If we had not been at war with Islamic Jihad, we would not see the core of their evil and abuse of human beings, now would we. Words, lies, illusions, all have greater reach during peace time than during war time. The fact that you see so many liars and propagandists floating around this conflict, is because too much emphasis is on the media and not enough on how many people can we kill.

You take war out of the hands of the honorable and duty bound soldier, and give it to the spy and assassin who knows no honor nor duty except greed and ambition. The very fact that you allow hostage takers to make millions upon millions of dollars taking people against their will, instead of finding these people and making examples out of the kidnappers, is one example why the less killing there is in war, the more power that propaganda, lies, and ideology derive.

One can make an argument that ideology and false myth is more of a lethal weapon than bombs, given Nazism and Communism. And I believe that argument to be true. War is at its heart, nature’s way to remind the human race that we just can’t float up to utopia and decide that whatever we like, will work. There are laws that even the human race must obey, the most powerful of nature’s children. When some ideology comes up, we fight about it. Sometimes with words, sometimes with swords. Each side gives their all, and the losing party admits defeat and the strength of the victor. Sort of like a democracy, except the rules are set down by nature, not a Constitution.

When you try to change the nature of warfare, the one thing you cannot change is the nature of humanity. You have not the power of Nature or of God. All you may succede at is changing the nature of warfare so that spies and assassins have more power than soldiers. Not quite a good idea in my view.

The argument gets confusing because there are two ideas of war and three scenarios going on.

The war in Iraq, as a “war” involving one state versus another state is long over. To the extent that there is still a “war” is because there is no competent state to replace the one we overthrew. But it is not “war” in the sense that, I beat your army, now do what I say. There is no army, just a bunch of gangs and mobs. So, if we go into a place like Sadr City, and threaten to (say) bomb an apartment complex, the only thing we will accomplish is add to the climate of violence and lack of security and order. The gangs will not meet us on open ground, and the people will not turn them in, either out of fear, or out of loyalty. If we just, say, kill a few hundred K Iraqis in some urban center we might kill some insurgents, but we won’t stop the insurgency, and we will surely gain the enmity of any survivors. I guess what I am saying is that our failure to “pacify” Iraq is not an issue of not killing indiscriminately enough. We are well past that point.

Varifrank doesn’t provide the link, but he should.

link

That’s history straight from primary sources, neo.

#1 - Iraq. The main problem in Iraq is that there is no peace or security. Some people advocate just bombing some Iraqi city to instill obedience. Obedience to whom? Maliki? We can’t control Iraq. Let them kill each other, if they must.

#2 - Israel. The Palestinians know that if they can get the IDF to kill some civilians they get PR points. That’s all this is about. The Israelis can no more impose order on the Palestinian populations than we can in Iraq; they’ve been trying for some 20 years.

#3 - Iran. Some people are convinced that we have to bomb Iran. Others are not. We’ll see what happens.

We are having trouble imposing order on the ME not because of a lack of brutality. We are having trouble because we as a nation are not committing enough resources to the job.

The direct connection between Sherman’s evacuating and burning of Atlanta, is Fallujah. As Neo and Co well knows, the evacuation of Fallujah allowed terroists to scatter to Mosul and other places to strike again. However, you could still evacuate Fallujah and achieve Sherman’s psychological damage if you destroyed Fallujah with a nuclear device after you had evacuated and cleared it with US Marines. As a psychologist, Neo, you obviously know the Pavlovian response in human beings. People do what they get rewarded for, and avoid what they get punished for.

The harboring of terrorists in Fallujah must be met with ruthless psychological warfare as well as material damage to the terrorist infrastructure and command chain. If Fallujah was taken down in the manner that I described, and it is not so much different from what actually happened if you recall neo, then you will have a breathing space. A breathing space in which to push your enemies faster and harder, until they collapse into the dust and die of heat stroke. Immediately following Fallujah, you must, you must I say, find another city to pacify. Except you give that city even less time to evacuate. You escalate the danger and the fear. The people who favor more troops and the bigger hammer approach, are constitutionally incapable of understanding how to use limited resources in a surgical and smart manner that breaks the will of the enemy. You can either choose from the stupid brutality and ruthlessness of the Russian assassins and the German extermination squads, Neo, or you can choose from the American model. William Tecumseh Sherman.

You could always go Chamberlain, but for some reason I don’t think you will do that.

Eventually, after 2 or 5 or 10 cities in the Sunni Triangle had been pacified, people would start to realize that America doesn’t play around. That if you see a terrorist, you had better kill him with your bare hands, because if the Americans find him with you, they will obliterate you without mercy. Intelligent and effective ruthlessness requires hard action to be taken, but it also requires ethics. You’ve said before that the best propaganda is based upon the truth. Well the best ruthless tactics are based upon ethics. Sherman offered the people of Atlanta and Georgia his protection, if they would give up the war. He combined incentive with punishment. Rewards with decentives.

Absolute horrendous punishments must be enforced and used. And yet, justice and ethics must hold sway over those who deserve it. Those who do give up, those who do want peace, those who do side with us against war and terror. Absolute terror with absolute rew

You must have me confused with that other Steve.

You can follow the American model or you can follow the model of Ralph Peters. Your choice. Bush doesn’t like either, so he seems to like sitting on the fence. Bad idea.

Eventually, after 2 or 5 or 10 cities in the Sunni Triangle had been pacified, people would start to realize that America doesn’t play around.

Now, how can I argue with that?!?

It never changes with you steve, it never does. You are still thinking in old school terms about defeating our opponent’s armies, as if they had armies worth beating or simply beating the armies would accomplish anything.

I could give a General 500 million soldiers with a 50 to 50 ratio in combat trigger pullers, and he’ll still lose because he was fighting the last war.

You don’t even know what I’m talking about. You were never one who prefered contributing much time to thinking about psychological warfare. The old army has always believed that large Army Corps with armored columns could take and hold any terrain. This was Cold War mentality, and the Iraqis proved quite recently that the old let’s push to the capital with tanks, doesn’t work. Times are changing, steve. Will you change with it?

You’re like someone complaining about the blood in an operating room while the surgeon is trying to save someone from cancer.

You don’t need a doctorate in Military Science to get what this war is about at heart.

Why we are losing

Michael Novak makes the absolutely vital point that the war against the free world is not primarily a military or terrrorist onslaught but a psychological war, a war of ideas and hearts and minds and confidence and will. And in this war, the media of the free world are the jihadis’ biggest weapon against that free world:

Besides, brothers, there seems to be a psychological tic in the minds of American journalists, which prevents them from understanding that our terror is ultimately aimed at them. Today, yes, they think it is aimed at their government, and will cripple their political opponents within that government. Without qualm or fear, therefore, they do our bidding day after day. Willingly, gleefully, with much self-congratulation, they pump our storyline into the bloodstream of the Western public. This is far easier than anyone ever taught us. This is our new discovery, our contribution to the history of warfare. Before our very eyes, the West grows fainter and weaker every day.

We design these images to show that our fighters will go where the United States will not, that our brave martyrs have harder linings in their stomachs than anyone in the West, and that our ferocity and determination, day after day, cannot be resisted. The aim of our terror is to induce surrender before the great battles are even fought. This is the true meaning of ‘asymmetric’ warfare. The weaker side in military strength may demonstrate conclusively that it has a stronger stomach for relentless, unstoppable acts of terror.

The terroists are babes compared to the stomach of a Sherman. But then again, Bush ain’t a Sherman.

War is cruelty and you cannot refine it

Every attempt to make war safer and convenient will meet with humiliation and disaster

The very object of war is to produce results by death and slaughter, but the moment a battle occurs the newspapers make the leader responsible for the death and misery, whether of victory or defeat (June 6 1862)

Oh yeah, that is what that is all about. Jeeebuss.

“Okay, Anon: you’re obviously a sooper-genius about Mideast policy, so enlighten us. How will abandoning Iraq to chaos and terror _prevent_ deaths? How will giving in to terrorism _prevent_ future terrorist acts? How will giving way to Iran’s imperial ambitions _prevent_ the spread of radical Islam?” - Trimegistus.

What evidence do you have of Iran’s “Imperial designs” please? And please, no airy speculation from neocon nutjob pundits who’ve been wrong about everything before. Some actual evidence.

And,

In a State Department poll published in September, huge majorities (of Iraqis) say the U.S. is directly responsible for the violence. The upsurge of bloodshed in Baghdad seems to confirm the Iraqis’ view, at least by inference. The much-publicized U.S. effort to bring troops to Baghdad to quell sectarian killing has accompanied a period of increased mortality in the city.

The supposed Churchill statement that “To jaw, jaw is better than to war, war” i.e. “We should always be willing to talk” is another mindless slogan that is just assumed to be correct on humanitarian principles. When an opponent has clearly stated that he wants to kill us over and over again, and he has proven over and over again, that he is dishonest and will violate any possible agreement no matter how earnestly he says he will abide by it, it does absolutely no good to talk to him unless we get a major, concrete, measurable benefit from such talks. Such talks have to be strictly controlled by us, with a definite timetable and goals that, if not met by our deadline, spell the end of such talks; this seems to be the antithesis of how our State Department conducts negotiations. That is why talking to North Korea and now Iran is a waste of time and serves only their purposes; it puts our naivety and weakness on display for the whole world, it buys them more time to plan and arm, serves as a great propaganda vehicle for them and prevents us from actively fighting them when to do so would be more advantageous to us.

We likewise do neither ourselves nor anyone else a favor when we pull our punches in the belief that we are being more humane. This extends the conflict, drives up the misery and body count and as we see in Iraq, could get us out-maneuvered and thwarted in our aims. I’m afraid that this generation of Americans will have to learn the bloody lessons of WWII all over again. One of those lessons was that in war fighting moderation, hesitation, “humanity” often gets more of us killed, prolongs the war and also means that when we do learn and apply the lessons we have bought at great cost in lives, it will go much harder on our opponents.

I also see absolutely no comfort in being defeated but knowing that we “occupy the moral high ground.” I would much rather win, to live, be free and then deal with whatever fallout comes from our ruthlessness.

Actually what happened was that the Iraqi volunteer military was not disarmed but dismissed summarily and sent off to seethe in unemployment while the US forces failed to address the growing lawlessness.

The CRA also dismissed the so called ba’athist technocrats and civil service who had the necessary experience, knowledge and skills to run the country’s economy and infrastructure and replaced them mostly with young Republican political appointees whose only qualification was to fund raise for the Republican party back home.

The invasion was illegal, the occupation has been criminal in its incompetence and outright stupidity and large scale corruption.

This prevents the US from filling in the power vacuum. And it is a pretty smart strategy. It didn’t work for Saddam, but it still caused problems.

You have to understand the enemy if you want to defeat him. And Neo has made great progress in this regard, for herself and for others.

Those of us who remember Vietnam recognize Neos latest argument something we have heard many times before. “We just didn’t kill enough
of them” they say.

The problem, Neo, is that there is simply no reason to be killing Iraqis. There was no reason in 2003 to begin the killing and there is no reason now to escalate the killing. What you propose is an effective solution to a phantom problem.

But you know that. Don’t you.

It’s easy to be a pacifist hero in your safe little house. Meanwhile, people die or are enslaved at a rate of thousands per day as a result of pacifist inaction in places like the Sudan, Rwanda, Mauritania. How many do more do you want to see killed?

The problem in Iraq isn’t our humane tactics, it was our complete lack of tactical or strategic planning.

The Arabs/Muslims learned from the Six Day war that they can’t win fighting conventionally. Now they respond to every attack by being easily defeated, then by sending in insurgents to fight the ‘occupation’ with a terrorist ‘insurgency’. That’s how the Palestinians have been fighting for years. That’s how the Saudi-sponsored Taliban fought. Our government went into Iraq without planning for the inevitable insurgency. I still don’t understand how they could do that.

We don’t have to kill more people, we just need to kill the right people. 9/11 was an act of war, paid for and sponsored by our Saudi Wahhabi allies. It was also paid for by Iran. Al Qaeda was sheltered by the Sudanese government. Of all of the kleptocratic leaders in the Middle East, Saddam had the least connection to 9/11 and to the sponsorship of terrorist groups. He was a threat to the stability of the area, but so is every leader there. The majority of the population is primed for war. That’s what happens when an area is ruled by tribes and gangsters - and when they have the money to kill the neighbor’s they’ve hated for centuries.

If we were going to go to war with these gangsters, we should have treated it like the removal of a hornet’s nest - get rid of the whole mess all at once. They’re militarily weak, it wouldn’t have required the effort of WWII, and simultaneous attacks would prevent them from forming terrorist insurgencies.

If we did it now it still wouldn’t require that much effort. But we won’t do that. We’ll rely on our homicidal Saudi alllies to maintain the peace, they’ll be ineffective because the Muslim world hates them, Iran and Syria will gain power, they’ll get nukes or at least they’ll threaten to get nukes. Sunni nations like the KSA and Egypt will also threaten/get nukes, Iran’s supremacy will be challenged by someone and the whole place will blow.

The best course of action - try to protect our real allies in the area, like Israel and Kurdistan, try not to get hit by the debris and develop alternatives to oil

an ineffective solution to a phantom problem.

That’s some Freudian slip there mary!

Mary, Al Qaeda are sunni extremists bent on killing Shias. Iran is a Shia theocracy.

Do you see a problem here?

“We don’t have to kill more people, we just need to kill the right people”

That is exactly the neocons plan in Iraq.

It isn’t working.

I’m repulsed and tickled pink at the same time.

But it’s a redundant theme amongst psuedo-thinkers of the neoconservative persuasion - who forget that they’re about democratization and liberation and stability.

But for the uneducated, unthinking drones who think that Iraq will be pacified by massacres and blitzkreigs - I remind you.

These kind of things have a way of pissing people off - all over the world.

And sure - you don’t care. But even your half-brained military planners know that it’s not effective for long-term American security.

It’s incomprehensiable that somebody would spend an afternoon ‘thinking’ that if we just terrorized the population of Iraq more they will just cave and suddenly acccept American domination.

Not gonna happen folks.

Vietnam proved clearly that despite wiping out entire villages, raping killing, burning, killing babies and all imaginable types of atrocities, killing civilians in the millions - nobody is going to accept you occupying their land.

Especially not in Muslim countries.

They’re frikkin’ nuts over there I hear…

Yeah, creating an independent Kudistan will really cool things down. Israel’s number 1 ally, Turkey will be real happy.

Good comment in general, Mary, and a good point. You’re right in that it’s the region as a whole that is the problem — it’s a porous, pestilential breeding ground for terrorists, artificially sustained by oil money, and supported either actively or passively by an assortment of tyrannies, theocracies, and thugocracies. But singling out Iraq, as opposed to taking on the whole region at once, made sense for a variety of reasons — it was arguably the worst of a bad lot, it had actually used WMDs in the past and could reasonably be suspected of using them in the future, it was the most hostile to US at least, it occupied the strategic heart of the region, and it harbored a number of terrorist organizations and training camps (as did, and do, others, admittedly). However, that focus only made sense if Iraq were to be used as a base and vantage point from which drain the entire swamp, starting with Iran and Syria, and moving quickly to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, the Sudan, etc. And yes, to do that, neo’s quite right that it would have taken — and still will take — a much more thorough-going and determined military effort than we’ve been able to muster so far. The point isn’t, as you say, just to kill people — it IS to be determined to kill the right people even if others are in the way. We still have time to learn this lesson now, when the costs to everyone can still be kept relatively low; if we wait for another 9/11 or worse, it will be too late.

Seriously Sally, you really are a ridiculous fantasist and an unreconstructed and overt racist.

- Sally

How many tens of millions of troops do you have? There will be no more coalitions after the Iraq SNAFU, you know, and democratic elections will bring many more islamic parties to government, and to a man, hostile to US imperial aims.

BTW how is selling oil an “artificial” activity? Don’t countries get to use their resources to their best advantage in the neocon new world order?

To recap, the Palis in the West Bank and Gaza are totally dependent on Israel, because Israel has seized all of the water sources. The infrastructure of water and power services all of the Palis as well as the Israelis and it is controlled by Israel.

Israel doesn’t want the Palis to develop their infrastructure independently, because there are limited amounts of water and power available, and it’s a zero sum situation. But all that does is increase the dependency of the Palis on Israel on the one hand, and increase the wealth differential between the Israelis and the Palis, on the other.

Now, when you have a situation where about 50% of your population is doing generally OK and is officially recognized, and about 50% of your population is rather, if not extremely, poor (and malnourished), what happens? Well, what happens historically? You have uprisings. Of course, the Palis aren’t asking for civil rights yet. But they will. And when they do, the left in Israel will eventually give them those rights. In fact, the Israeli government and its judiciary is very gradually ceding such rights, not only to non-Jewish Israelis, but even to the Palis in the West Bank.

Since Sharon was stricken, the Palis bear most of the responsibility for current violence. They should knock it off and get control of their people. Then the long and painful journey will continue.

People who propose radical solutions, or exclusive solutions, on both sides, aren’t helping. That just supports more violence. Both sides have got to live together, and they have to recognize that over the absolutism of the zealots.

Meanwhile, the rest of it is show, and a sad show it is.

I was never fond of Sharon but he did say something a few years back that stuck with me. Something like, “Neither my people nor the Arabs are ready for what the future will be.” If I read him right, I agree, and people should just knock it off and get along.

#1 About half the population in the Arab world is 15. There are enormous numbers of teenage boys hanging out with nothing to do. Now suppose your homeland was occupied. How long before your teenagers started making their bones by trying to take out one of the occupiers? Killing Americans is a sport to many Iraqi youth, I am sure.

#2 Most of the world opposed our invasion of Iraq. Most of the world does not want the US invading countries whenever it feels like it. It is, therefore, in the strategic interest of most of the countries of the world that the US be humiliated in Iraq, and also be bogged down in Iraq. I wouldn’t be surprised, therefore, to find that most of the rest of the world is supporting the insurgency in one way or another.

Yes, with our billions of dollars and our magical ability to travel freely through all dimensions of space and time, people like me made it all happen. Some people call us the enemy but most call us figments of pete’s fevered, unmedicated imagination.

If you knew something about history, you’d know that the powder keg was lit by men like Ibn Saud, Jack Philby and Zbigniew Brzezinski. It was lit when the Brits gave Mecca and Medina to the hated Wahhabis, it was lit when Carter decided to ally with the Islamists to fight the commies, but it hasn’t blown yet.

yes, you’re a ridiculous fantasist who never reads the news

From the Washington Post:

Financial officers of al Qaeda and the Taliban have quietly shipped large quantities of gold out of Pakistan to Sudan in recent weeks, transiting through the United Arab Emirates and Iran, according to European, Pakistani and U.S. investigators.

The sources said several shipments of boxes of gold, usually disguised as other products, were taken by small boat from the Pakistani port of Karachi to either Iran or Dubai, and from there mixed with other goods and flown by chartered airplanes to Khartoum, the Sudanese capital.

European and U.S. intelligence officials said the movement of gold also highlighted three significant developments in the war on terrorism: the growing role of Iranian intelligence units allied with the country’s hard-line clerics in protecting and aiding al Qaeda; the potential reemergence of Sudan as a financial center for the organization; and the ability of the terrorist group to generate new sources of revenue despite the global crackdown on its finances.

:::

I guess the Washington post printed this because they’re racists.

I really don’t think it is possible though in the medium term. My view is that a peace process can only begin if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders and releases all political prisoners and guarantees recognition of Palestinian’s rights to self determination and security. Only then could any real peace process begin. There must be some measure of equality in any successful negotiation.

There never has been a peace process and Israel’s stance has always been to deny one. This has been done with Washington’s full backing. The propaganda offensive in the US has been more important than the military action on the ground. Israel is not defending itself, it is colonizing the Palestinian Territories and defending an occupation.

The water situation is the clearest example of Israeli duplicity and systematic humiliation of the Palestinians.

I’ve been to the West Bank quite a few times and each on trip the situation was worse. If Americans knew the reality of the situation, the government would be forced to withdraw support for Israel I believe. Nobody could support it in good conscience.

I fear it is too late though. The apartheidt wall is the beginning of the end game IMO.

In the long term, I believe it will be the catalyst for the destruction of Israel. Ironic indeed.

If the American people had been running the war, that probably would have been the plan, and we’d probably be done with it by now. But we’re not.

From their actions, it’s pretty obvious that our government’s goals were to stabliize the area and get rid of Saddam. Members of our government, Democrats and Republicans, trust our Saudi and UAE allies wholeheartedly. They will never attack them. Cheney seriously expects Saudi Arabia to maintain stability in the Middle East.

If their (impossible) goal is to maintain stability, they’re probably just going to plod along, following the same path they’re on now, whether a Democrat or a Republican is in office - and that path leads to a more powerful Iran and a big mess in the Middle East. Unless, maybe, Rudy Giuliani wins the 2008 election

And all those think tanks and their experts are making this rubbish up all the time. And people like you, although you’ve been duped already, will gladly believe it if it conforms to your bias.

Didn’t you notice that all the US press went along with the neocon’s Iraq fantasy too? They’ve gladly gone along with uncritical support for all the neocon and Bushco mirages. Not a good track record I feel.

Read between the lines Mary and look at the history. The rhetoric is all smoke and mirrors and designed by the same people as gave you mobile weapons labs etc etc

Sudan has history with Osama Bin Forgotten, Iran has not. They are enemies, just like Saddam was.

These kind of things have a way of pissing people off - all over the world.

Yes, but oddly, only if the US is involved. Nobody cares enough about Darfur to do anything — or are you going to lead the resistance there? Your flight leaves when?

And sure - you don’t care.

And sure, you don’t care, either. Of course not. As long as it’s not you, no problem.

It’s incomprehensiable that somebody would spend an afternoon ‘thinking’ that if we just terrorized the population of Iraq more they will just cave and suddenly acccept American domination.

I know it. Just as incomprehensible as stuff like ‘phased redeployment,’ or talking it over with Iran and Syria, or letting Saddam stay in power after 9/11. Idiotic!

Vietnam proved clearly that despite wiping out entire villages, raping killing, burning, killing babies and all imaginable types of atrocities, killing civilians in the millions - nobody is going to accept you occupying their land.

Funny thing, that. The groups that really were brutal, like the Khmer Rouge, Mao’s communists, and Stalin’s bunch, occupied whatever they wanted. It’s actually pretty clear that if someone is brutal enough to gun down or starve millions to death to make a point, people tend to forget all about resisting. Real brutality, if you make it clear you’ll kill all of them if you need to, does work.

That’s not what I think we should do, just as it wasn’t what we did in Vietnam. Counterinsurgency warfare isn’t about killing, it’s about convincing, but when your own media and a lot of leftist idiots are rooting for you to lose and supporting the enemy, well, that just keeps the blood flowing. It’s good for media ratings, and good for lefty propaganda. And laughs for you, of course.

How do you propose to do that?

70% + of Iraqis think you are the problem and you should skulk off, beg for forgivenness and pay to rebuild their country.

Most of the world agrees with them I’d say.

Why stop there Mary. It was lit when we crawled out of the primordial ooze. And ever since then creatures like you have been stoking the flames.

“Yes, with our billions of dollars and our magical ability to travel freely through all dimensions of space and time, people like me made it all happen.”

Mary you should simply take responsibility for your limited participation in the Iraqi genocide. Omnipotence is not what anyone accuses you of. Believe me, nobody thinks you have subparpowers let alone superpowers.

NYTimes: Denver - Peace is fighting back in Pagosa Springs.

Last week, a couple were threatened with fines of $25 a day by their homeowners’ association unless they removed a four-foot wreath shaped like a peace symbol from the front of their house.

The fines have been dropped, and the three-member board of the association has resigned, according to an e-mail message sent to residents on Monday.

Two board members have disconnected their telephones, apparently to escape the waves of callers asking what the board could have been thinking, residents said. The third board member, with a working phone, did not return a call for comment.

In its original letter to the couple, Lisa Jensen and Bill Trimarco, the association said some neighbors had found the peace symbol politically “divisive.”

A board member later told a newspaper that he thought the familiar circle with angled lines was also, perhaps, a sign of the devil.

The peace symbol came to prominence in the late 1950s as the logo for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a British antiwar group, according to the group’s Web site. It incorporates the semaphore flag images for the letters in the group’s name, a “D” atop an “N.”

Other people have said the upright line with arms angled down, commonplace in the United States in the Vietnam War, especially, has roots in the early Christian era, representing a twisted or broken cross.

Mr. Trimarco said he put up the wreath as a general symbol of peace on earth, not as a commentary on the Iraq war or another political statement.

In any case, there are now more peace symbols in Pagosa Springs, a town of 1,700 people 200 miles southwest of Denver, than probably ever in its history.

On Tuesday morning, 20 people marched through the center carrying peace signs and then stomped a giant peace sign in the snow perhaps 300 feet across on a soccer field, where it could be easily seen.

“There’s quite a few now in our subdivision in a show of support,” Mr. Trimarco said.

A former president of the Loma Linda community, where Mr. Trimarco lives, said Tuesday that he had stepped in to help form an interim homeowners’ association.

The former president, Farrell C. Trask, described himself in a telephone interview as a military veteran who would fight for anyone’s right to free speech, peace symbols included.

Town Manager Mark Garcia said Pagosa Springs was building its own peace wreath, too. Mr. Garcia said it would be finished by late Tuesday and installed on a bell tower in the center of town.

PJ - Don’t know what that means, mate. We’re talking about Iraq - a U.S endeavour. Sudan? Why would I lead a resistance there? What are you talking about man?? It isn’t ‘nobody’ who doesn’t care about Sudan -it’s the world’s indominatable leader who isn’t up to the job of spreading good cheer in the middle east right now - let alone having any influence in Sudan - besides, there probably isn’t any good targets in Sudan.

“And sure, you don’t care, either. Of course not. As long as it’s not you, no problem.”

As long as it’s not me being a bloodsthirsty idiot advocating murder and mayhem - your right, I don’t care. That’s my first priority.

“I know it. Just as incomprehensible as stuff like ‘phased redeployment,’ or talking it over with Iran and Syria, or letting Saddam stay in power after 9/11. Idiotic!”

Is phased redeployment idiotic? I didn’t know that. But it looks like your hero’s are going to do that very soon, so take it up with them. And nevermind the talk lets hurry up with the Armegeddon already. Very smart!

“It’s good for media ratings, and good for lefty propaganda. And laughs for you, of course.”

Well you are losing - not because of the media - because there was nothing to win. You lose ’cause your stupid.

And yes, I would laugh if it wasn’t innocent people dying - but I will pause to have a laugh at you and your ridiculous chest thumping….

No.

But let’s give credit where it’s due. The ability to transcend politics, religon, human rights, the U.S constitution, the UN any and all forms of law - is quite an achievement, when you really consider it.

And drawing together all manner of immoral interests together in one gulag of death and exploitation - corporate bloodsuckers, oil oligarchs, power mad ideolouges or just good old fashioned racists - appealing to the most violent aspects of American culture so that American power can exploited to allow Israel to continue it’s crimes in the middle east.

So while American crashes and burns these traitors say the problem is we’re not killing enough people or being to ‘politically correct’.

They are leeches who will attach themselves to any group who supports that goal - much like the early Zionist movement before and during WW2.

Yes, you trust the stuff in your own head over trusted and long-established, well-researched news publications every time.

The Iraqi genocide? Why stop there? When the next Lancet report comes out declaring that eleventy-million Iraqis have died because Americans breathe and their evil capitalism still exists, we can declare the Iraqi apocalypse.

After the next next Lancet report comes out, we can mourn Iraqi interplanetary warfare.

Someone else here was talking about how the British was doing the Indian colonial ruthless game, I think bugs, in Basra and how it was effective. As I said before, it’ll be effective when I see some actual benefits. If what we see in the South of Iraq is due to British effectiveness and ruthlessness, I don’t want to see what will come out of British ineffectiveness.

Russian techniques don’t even work for the Russians. And it won’t work for America because America fights wars totally different from the Russians. It is a case of a difference in national character. America can’t use spies and assassins to the extent that Russians do, so we have to remodify our tactics according to our resources.

So long as the Left keeps being ignorant and opening that big hole of ignorancy by speaking about Sunni extremists killing Shia theocracies, the more they stay in denial using rationalizations. They won’t get the wisdom that Neo has acquired, because they absolutely refuse to understand, for understanding hurts them to their very cores.

I’ve been reading Mary’s comments and position for awhile now. The problem with Mary’s position, distilled down to the fundamentals, is that I believe Mary is rather tunnel visioned on Saudi Arabia and the madrasses. Everything seems to go back to Saudi Arabia. It is not the humane tactics that are a problem, it is the US not attacking Saudi Arabia that is the strategic problem. This tunnel vision produces predictability, and by that I mean if someone offered up to Mary a deal in which the US would attack Saudi Arabia, how much would Mary sacrifice to get that deal up? There are such things as priorities, and Mary has obviously prioritized certain things above others.

There is nothing particularly wrong about the basic strategy of cleansing the Middle East through Spartan warriors or with allying with Kurdistan to have the Kurds purge the region under the aegis of American nuclear weapons, funds, and training. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. However. Tunnel vision causes people to always talk about what they want to talk about, instead of dealing with the situation we have now. We aren’t going to go anywhere, if the situation is not dealt with, and you can’t deal with the situation in Iraq if all you are thinking about is getting your pet theories in power.

America has always been alone. People want to talk about how the world is against America because of Iraq. Well, welcome to planet Earth people. The entire world has been against America since day one. It ain’t anything new unless you just came from out of the solar system.

70% + of Iraqis think you are the problem and you should skulk off, beg for forgivenness and pay to rebuild their country.

A question to the question. How do you convince a lot of Southerners

America can destroy most of the world, fortunately America isn’t the Draka. Or maybe unfortunately depending upon who you are talking to.

1) At initial stage of invasion use army and air force in overwhelming numbers and firepower to destroy urban enemy strongholds.

This from Sergey. That is simply the Russians trying to cover their weak arse. Because the Russians gave up trying to do CQB house to house fighting almost from the beginning. So all they are left with is artillery and air power. That is a weakness, not a strategic decision chosen because it was better than others. In fact, I found a very good analysis of Russian techniques in Checnya, I’ll post it at the end.

It is a PDF document but I quoted some interesting bits.

It said quite clearly that Russia gave up on training their soldiers for house to house fighting. The opposite of the US Marines. There’s nothing wrong with combined arms. Bomb then go in and clear. But the Russians can’t send troops in. Not only because of lack of training but because they only have like what, 20 to 50k troops that are trained? The rest are conscripts and troops they can’t use for fighting.

I remember that the Russians sent in a company or battalion in Chechnya once, and it just disappeared.