ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape

[The Romulan Republic]

It was a shit hole of sorts unless you like monstrous dictators like Saddam Hussein.

But apparently some people think that's no big deal as long as the economy's good and everything looks nice (and one selectively chosen picture is a really great summary of an entire country). If someone posted one picture of a bunch of people Saddam Hussein gassed or some poor bastard his regime executed or tortured, it would be just as valid and complete a summary of Iraq at that time.

You know, condemn the 2003 war in Iraq all you want. I oppose it myself. But that sure as fuck doesn't make Iraq in the 80's and 90's comparable to southern California.

[Purple]

It was a shit hole of sorts unless you like monstrous dictators like Saddam Hussein.

But apparently some people think that's no big deal as long as the economy's good and everything looks nice (and one selectively chosen picture is a really great summary of an entire country). If someone posted one picture of a bunch of people Saddam Hussein gassed or some poor bastard his regime executed or tortured, it would be just as valid and complete a summary of Iraq at that time.

You know, condemn the 2003 war in Iraq all you want. I oppose it myself. But that sure as fuck doesn't make Iraq in the 80's and 90's comparable to southern California.

I know this might come as a shock to you but there are plenty of people who prefer a stable healthy society with high living standards that happens to not allow you to do a certain subset of things such as rebel over an shitty society with no living standards but full of freedom.

[The Romulan Republic]

It was a shit hole of sorts unless you like monstrous dictators like Saddam Hussein.

But apparently some people think that's no big deal as long as the economy's good and everything looks nice (and one selectively chosen picture is a really great summary of an entire country). If someone posted one picture of a bunch of people Saddam Hussein gassed or some poor bastard his regime executed or tortured, it would be just as valid and complete a summary of Iraq at that time.

You know, condemn the 2003 war in Iraq all you want. I oppose it myself. But that sure as fuck doesn't make Iraq in the 80's and 90's comparable to southern California.

I know this might come as a shock to you but there are plenty of people who prefer a stable healthy society with high living standards that happens to not allow you to do a certain subset of things such as rebel over an shitty society with no living standards but full of freedom.

It certainly doesn't shock me.

Actually, I'm well aware of how many people feel that dictators will bring them prosperity and that that's a fair trade to make. And I'm aware of the immeasurable damage such thinking has done.

Your attempt to portray me as a simple-minded libertarian or something while peddling your simplistic false dilemma of freedom vs. security is contemptible.

Here's a strange thought: Maybe both matter? Try wrapping your head around that before you act condescending toward me.

[The Romulan Republic]

To me, prosperity, like any other form of security, and freedom go hand in hand. You cannot enjoy or exercise your freedom if you are living in dire poverty. Nor does prosperity mean much when it can be snatched from you, along with your freedom and your life, and the whim of a despot or his thugs. The one requires the other. To choose between them is a false choice for fools.

Edits: Maybe most Iraq people like that choice. Or maybe they simply don't believe they have any other. But that doesn't mean I can't question the wisdom of that belief.

But I bet a lot of them would like both as well, if they were given a chance to choose.

[AniThyng]

I think it's cute you talk about Iraqi's and choice when you can't even stop your own democratically elected leaders from choosing to bomb their country and "rebuild" it. We can choose all the high minded ideals we like, it won't save you from the whims of those with the true handle in power if they choose to fuck you over.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think it's cute you talk about Iraqi's and choice when you can't even stop your own democratically elected leaders from choosing to bomb their country and "rebuild" it.

Are you actually stupid enough to think that the amount of choice I enjoy is less than (or even similar to) that experienced by a typical Iraqi either under Saddam Hussein or today? Or just dishonest enough to pretend that you do?

But even if it was, what would that have to do with the legitimacy of my argument?

Nothing. Absolutely fucking nothing. America could be fucking Nazi Germany reborn and it wouldn't magically make Saddam Hussein's Iraq any better or my criticisms of it any less valid. The two things have fuck all to do with each other except in the worlds of black and white thinking, Ad Hominems, and collective guilt.

Its true that I can't compel America's government to do whatever I want, because America is not a dictatorship where I or someone like me runs things. The thing about democracy is that everyone has a vote, so there's no guarantee that you'll win. So you have, ironically, demonstrated exactly why Americans have more freedom than Iraqis did (and demonstrated how to many people, consciously or subconsciously, freedom is thought of simply in terms of their freedom to do whatever they want, rather than recognizing that it fucking goes both ways).

No, I can't make my government do anything on my own. It can take millions of voters to change the course of the government. But at least I have the right to criticize my government, and can freely say that George W. Bush was an incompetent fuck up on this forum without having to worry about being tortured to death in prison for it. So the idea that the freedom of people under the rule of someone like Saddam Hussein and the freedom of Americans is in any way comparable is laughable.

And if your argument boils down to "America isn't perfect, therefore any criticisms of Iraq are wrong" or "America is just as bad as Iraq, therefore you can't criticize Iraq", as if I'm some kind of hypocrite, then you have no fucking argument. I am tired of people thinking that my nationality is somehow an argument against me in a debate.

[AniThyng]

No, I did not say your freedom of choice was comparable to Iraqi's, I mean to say it's meaningless comfort to talk about choices Iraqi's had, foolish or otherwise when in the real world the choices were made for them, if not by their own government then by someone else's. One that as noted, tends to have dissidents killed extrajudicially. ( ...by drones. The other uses secret police. Okay that was a cheap shot )

And even then there is absolutely no denying that that would be a dramatic improvement over the current anarchy. the current Iraqi situation is objectively worse than the previous status quo. That the previous status quo is still worse then a hypothetical functional Iraqi democracy that never existed except in vague neo con fantasies about the outcome of the war simply further validates that.

[Patroklos]

Tends to have dissidents killed by drone? Even if accept that happens at all how the hell are you qualifying "tends"? That's not a cheap shot, that's just saying something stupid.

[AniThyng]

Tends to have dissidents killed by drone? Even if accept that happens at all how the hell are you qualifying "tends"? That's not a cheap shot, that's just saying something stupid.

Yeah okay fine I know actual american political dissidents are not targeted by drones, only foreign terrorists. I'm pretty sure extra-judicial is accurate though.

[The Romulan Republic]

No, I did not say your freedom of choice was comparable to Iraqi's, I mean to say it's meaningless comfort to talk about choices Iraqi's had, foolish or otherwise when in the real world the choices were made for them, if not by their own government then by someone else's.

It really looks like you were trying to make a comparison between the choice of Iraqis and of myself as an American. But if that was not your intent, fine.

In any case, not sure what's supposed to be comforting about this topic.

There's a lot of truth to the idea that the Iraqi peoples' choices were made for them. Something I actually addressed myself. But I don't see why we cannot talk about the alternatives that could have been and still could be, especially if we're actually trying to understand how we can get out of this catastrophe and not repeat it.

One that as noted, tends to have dissidents killed extrajudicially. ( ...by drones. The other uses secret police. Okay that was a cheap shot )

What evidence do you have that the US has used drones to target dissidents who were not affiliated with violent movements? And yes, I am aware that bombing often kills civilians, which is horrible, but I see a distinction between deliberate targeting and collateral damage, even though its obviously unlikely to be much of a comfort to the victims and their loved ones.

And even then there is absolutely no denying that that would be a dramatic improvement over the current anarchy.

This is like banging my head against a fucking wall. Have I ever said that its better now? I really don't think so. And I believe I have explained this already in this thread.

I've said that better is not good enough, at least if their are other options (which I believe their are).

Plenty of other countries have managed to pull together a functioning and at least relatively free society despite enormous adversity. I don't see why Iraq and its people should be presumed to be incapable of such a feat, especially when, as you have noted, they haven't been given much choice in how they run their country for much of recent history.

the current Iraqi situation is objectively worse than the previous status quo. That the previous status quo is still worse then a hypothetical functional Iraqi democracy that never existed except in vague neo con fantasies about the outcome of the war simply further validates that.

Your implication that I am a neo con (you are describing my belief in the possibility of a decent Iraqi government as something only neo cons believe) is deeply offensive. I have spent pretty much my entire life since I became really aware of politics arguing and voting against neo cons. I've also read some of the pro-Iraq war posts on this board back in the day, so I was ahead of a lot of you folks on that score.

[K. A. Pital]

What is the difference between a "dissident affiliated with a violent movement" and dissident? Both are frequently one and the same because a person is a dissident when excluded from the normal political process inside the nation. Now, granted, the US has mostly "harmless for establishment" dissidents, all the non-harmless were shipped away in the early XX century, but still...

[Purple]

Here's a strange thought: Maybe both matter? Try wrapping your head around that before you act condescending toward me.

The question is not if both matter, but if, given the choice of only one which one it is that you would chose. And I hold that it takes a very strange person to chose freedom over having bread to eat, a house to sleep in and ISIS kept away from his door.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would argue that safety and prosperity are fucking tenuous things without freedom.

Its not a question of choosing one or the other. Sure, you can compromise one to benefit the other to a point, but compromise too much, and you can end up losing both.

[Ralin]

I would argue that safety and prosperity are fucking tenuous things without freedom.

Its not a question of choosing one or the other. Sure, you can compromise one to benefit the other to a point, but compromise too much, and you can end up losing both.

It wasn't lack of fucking freedom that took safety and prosperity away from the Iraqi people, you idiot. It was goddamn American bombs.

[The Romulan Republic]

What is the difference between a "dissident affiliated with a violent movement" and dissident?

One seeks to cause damage and/or injury and potentially death and the other does not. This is not just a philosophical difference- it has objective, measurable effects on the quality of peoples' lives.

Also, non-violent dissent is acceptable and indeed necessary within the framework of a democracy, while violence to achieve a political agenda is the very antithesis of democracy- an attempt to impose one's will on the country and the public by force.

Both are frequently one and the same because a person is a dissident when excluded from the normal political process inside the nation. Now, granted, the US has mostly "harmless for establishment" dissidents, all the non-harmless were shipped away in the early XX century, but still...

I take offence at your implication that a dissident is "harmless for establishment", i.e. ineffective, if they are non-violent.

Frankly, its all but an endorsement of violence as the only effective means of political change, which I find morally repugnant and irresponsible.

[The Romulan Republic]

I would argue that safety and prosperity are fucking tenuous things without freedom.

Its not a question of choosing one or the other. Sure, you can compromise one to benefit the other to a point, but compromise too much, and you can end up losing both.

It wasn't lack of fucking freedom that took safety and prosperity away from the Iraqi people, you idiot. It was goddamn American bombs.

You view the issue in a very simple-minded manner typical of much of the anti-Iraq war crowd (and I say that, with understandable regret, as someone who opposes the 2003 war in Iraq).

Sure, you might have had safety and prosperity under Hussein. As long as you didn't do anything to make the regime not like you, and as long as your country wasn't at war like, say, the one Saddam Hussein started in Kuwait. Yeah, Saddam sure kept his people safe when he lead them into that war.

Edit: To be fair: Did America's actions contribute to making the situation worse? Yes. But is America entirely to blame for all of Iraq's problems? No. And does America's role in Iraq in any way invalidate the basic point that freedom and prosperity/security are mutually dependent? No.

[AniThyng]

No, I did not say your freedom of choice was comparable to Iraqi's, I mean to say it's meaningless comfort to talk about choices Iraqi's had, foolish or otherwise when in the real world the choices were made for them, if not by their own government then by someone else's.

It really looks like you were trying to make a comparison between the choice of Iraqis and of myself as an American. But if that was not your intent, fine.

Well yeah, let me rephrase that - it's not comparable in the sense that your choice is obviously so much greater than that afforded to Iraqi's (or anyone else that has ever had to make the hard choice between secular dictatorship or popular religious theocracy (or corrupt secular "democrats"), not that your inability to actually prevent the Iraq war because a sufficiently large amount of Americans did support it means that you have just as little choice as Iraqis did. Insofar as Iraq is concerned though, it hardly makes a difference if the decision was arrived at by fiat or lies or popularity anyway, they got fucked over, and...well then the Americans left. Which I suppose is darkly ironic because here now we see that some feel the Americans should have just stayed since they already broke the place. Abstract moral arguments about the meaning of democracy when your side fails to win the election mean about as little as theorizing that we can just choose to have both freedom and prosperity when the only real choices are all forced on you by outsiders and all are shit.

In any case, not sure what's supposed to be comforting about this topic.

I don't know where comfort was implied anywhere in this entire thread.

There's a lot of truth to the idea that the Iraqi peoples' choices were made for them. Something I actually addressed myself. But I don't see why we cannot talk about the alternatives that could have been and still could be, especially if we're actually trying to understand how we can get out of this catastrophe and not repeat it.

Well sure, but many alternatives are going to be unpleasant to contemplate.

What evidence do you have that the US has used drones to target dissidents who were not affiliated with violent movements? And yes, I am aware that bombing often kills civilians, which is horrible, but I see a distinction between deliberate targeting and collateral damage, even though its obviously unlikely to be much of a comfort to the victims and their loved ones.

I couldn't possibly add anything else other than to say that I actually think that if the US government feels that the only way to get rid of terrorists is to bomb them under a cloak of secrecy and with the risk of killing innocent bystanders then that's fine, but they don't get to lecture anyone else about it either.

This is like banging my head against a fucking wall. Have I ever said that its better now? I really don't think so. And I believe I have explained this already in this thread.

I've said that better is not good enough, at least if their are other options (which I believe their are).

Plenty of other countries have managed to pull together a functioning and at least relatively free society despite enormous adversity. I don't see why Iraq and its people should be presumed to be incapable of such a feat, especially when, as you have noted, they haven't been given much choice in how they run their country for much of recent history.

Have you checked the state of the other countries in the region lately? The precedent is hardly encouraging. It's not literally racism that causes people to doubt a functional and free society can be established with any degree of plausibility without some sort of dramatic escalation in military commitment and "benevolent" imperialism.

Your implication that I am a neo con (you are describing my belief in the possibility of a decent Iraqi government as something only neo cons believe) is deeply offensive. I have spent pretty much my entire life since I became really aware of politics arguing and voting against neo cons. I've also read some of the pro-Iraq war posts on this board back in the day, so I was ahead of a lot of you folks on that score.

No, the implication is that the only other people (to the best of my knowledge) who thought that a functional iraqi democracy would emerge out of toppling saddam were Neo Cons.

[K. A. Pital]

One seeks to cause damage and/or injury and potentially death and the other does not. This is not just a philosophical difference- it has objective, measurable effects on the quality of peoples' lives. Also, non-violent dissent is acceptable and indeed necessary within the framework of a democracy, while violence to achieve a political agenda is the very antithesis of democracy- an attempt to impose one's will on the country and the public by force.

See, if what you say is not actively directed against the establishment, how are you then a dissident? And to what degree are we going to exclude people from the dissident list just because they propose a violent solution? The Dalai Lama is clearly a dissident, though he proposes violent change. But he is proposing it, not enacting. And then, there are people who, as I am sure you know, asked for the US military to attack Iraq. Kurds, for example. Are they not dissidents in Iraq because of that?

I take offence at your implication that a dissident is "harmless for establishment", i.e. ineffective, if they are non-violent.

Your right to be offended. But people used violence, for example, to end slavery in the US. I am hepling your argument here. Otherwise you will corner yourself with this pacifism. The war in Iraq caused such a massive amount of deaths, that you really do need all the excuses you can get.

Frankly, its all but an endorsement of violence as the only effective means of political change, which I find morally repugnant and irresponsible.

Funny how you say this defending a violent internationally recognized war crime of direct aggression.

[Metahive]

You need to play the apollo dude!

I'd rather play "kick the fucking troll back under his bridge" and you've got a big fat target marker on your extended spine.

I was being a BIT hyperbolic, but you DO see the overall point, yes? I suppose we could run with your idea a bit further, then... let's use a past example (again from WWII) should we NOT have allied with the USSR then? Chiang kai Shek? The vile imperialists in Britain and France... And WORST of all those Belgians? (Leopold II anyone?)


In any case, as I said: it would have to be fought with local forces with our SOCOM support, followed by a reasonable Peace conference and redrawing of borders LIKE WWII (but without some of the glaring errors) so to ensure it DOESN'T happen again.

TL:DR Nice straw hitler

Let's NOT use WW2 as an example since the relevant comparisons (regional civil wars) are actually all less than 40 years old and you were in fact the dumbass who brought the fucking Nazis into play here in the first place. In Afghanistan the US thought it would be swell to support islamic extremists against the Soviet Union because they went by the whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" fallacy. We and the entire Middle East and South Asia are still suffering from the fallout of that boneheaded decision today. Also, look at all the various factions fighting ISIS, Assad is a murderous dictator, the Shi'ite regime in Baghdad is barely better than ISIS and employs militias that are actually just as bad and the Kurds want nothing more than grab territory for themselves, violently expel all non-Kurds and proclaim their own state. Supporting any of those has a non-zero chance of just fueling the fires for the next conflict. None of them are friends and all of them are allies of varying toxicity. Acid burns are the result of helping any of them.

As much as people might protest, I simply don't see how the West could do anything here that makes the situation better in the long term, other than taking in as many refugees as possible and treating them humanely.

[Purple]

I would argue that safety and prosperity are fucking tenuous things without freedom.

Its not a question of choosing one or the other. Sure, you can compromise one to benefit the other to a point, but compromise too much, and you can end up losing both.

And I disagree wholeheartedly.

[Channel72]

It was a shit hole of sorts unless you like monstrous dictators like Saddam Hussein.

But apparently some people think that's no big deal as long as the economy's good and everything looks nice (and one selectively chosen picture is a really great summary of an entire country). If someone posted one picture of a bunch of people Saddam Hussein gassed or some poor bastard his regime executed or tortured, it would be just as valid and complete a summary of Iraq at that time.

You know, condemn the 2003 war in Iraq all you want. I oppose it myself. But that sure as fuck doesn't make Iraq in the 80's and 90's comparable to southern California.

I'm not sure what your point here is - are you just reminding everyone that Saddam did really, really bad things? We know that - indeed, that's precisely the point. It's gotten so bad in Iraq that Saddam's regime actually looks good in comparison.

And the photo is fairly representative of typical life in Baghdad, Mosul or Basra in the 70s and 80s - it was common for women to not wear hijabs, wear Western clothes, mini-skirts, etc. Women had the same opportunities as men - they became doctors, scientists, teachers, just like men, etc. That seems depressingly inconceivable in today's Iraq, outside of Kurdistan.

More importantly, these are people's lives we're talking about, not some abstract debate about the tradeoffs of safety and prosperity versus tyranny. The sheer number of people who have been killed, who've had their lives ruined, who've had their loved ones killed, who've had their plans and dreams and careers destroyed, via the total dismantling of Iraqi political and technological infrastructure by the US, absolutely dwarfs anything Saddam did - and that includes the mass killings of Kurds and Shia during the 1991 revolt. Anywhere between 500,000 and possibly upwards of 1 million Iraqis have died due to the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, not even including the latest ISIS mass executions, and overall living standards for the survivors have gone to shit.

Although, I'll admit that if we're just going by body count and not living standards, and we count deaths via the Iran/Iraq war as part of Saddam's overall body count, it's a much closer call. (I am only counting direct acts of murder for the purpose of political repression, not military deaths fighting Iran.) In which case, all I can say is congratulations America - you've managed to kill as many people via negligence and incompetence as one of the bloodiest wars in the 20th century!

But to put it in more human terms - any typical Iraqi at this point is likely to have at least one friend or family member who is now dead or maimed. Under Saddam's regime, that was certainly not the case. The point is not to defend Saddam - the point is to highlight the gross negligence of the US post-invasion strategy. Removing Saddam is a "good" thing in isolation, but so far it has not resulted in a net positive for anybody.

[cmdrjones]

You need to play the apollo dude!

I'd rather play "kick the fucking troll back under his bridge" and you've got a big fat target marker on your extended spine.

I was being a BIT hyperbolic, but you DO see the overall point, yes? I suppose we could run with your idea a bit further, then... let's use a past example (again from WWII) should we NOT have allied with the USSR then? Chiang kai Shek? The vile imperialists in Britain and France... And WORST of all those Belgians? (Leopold II anyone?)


In any case, as I said: it would have to be fought with local forces with our SOCOM support, followed by a reasonable Peace conference and redrawing of borders LIKE WWII (but without some of the glaring errors) so to ensure it DOESN'T happen again.

TL:DR Nice straw hitler

Let's NOT use WW2 as an example since the relevant comparisons (regional civil wars) are actually all less than 40 years old and you were in fact the dumbass who brought the fucking Nazis into play here in the first place. In Afghanistan the US thought it would be swell to support islamic extremists against the Soviet Union because they went by the whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend" fallacy. We and the entire Middle East and South Asia are still suffering from the fallout of that boneheaded decision today. Also, look at all the various factions fighting ISIS, Assad is a murderous dictator, the Shi'ite regime in Baghdad is barely better than ISIS and employs militias that are actually just as bad and the Kurds want nothing more than grab territory for themselves, violently expel all non-Kurds and proclaim their own state. Supporting any of those has a non-zero chance of just fueling the fires for the next conflict. None of them are friends and all of them are allies of varying toxicity. Acid burns are the result of helping any of them.

As much as people might protest, I simply don't see how the West could do anything here that makes the situation better in the long term, other than taking in as many refugees as possible and treating them humanely.

My advice: Go long on on popcorn futures....

As far as the nazis go.... are you saying using the same analogy that Churchill did 75 years ago and in the same way somehow shows how things are different now? Or do you just abhor any mention of Nazis like its some kind of taboo?
Second question: Do you think the Mujahedeen of the 1980s were islamic extremists, or simply islamic people fighting an invader? Also, have you ever MET any mujahedeen from the 1980s? I have.
Do you find that the Taliban and the Mujahedeen are not EXACTLY synonymous?
I find the rest of your analysis to be mostly correct, nobody involved here are angels.
I find your proposed solution even funnier than your last post... hence my comment about you playing the apollo still stands.

[Napoleon the Clown]

How about America just leaves the shit hole alone and if anyone else thinks they can fix it, feel free. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a healthy chunk of ISIS Sunni Baathist we dumped from power in Saddam's regime? Fuck Iraq, it's not really a country except what western countries want it to be, it's two or three groups of people who hate each other squished into a land mass by force.

Ah yes, the "we fucked it up, now let others fix it" attitude we so love from the world's leading power.

The US does not get a pass for it. They were warned well in advance of the dangers of Iraq breaking up, they half-assed everything and then decided to fuck off before the job was done.

Do you trust the US to fix things? I certainly don't. If I knew a good solution, I'd propose it. If I thought we would have leadership for the needed amount of time to get things back under control in Iraq, I'd be in favor of getting things cleaned up.

Unfortunately, we don't have the leadership needed to do it right. Even if the next POTUS gets all the right people to launch a campaign that will fix Iraq, the time scale needed will likely be longer than the new POTUS will be in office, and the instant a Republican gets the reins it'll turn into an epic shitshow. It'll take military action and humanitarian action to get a stable government set up over in Iraq, rebuild infrastructure, all of that. I doubt there's much good will toward the US in Iraq right now, either. Uphill battle on that one. And given the amount of money our government is willing to direct to our own infrastructure... Yeah, I don't see the will existing to build up a country most people here can't even find on a map that has every other country clearly labeled.

I'll agree, we should clean up our mess. But do you trust our government with that task? Or do you think whoever takes it on will likely make things worse? Maybe we could earn some good will from Iraqi citizens by holding very public war crimes tribunals for the people that can clearly be connected to it. Cheney, Bush the Lesser, Rumsfeld. And of course soldiers that have clear documentation of being excessive shits. But even after that we'd need to do everything humanly possible to punish soldiers that do shitty things under their own initiative. We should fix our mistake, but I don't think we've got the people in charge that would do it, much less the capacity to keep such people in charge for the needed amount of time.

[Metahive]

My advice: Go long on on popcorn futures....

My advice: Go fuck yourself.

As far as the nazis go.... are you saying using the same analogy that Churchill did 75 years ago and in the same way somehow shows how things are different now? Or do you just abhor any mention of Nazis like its some kind of taboo?

Churchill was a dumbass and the quote befits a dumbass. I abhor dumbasses and people who think Nazis are better than ISIS, IE YOU!

Second question: Do you think the Mujahedeen of the 1980s were islamic extremists, or simply islamic people fighting an invader? Also, have you ever MET any mujahedeen from the 1980s? I have.

The resistance of against the Soviets carried heavy islamist undertones since it was fueled and is still fueled by religious extremists in the pakistani secret service. The US didn't care since everything religious was better than the godless communists.

Also, I don't believe a single word about you having met any of them. If you keep that claim I demand you to put up evidence for that right here, right now.

[Solauren]

Pull out all non-native civilians, as well as all women and children that want to go,

So the men who don't want to live in ISIS land can go fuck themselves?

I'm assuming by the point we get most of the non-natives, women and children out, there are concentrated efforts to stop any evac.

As for the rest, note I never claimed it would work, and I lack alot of information the real decision makers have access too.