thing as Donner und Blitzen, or the Blitz of London, Malta, or the firebombings of Germany. Acts to scare the people into submission, to terrorize the people.

[HemlockGrey]

Shock and Awe is basically the same thing as Donner und Blitzen, or the Blitz of London, Malta, or the firebombings of Germany. Acts to scare the people into submission, to terrorize the people.

But Shock and Awe did not target civilian infrastructure. Ted, if you can't tell the difference between bombing cities non-stop with the purpose of killing as many civilians as possible and bombing troops, fortifications, and military bases, you need to get in touch with reality.

[HemlockGrey]

BTW, by 'civilian infrastructure' I really should have said 'did not purposely attempt to blow up civilian homes'

[Ted]

Shock and Awe is basically the same thing as Donner und Blitzen, or the Blitz of London, Malta, or the firebombings of Germany. Acts to scare the people into submission, to terrorize the people.

But Shock and Awe did not target civilian infrastructure. Ted, if you can't tell the difference between bombing cities non-stop with the purpose of killing as many civilians as possible and bombing troops, fortifications, and military bases, you need to get in touch with reality.

Then tell the others who say the bombing of the Cole was a terrorist act, and the plane hitting the Pentagon a terrorist act.

[HemlockGrey]

Then tell the others who say the bombing of the Cole was a terrorist act, and the plane hitting the Pentagon a terrorist act.

Holy shit, does that have anything at all to do with the topic at hand, Ted? No? It doesn't? Wipe the salt!

[Axis Kast]

Ah. Ted and his anti-American tirades.

And how would you propose we’d have handled the situation, Ted? Nevermind that the actual “shock and awe” we were led to expect didn’t come at all. Or that the campaign was launched as part of a clear offensive during a war fought by conventional forces against conventional forces (for the most part, with some partisans and irregulars thrown into the mix, as they are liable to be whenever occupation is in question).

But Ted has a point. War is all about terror. We’ve launched raids on civilian targets with military personnel since the dawn of time. In fact, it was only relatively recently – i.e. just after the Second World War – that strikes against civilian targets were really stricken from the routine of warmaking. There was of course some talk of it during the League of Nations tenure, although nothing really changed until 1945. Marina’s point stands. Terrorism is another name for an attack designed to change political realities. On any level. The only actual difference is that its protagonists are generally non-state actors working on their own – which means they’re not protected by a document written over a half-century earlier dealing with more “respectable” forms of warmaking.

The more things change, the more they say the same. “Terrorism” as we call it first came to America with the Jamestown settlers; raids launched by both European and native often went after townships or villages rather than fortified positions. After all, if you cull their youth and burn their crops, conventional warmaking is impossible.

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

whine whine whine. when they complain we're staying too long, we leave - when we leave, they complain we're leaving a mess.

You have left a mess.

400,000 of the Iraq government is gone, and is threatening terrorism against the US.

did I miss something? Is Enforcer Talen secretly President Bush and Ted is the only one who knows it?

Because it would be extremely stupid and short-sighted to say "YOU have left a mess" to someone just because they're an American, because that would imply the American people ordered the invasion of Iraq, and not the higher-ups. It woiuld also imply all Americans are pro-war, which anyone with a brain and an attention span could see is far from the case.

But Ted wouldn't be that stupid, so I guess that can only mean Talen is President Bush. Bush is a much better speller than I thought he was, I might add after reading his posts.

[NapoleonGH]

Axis i can tell you how I would have handled the situation, NOTHING, because there WAS NO SITUATION. Iraq posed no threat to US internal or external security, iraq posed no threat to any US interests, iraq as we are finding out didnt actually have all the WMDs we thought they did, iraq had no possibility of being able to attack us. I see no difference in the situation last year as any other time or between our situation with Cuba. IE no situation in reality, yes our nations werent on speaking terms, but until bush we werent on "lets kill each other terms" either beyond Clinton's occasional bombing in response to US planes invading their airspace being radar targeted.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Axis i can tell you how I would have handled the situation, NOTHING, because there WAS NO SITUATION. Iraq posed no threat to US internal or external security, iraq posed no threat to any US interests, iraq as we are finding out didnt actually have all the WMDs we thought they did, iraq had no possibility of being able to attack us. I see no difference in the situation last year as any other time or between our situation with Cuba. IE no situation in reality, yes our nations werent on speaking terms, but until bush we werent on "lets kill each other terms" either beyond Clinton's occasional bombing in response to US planes invading their airspace being radar targeted.

Iraq was a necessary target in the war to eliminate Islamofascism. WMDs provided casus belli.

[Lonestar]

Technically, Bush and the Pentagon are terrorist's, Shock and Awe.

Shock and Awe was basically to terrorize the people enough to not fight the Americans, therefore, it is an act of terrorism, and those perpetrating it are terrorists.

Meh. I thought it was more along the lines of a "Blitz" than "Shock and Awe." I suppose the administration didn't want to use that word.

That said, if the point is to expediate the war with the fewest casulties on both sides, is it bad?

[Axis Kast]

Axis i can tell you how I would have handled the situation, NOTHING, because there WAS NO SITUATION. Iraq posed no threat to US internal or external security, iraq posed no threat to any US interests, iraq as we are finding out didnt actually have all the WMDs we thought they did, iraq had no possibility of being able to attack us. I see no difference in the situation last year as any other time or between our situation with Cuba. IE no situation in reality, yes our nations werent on speaking terms, but until bush we werent on "lets kill each other terms" either beyond Clinton's occasional bombing in response to US planes invading their airspace being radar targeted.

Iraq posed a minor threat to American security on a conventional level, if we’re making a comprehensive accounting of all the resources at Hussein’s disposal. Don’t forget that Iraqi intelligence was considered viable up until the final days of the war. Hell, there are probably cells of such agents running around today, albeit without direction from higher-ups.

Saddam Hussein as a singular human being posed a constant threat to Israeli security. And if we didn’t want Ariel Sharon having to mull over launching a retaliatory strike on Baghdad, then it was only logical to want to remove the Ba’ath Party from power in Iraq. An unreasonable dictator in Saddam’s position was a substantial liability. He could only have grown stronger and more troublesome. Better that we initiated conflict on our own time rather than at his leisure.

I also want to take a moment to remind you that you needn’t justify any and all anti-American values or beliefs. You should never feel compelled to make apologies for or to those who find disagreement with the United States. Keep in mind that some – i.e. Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder – used the crisis over Iraq to instigate virulent anti-Americanism in Europe and thus effect a regional solidarity whose ultimate goal was not moral abstention from war but the promulgation of a European Union that meant something on political as well as economic levels. Other nations – take Russia, for instance – opposed our war simply because they dislike the notion that Americans should have a stronger hand in the Middle East. And because Saddam owed them cold, hard cash while he was still in power. International relations is never fair. But that works for all sides. America does its far share of stomping. That has never meant however that all of the criticisms against us were our fault alone. There’s such a trend as “hating the big guy.” In this case, it takes, “Hate the game, not the playa’” to a whole new level.