Have we violated the "rules" of war in Iraq? [Archive]

mbga9pgf

25th December 2006, 15:54

Regrettably, Sun Tzu isn't fashionable. Von Clausewitz is, though; if only certain grown-ups were capable of interpretating his work beyond their own preconceived views. Although not totally aligned to the point being made here, http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/0535.pdf is a fair example of the openess to misinterpretation or selective interpretation.
Problem is, Sun Tsu is more aligned to the effects-based approach (which, although you would never believe it, we are striving to attain) whereas Clausewitz is more attrition-based, hence the bloodbath during world war one in the trenches. Funny old thing, Clausewitz was popular back then too....:ugh: :ugh:
If you currently look at the tactics displayed at the Grand strategic level, unfortunately it is all "we are more powerful than you therefore we will win/check out the Body count it is all that counts" (how many times have you heard body counts advertised in MOD/DOD press releases, vis a vis Vietnam circa 1960's during the Linebacker raids)
Unfortunately, as history dictates, Attritional warfare always tends to be ultimately costly for nations and thus these nations historically tend to lose. (check out the recession that is about to befall america, I very much doubt wartime spending will be massively popular with growing unemployment rates).
I read through Sun Tsu last time I was in the desert; I stopped at chapter 3 as it was just plain depressing in how many areas we have gone wrong.

Immelmann

25th December 2006, 20:21

As Clausewitz wrote:

"Krieg ist die Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln."

"War is the continuation of politics with different means".

So, IMHO, the politicians violated the rules of war. (probably against the advice of their generals?)
At my time CLAUSEWITZ was still fundamental education at an Officers academy, besides "air warefare".
But, who of our politicians knows CLAUSEWITZ?

I guess the german "ministry of defence" convinced chancelor Schröder NOT to participate in this war.
Besides, german military history shows, that a war sceneries like Irak is not depending only on strong forces. Example WWII Yugoslavia.
Loosing worldwars is influencing the education of military leaders!
Great Britain and the USA did not loose!

And additionally, after loosing two worldwars, germany found out that haircut and shoeshine, sharp saluting had no influence on winning a war!:)

D-IFF_ident

25th December 2006, 23:09

Perhaps an edited version of a short speach delivered at the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on November 19, 1863, might fit the current hopes of the politicians, however ill-conceived:

The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Blacksheep

26th December 2006, 00:44

War may be politics by a different means but when a politician overrides the forcefully expressed opinions of those he claims to represent and goes his own way because "it is the right thing to do", you're on a guaranteed loser. Meanwhile, the true purpose of the armed forces - defence of the national territory is ignored and the treasury remains hostile to spending money on the leader's deranged dream.

We're in a mess and there's no way out for at least four years. If that.

SASless

26th December 2006, 02:22

DIFF,

A few years back, I found myself stranded near Gettysburg for the Easter Holiday. The weather being very pretty, trees all green, grass green, flowers blooming....seemed a perfect opportunity to visit the battlefield.

One day I found myself walking the route of Pickett's Attack (third day of the battle)....the same path some of my ancestors travelled all those years before. I walked that mile and a half up the hill towards what is now known as the "High Water Mark" of the Confederacy. That is the point at which Georgia and North Carolina troops penetrated the Union lines by the stone wall atop the hill.

As I sat on the wall....contemplating all that had occurred there and thinking of all the soldiers from both sides that died there, were wounded and maimed there....fighting for what they believed was "Right".....I was moved beyond which words can describe adequately.

What can motivate men to endure the terrible effect of massed rifle fire, cannon fire, and finally rifle butts, bayonets, and knives....and continue the attack as they did....it is hard to imagine. At the same time, considering the courage it took to take a stand and not retreat or even withdraw....using bayonets and clubbed rifle butts to meet the enemy's charge also is hard to imagine.

This took place within a few hundred yards of the site at which Lincoln gave that wonderful speech. That site is surrounded by thousands of graves of Union Army dead....Southerners were buried where they fell on the battlefield before being moved long after the battle.

As I sat there in considering how sacred that bit of ground is....knowing the fate of the union was actually determined by the outcome of that battle. I was absolutely aghast as a tourist with a dog on a long lead was about to let her dog !!!! within feet of the "High Water" marker.

I had a US Army Warrant Officer Helicopter Pilot flashback....explained in my very best parade ground command voice....just what I was going to do to her and her dog's crap if her dog did in fact !!!!.

He did not....she wound him in onto a very short lease and left the site in a very hurried manner.

Silence was heard over that part of Gettysburg....until a Law Enforcement Park Ranger leaned over and whispered...."Would you have made her eat that like you said?" After I informed him I most certainly would have....he smiled and quietly said...."Well done Sir! Enjoy your day here!"

The sad thing Diff....so very many people have no clue what our military does nor understand the sacrifices they and their families make so that the rest of us can enjoy our freedom in peace.

It does not hurt to remind them whenever you get a chance.

Blacksheep

26th December 2006, 06:07

Moving indeed SASless, and I too am amazed at the reckless bravery of those men who fought at Gettysburg, but I'm afraid that the only comparison with that noble place and what is currently going on in Iraq is the bravery of the men in the field. The ideals and motives of the political leadership are a quite different matter.

Wiley

26th December 2006, 07:12

I said this before on this site, but I'll say it again - anyone with even a passing interest in that incredible battle - (and if don't have a passing interest, do yourself an enormous favour and get one) - get your hands on a copy of 'The Killer Angels' by Michael Shaara, a blow by blow description in a most readable form of the three terrible days of Gettysburg.
I guarantee that most, having read 'The Killer Angels', will then want to read the prequel and sequel to the book, 'Gods and Generals' and 'The Last Full Measure', both these by Jeff Shaara.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

26th December 2006, 08:00

Ah! the American Civil War: where many of the lessons of the 2nd World War were taught but few cared to learn. It had it all; grand frontal attacks, machine guns, artillery and trenches. What was it Henry Ford said about history?

mbga9pgf

26th December 2006, 09:51

Seems Sun Tzu knew what he was talking about.....shame how wisdom gets lost over the centuries.:(

Well here is something straight out of Sun Tsu's book, win all without fighting...

Cnn Article on Iran (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/25/iran.oil.ap/index.html)

Problem is, will the US want to wait this long?

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

26th December 2006, 11:15

Slight Thread drift but this was interesting this morning, the Fergal Keane interview; http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/takingastand/pip/y1krx/ . A valuable insight, I think.

SASless

26th December 2006, 14:08

A short article which discusses the Gettysburg battle...by a well known American historian known for his study of the American War Between the States.

Points out the dangers of departing from one's winning stategy.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/articles/mistakeofallmistakes.aspx

number-cruncher

26th December 2006, 19:17

:zzz: GET A LIFE YOU LOT!!

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

26th December 2006, 21:12

Who got the short end of his Crimbo Cracker then?

Pass-A-Frozo

27th December 2006, 06:51

Well if we were allowed to rape and pillage like in Sun Tzu's age and not worry about building a stable democratic state, I'm sure his tactics would work a treat!

Nice history book though.

SASless

27th December 2006, 13:01

History book?
As I read Sun Tzu's teachings...it is far more than a history book. He has some very good ideas that still apply today and will always be pertinent.
Weapons and equipment may change due to techological improvements but ultimately it will be the same clash of arms that decides the winner.
A good website for Sun Tzu's teachings..... http://www.sonshi.com/index.html

An excerpt from his writings...

If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation's resources will not suffice. ?

When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications. ?

Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue. ?

Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted.

No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare. ?

brain fade

27th December 2006, 17:14

SASless. I think you're on a winner here. Some stuff has been forgotten.

You'd think the Americans would remember what they learned in Vietnam as they planned GW2.

If they learned anything that is, apart from not counting non-US dead.:rolleyes:

You can't move in and hold a Country if they all hate you.
At least not without taking continual casualties and eventually leaving with your ass kicked.

Wiley

27th December 2006, 19:56

No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare'No nation', Iwill agree... but I'm not sure about small parts of nations, like the people at the very top of a the military industrial tree who rip in huge profits producing the weapons that are used in protracted wars.

ReturnOfX

28th December 2006, 13:49

Staff College a bit slow on Christmas day.....

SASless

28th December 2006, 14:14

Brain Fade,
Comparing Vietnam to Iraq is like an exercise in futility just as trying to compare Vietnam to Malaya. All three are completely different situations.
The one mistake that has cost us dearly in Iraq, is the decision to disband the civil service, police force, and military all at one fell swoop. That was compounded by not having enough follow-on troop strength to provide the security and function of government that resulted from that decision.
From a military viewpoint....the defeat of the Iraqi military and para-military forces was a success. After that however, it has been down hill at a rapid rate.
As ol' Sunny said....protracted wars are losers. When one considers our military forces are now one third of what they were at the time of Gulf One...thanks to the Clinton administration...we just did not have the troop strength to be able to provide the necessary follow-up forces or to cope with the need for troops in Iraq over a protracted basis.

The mistake by everyone was assuming the war would be a quick, rapid, decisive defeat of the Iraqi Military and we would then claim victory and head off back home. Someone forgot the impact of trying to govern and provide humanitarian support for the Iraqi people. Thus when we removed the government and did not provide an adequate temporary replacement, it all went terribly wrong.
Think back to WWII when Patton resisted following the policy of ridding the governmental infrastructure of former Nazi Party members.
Perhaps WWII is where we should have learned a lesson.....definitely not Vietnam.

Roadtrip

28th December 2006, 14:40

With radical muslims, you are not dealing with a state entity. You are dealing with fanatics that observe no rules of war, but in fact, take advantage of the fact that the other side does. They will do anything and everything to advance their cause, which they see as a holy duty. In practical terms, that means that you have to exterminate them before they will stop.

The other part that they take advantage of is manipulating the general population, mostly by shear terror, but also by clever so-called clerics to steer popular opinion through outright lies and distortions. The incredible and seemingly laughable rumors that spread on the "Arab-street" are often times "overtly" believed, because they want to believe it, even if it goes against all evidence and common sense.

Arab and muslim culture in the Mid-East has not had it's Rennaissance. It's similar to what passed for the Christian church during the dark ages of fear, superstition, openly brutal treatment of any dissent, scap-goating, in-fighting among factions of the faith, etc.

For the modern west to step into this quagmire is futile, regardless of the good intentions. It only gives them excuses to blame others (a typical Arab trait) for troubles of their own making.

Past neutering it's capacity to create trouble beyond its borders and disrupt the flow of oil, getting involved in Iraq was a collosal mistake. The problem in the muslim world must be fixed by muslims themselves. Those with an eye toward modernity must sieze the initiative and put the fanatics back in their hole. Unfortunately, I don't see the courage or even the will of the muslim world to act. They seem to be perfectly willing to let the fanatics hold a knife to their throats.

brain fade

28th December 2006, 20:12

Sassy

Yep there are things that are different.

They counted all the civvie dead as VC in SEA. Now they don't count them at all!
Casualties on both sides were much higher.
Vietnam was not about protecting the Saudis and the oil, as Iraq is.

There are also parallels.

1. They thought it would be short and quick- but it wasn't.
2. They thought they were acting 'for' the locals- but they weren't.
3. They thought casualties would be light- but they weren't
4. They thought they'd 'win'..............in both cases........
5. The US public initially backed or at least were indifferent to Vietnam as they were to Iraq. But eventually tired, forcing either much larger committment or withdrawel.
6. Little or no forward planning of 'how to win' was carried out in Vietnam and none on Iraq for after the initial thrust.
7. In both cases, US troops treat the locals like sub-humans.

I could go on.:ugh: :ugh:

SASless

28th December 2006, 20:53

Except for the fact I am down the Legion for a pint or two, Brain Fade I would challenge each and everyone of your points as being exactlly incorrect. You read as though you have a set of Talking Points from some anti-war manifesto which is based upon the truth as one would like for it to be and not as it really is.

Perhaps when I get back....and have not imbibed a few too many....I will pick this up where you left off.

Perhaps you might wish to elaborate on how you arrived at your conclusions...and I will be much more able to shoot your positiion full of holes much as Snoopy did to the Red Baron. Certainly, you can support your position with some facts rather than mere talking points.

Let's start with one consideration.....during the hill battles around Khe Shan, or LZ Ripcord, FSB Grant, LZ Snuffy, Cowboy, Hamburger Hill, Lang Vei, An Loc, and others near the borders of Cambodia and Laos....there were no Vietnamese Civilains in the area at all. Just as there were none at the Rock Pile, Con Thien, LZ West, Center, East, or Hill 54. Check your atlas and do a few mnutes googling about the Ashau Valley, the Ia Drang valley, and other battles of note. You will find these are very remote areas way out in the mountains where the NVA located their supply points for support of their forward caches. You do understand the NVA had to preposition their logistical "tail" in front of their main base areas? They were not indigenous forces in South Vietnam but were the outsiders.

Thus....just how do you reckon we included civilains in those body counts along with the NVA Army units (up to Division size units mind you) equipped with Tanks and Artillery?

Fade....if you wish to have an intellectual argument then bring forth your facts and let's discuss them openly. I will do the same for my side of the argument.

Sound like a fair deal?

I might add....two tours of duty in Vietnam and not once did I hear of any civilains being killed by units I knew of. It did happen but not as a matter of policy just as in any war to include those fought by British forces.

Reach

28th December 2006, 21:11

SASless, I thought we were winning in Iraq and stories to the contrary were just the deafetnik ramblings of the liberal press?

brain fade

28th December 2006, 21:34

OK Sas
Not really fair to beat you up when you've been off for a pint.;)

You'll be telling me next that they were all Charlie at My Lai? Or that the wee girl covered in Napalm in that famous photo was hamming it up for propoganda purposes.

fuxxackes!:ugh:

What about all the Arc lite strikes and free fire areas! VC dead only too?

You yanks are unreal!

RileyDove

28th December 2006, 22:44

Sassless - It's worth also pointing out that Rumsfelt was very much the architect of the light numbers of troops deployed to Iraq for the ground assault. His generals wanted more troops on the ground full stop and these troops could have been redeployed post the initial stop of hostilities.

SASless

29th December 2006, 01:07

Back from the Legion and a dinner of Hot Wings and Diet Pepsi.....ok Fade....here is a response for you.

The wee girl who is now a Canadian citizen was not bombed by the US Air Force. The two A-1 aircraft that dropped the napalm were Vietnamese aircraft flown by the VNAF.

Here is the definitive article on that incident per the photographer that took the Pulitzer Prize photo.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0008/ng2.htm

My Lai happened....American troops on site took action to stop the murders as well as perpetrating murders. A US Army helicopter crew threatened deadly force and positioned their aircraft between the few troops doing the shooting and the victims. The murders were investigated and courts martials held.

No one condones such conduct....and as in Iraq....punitive action is taken for US troops that commit criminal acts.

Fade....have you any idea how Arc Light strikes were controlled and what data went into selecting the targets for the attacks?

Ever hear of eavesdropping, triangulation, vibration sensors, audio sensors, air observation, FAC's, RECON, and SOG?

Here is an article about Arc Light strikes around Khe Sanh.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/Aug1998/0898khesanh.asp

Riley,
As to who made the final decisions is beyond my pay grade....also throw in Paul Bremer's decision to dismiss the civil service, police , and military without providing a replacement as one of the biggest mistakes made. That combined with the lack of troops set the stage for the problems we have to confront now.

eagle 86

29th December 2006, 02:42

BF,
The locals are sub-human!!
GAGS
E86

SASless

29th December 2006, 03:10

Fade,

Take in this article....will give you an idea of one technique used during the bombing.

http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Thomas.Pilsch/AirOps/vr-sampan.html

Blacksheep

29th December 2006, 03:33

throw in Paul Bremer's decision to dismiss the civil service, police , and military without providing a replacement as one of the biggest mistakes made. The biggest mistake was invading a sovereign state without just cause or provocation. The justification given by the perpetrating executive heads of government was Iraq'a refusal to decommission "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Post war investigation reveals that Iraq had, as their government had insisted, already complied.

GW1 was legal as it was conducted to remove invading forces from a sovereign state at the express request of the legally constituted government of that state. GW2 was an illegal adventure conducted without lawful justification. The consequences cannot be controlled or contained and will be with us for the rest of the century. A world that was already a very dangerous place has become even less secure because of this misguided adventure. So, yes - the no.1 rule of war was violated - don't start hostilities unless you're sure you can win and control the outcome.

West Coast

29th December 2006, 04:39

"GW2 was an illegal adventure conducted without lawful justification"

Really, says who? Feel free to roll out the partisan groups and individual opinions, then we'll look at it from a legal POV.

Load Toad

29th December 2006, 05:35

Well we've been 'at war' now for about what - 5 years and is the world a safer place and are we 'winning'. Will we 'exterminate' all these evil terrorists? How will we win? When will we get out? What's the plan?

BenThere

29th December 2006, 09:10

When will we get out? What's the plan?

Iraq is part of the big war and you can't opt out at your pleasure. What is your plan, LT?

GW2 was for the most part a continuation of GW1 when the loser (Iraq) failed to comply with the terms of the peace. It was not illegal.

It has morphed into being part of the larger world conflict as well as part of a great political realignment both among Western states and within them.

brain fade

29th December 2006, 09:39

SAS

I didn't say ALL arc lites were killing loads of civs. Just that inevitably, a lot were killed by them. I could have mentioned the LORAN guided 'troops in cotact' tacair drops- known by those who flew them as 'trees in contact'. You never responded re 'free fire' areas either. As for the girl in the village hit by the A-1. She was unusual only in that she was photographed. Most weren't. I saw a USAF A-1 named 'Village Stomper'.:rolleyes:

Your lot always behave the same- bullets and bombs everywhere and f*ck the consequences.

I made my position clear on here BEFORE the war. Now it's turned into the bucket of !!!!! that I predicted, you can all get on with it.

Another parallel twixt SEA and GW2 is that they both represent giant foreign policy blunders for the US.

At least Harold Wilson had the savvy to keep us out of Vietnam. Not like our current arsehole of a PM.

Anyways, what's been started will have to be finished, so roll your sleeves up and keep the body bags handy.

I'm glad to be no longer in the Army and twice as glad my kids are missing this one too. What a mess.

SASless

29th December 2006, 12:49

Fade,

You struck out on the napalm affair, again on Arc Lights, and as in the past, you base your views on things American without regard to fact.

Take a few minutes and research the difference in stratgy between "Westmoreland's War by Attrition" and "Abrams War against Logistics" and you will see the success Abrams had during his short time as the commander in Vietnam.

Consider the fact that we were refused permission by President Johnson for ground combat action against Vietnamese Base areas in Laos and Cambodia and were never allowed to take the ground war north to the North Vietnamese.

One has to be prepared to change strategy if the current effort is not succeeding. Nothing new about that in warfare. We changed Presidents and got Richard Nixon who unleashed the Air Force on military targets in Hanoi and mined the harbors of Hai Phong and within weeks the North Vietnamese decided to negotiate in ernest leading to our withdrawal from the war. Our liberal Democrats in Congress voted to cut off funding for the South Vietnamese and Cambodian military which led to their defeat.

If one takes the long view, Vietnam was one campaign of the War against Communist expansion. One might take the same view about Iraq in the War against Islamic Radicalism and Terrorism.

A final note....about "Free Fire Zones" and the ROE during Vietnam....before flight each day....I took out a wee Yellow Card and recited the ROE to the Gunners on my aircraft. Even in the "Free Fire Zones" the ROE applied.

The basic aspect of the "Free Fire Zone" was those areas did not require permission from a higher authority to fire weapons....as the Aircraft Commander I could upon meeting the ROE, independently authorize the firing of weapons.

Your impression must be that anything in the "Free Fire Zone" was fair game....perhaps gathered by watching the Hollywood film "Full Metal Jacket" or something similar. It just was not that way at all.

mbga9pgf

29th December 2006, 13:39

Fade,
Consider the fact that we were refused permission by President Johnson for ground combat action against Vietnamese Base areas in Laos and Cambodia and were never allowed to take the ground war north to the North Vietnamese.
One has to be prepared to change strategy if the current effort is not succeeding. Nothing new about that in warfare. We changed Presidents and got Richard Nixon who unleashed the Air Force on military targets in Hanoi and mined the harbors of Hai Phong and within weeks the North Vietnamese decided to negotiate in ernest leading to our withdrawal from the war.
And in this modern age of socialist tree hugging sissy governments that we currently find ourselves under tying the hands of the military time and time again. A big problem with modern advances in battlefield comms is that ultimately, it involves the likes of Lawyer scum and politico types more and more in the decision making chain. Hence rediculous situations such as McNamara's decision to persue a "body count means success" policy during vietnam. Since when was robert McNamara trained in military strategy? Oh, thats right, as soon as Kennedy put him in charge of Sefence for the US.
This modus operandi was never intended in either the effects based or network centric approach, in fact it is clearly stated that at all costs this micromanaging situation is clearly to be avoided. Yet, we find ourselves increasingly hand tied by those who intend us to serve them

Simple fact is, in combatting those who have scant regard for the rules of legal conflict, and as one who may, in the future unfortunately be at their "mercy", we need to do what we need to do.

Simple fact is, militarily and politicallyto re-establish the status quo in a country as politically messed up as Iraq, we need someone of a similar vein to Saddam to put the bloody place right again; I am sorry if this plucks at your liberal, guardian reading heart strings, but it is a simple fact; a nation as vicious, malicious and twisted as Iraq simply cannot be ruled by, nor deserves anything better than their fallen Dictator.

Exrigger

29th December 2006, 14:21

mbga9pgf wrote:
Simple fact is, militarily and politicallyto re-establish the status quo in a country as politically messed up as Iraq, we need someone of a similar vein to Saddam to put the bloody place right again; I am sorry if this plucks at your liberal, guardian reading heart strings, but it is a simple fact; a nation as vicious, malicious and twisted as Iraq simply cannot be ruled by, nor deserves anything better than their fallen Dictator.

I have to admit that I agree with your comment, 'we' have upset the balance in the region and instead of ridding the world of terrorism it would appear that it is now a tad out of control and more have sprung up that might have stayed in their hole had we left Saddam in place. Better the devil you know than the one you don't.

eagle 86

29th December 2006, 20:10

Since the invasion terrorist attacks have in fact tapered off in size, frequency and intensity (except, of course, in the traditional cesspools of the middle east) - so I would suggest that we are winning.
GAGS
E86

SASless

29th December 2006, 20:18

Perhaps Saddam is going to interview for his old job tonight? The Iraqi government has asked for him back. I hope they don't leave him hanging but rather tell him of their decision pronto!:uhoh:

RileyDove

29th December 2006, 20:41

Eagle - Before the Gulf War II I cannot recall a single case of a Islamic suicide attack in London. So relatively speaking terrorist attacks of that nature have not decreased in Great Britain. It's rather strange to say that terrorist attacks have declined as surely the attacks that seem to plight the U.S in Iraq nearly everyday are on a far greater scale than pre war!

SASless

29th December 2006, 20:55

eagle 86

29th December 2006, 21:14

RD,
No attacks could have been carried out on US troops in Iraq before the war because they weren't there! I would suggest that what is occurring there now is guerrilla warfare not terrorism.
Iraq belongs in the cesspools of the ME.
GAGS
E86

RileyDove

29th December 2006, 21:26

Sassless - I think there are sadly a large number of communities in the U.S who do not feel particularily better off as a result of the war . Indeed as you already know the death toll of U.S forces in Iraq has exceeded the number of people lost in the Twin Towers ( who were not just U.S citizens).
As for your comments Eagle - one of the reasons for attacking Iraq was to rout Al Qaida forces supposedly in the country and supported by Saddam. As it turned out Saddam and his Bathist party wasn't really a big supporter of Islamic groups in his own country . So therefore as a result of the war the country is now a net importer of terrorists - you might wish to call them guerilla forces but they tend to be fighting to a single aim - often to overthrow a government. As for calling it a 'cesspit' - the cradle of civilisation with the likes of Babylon just about has the edge on Orlando! Makes me wonder why the U.S would wish to plough billions of Dollars into the place - a strange coincidence that it's the fourth largest supply of oil in the world and America has a President who hasn't really grasped global warming!

eagle 86

29th December 2006, 22:30

RD,
The invasion was about oil and nothing else!
A great place it once was but now it is a cesspool inhabited by sub humans.
GAGS
E86
PS I'm not a Yank.

threepointonefour

29th December 2006, 22:33

Indictments

Count One: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War

This count helped address the crimes committed before the war began, showing a plan to commit crimes during the war.

Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"

Including “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.... from the Nuremberg War Crimes trials. Guilt under either count was deemed to label the defendent a War Criminal. 'Count Two' is particularly interesting ...

Sasless - history has shown us, and every other government in the world, that you/we will never defeat terrorism by conventional methods. For each terrorist killed, you 'make' another 10 (family, children, friends) terrorists, each of whom is willing to die for their cause. In almost every circumstance, the government in question ends up talking to the terrorists (IRA, ANC, PLO and more). More lives have been lost in this 'war on terror' than the terror actually caused as has already been stated. I just wish some of the political figures would say the word OIL when they justify their 'acts' - at least then they'd be slightly honest and there may be some reasonable attempt at justification.

threepointonefour

29th December 2006, 23:22

A great place it (Iraq) once was but now it is a cesspool inhabited by sub humans.

By "now", you mean post-invasion, right?

eagle 86

30th December 2006, 01:13

No I don't.
GAGS
E86

Two's in

30th December 2006, 01:40

It would be interesting to know how many billions of dollars in Foreign aid was received by Iraq from the US and the UK while Saddam was actually perpetrating these offences against his people, and who in the respective Governments agreed to these payments. The only point being that the difference between an international ally and a murderous tyrant is only timing.

Load Toad

30th December 2006, 07:50

Has this 'War on Terror' which appears to have a one dimension policy of 'destroy and exterminate' - has it resulted in a safer world? Has it resulted in a reduction of the amount of people who feel aggrieved enough to want to become 'terrorists' anyway?
Putting aside the issue of oil and whether there was justification for invading Iraq to remove the mad tyrant Saddam himself - are we likely in the forseeable future to be able to leave Iraq and leave it safe and stable so that this 'fledging democracy' will flourish and our troops can return safely home and the nasty evil terrorists give up and say open a coffee shop or something instead?

And if if we aren't - what's the plan Stan?

threepointonefour

30th December 2006, 08:04

Riley,

The USA had suicide attacks inside our country "before" the war and none since......thus I would suggest using your logical construct we are better off as a result of the war.:D

Perhaps there is something else at play if the Americans have had none and you folks have.:ouch:

Hmmmmmmmm..... I wonder what that difference is?

(As if We don't know.....:E )

Taking your point a little further, I see that you are selective about the war to which you infer ...

Your inference is that the US is better off and safer after the 2ND Gulf War (so far - and I do hope it stays that way), neglecting the FACT that the bombings took place after the 1ST GW.

I think you're sneering a little too much and run a significant risk of complacency.

Reach

30th December 2006, 09:09

I can't imagine what kind of person would use the London bombings as something to sneer at :mad:

As to the failure of terrorists to bomb the USA since 9/11, maybe it's the CIA and FBI along with the intelligence services of Britain, France, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia that deserve the credit.

Agree that this is no time for complacency.

SASless

30th December 2006, 14:02

Who is "sneering"....just using a play on previous comments by others.
"Complacent"...not at all.

Play the ball folks....not the player....when you don't you lose the moral high ground and show yourself to be shallow.

As asked about the comparative benefits of the war in Iraq and sucide attacks...the UK has had some...the USA not....thus we (by that single measure) are better off.

Our Muslim community in Dearborn, Michigan were out last night waving both Iraqi and American flags celebrating the end of Saddam....what were yours doing?

BEagle

30th December 2006, 14:42

"Our Muslim community in Dearborn, Michigan were out last night waving both Iraqi and American flags celebrating the end of Saddam....what were yours doing?"

Probably quietly celebrating the fact that they live in a civilised country which no longer puts people to death.

SASless

30th December 2006, 14:49

Beags,

That is until Sharia Law is instituted in the UK by those very same people. Liverpool will be swamped with a lot of left handed folks when that happens.

There is no logical argument I know of that would support not hanging Saddam. Unless there was a huge ol' hammer hog left over from a sawmill somewhere maybe.

Is there any doubt he is responsible for many hundreds of thousands of deaths?

Is there any doubt he is who he is?

What moral code can value his life over the death, pain, and misery he and his followers inflicted upon Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait?

brickhistory

30th December 2006, 14:53

Probably quietly celebrating the fact that they live in a civilised country which no longer puts people to death.
Perhaps that view should be re-considered? You used to excel at public executions and it seems you had a much more 'civilised' society then as compared to now.

SASless

30th December 2006, 14:58

Beags,

I just hit one of the news sites and there was a video of the hanging that had been removed...but there was a photograph of the noose being placed around Saddams neck.

It appears he got a proper hanging using the "Long Drop" method using a one inch hemp rope with a six loop knot.

That translates to a very effiecient departure for him.

mbga9pgf

30th December 2006, 15:10

Beags,
Is there any doubt he is responsible for many hundreds of thousands of deaths?
Is there any doubt he is who he is?
What moral code can value his life over the death, pain, and misery he and his followers inflicted upon Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait?
Nope, there is not, but so the hell what? What the hell has it to do with us? And what, more importantly did it have to do with sept. 11th, global terrorism or "the weapons of mass destruction?"
That idiot Bush bandies your armed forces round like a global "moral" police force and you are saying you are happy about this?
That was not Bush was given responsibility for. He is responsible to the people of the US, NOT Iraq, Kuwait, and other regimes in the sand pit. GW1 was more about protection of an important asset to the US than "freeing" Kuwait. Fair enough, that in my opinion forms a valid reason to go to war.
You could argue that Bush, in invading Afghanistan, had legal responsibility over that country and not Iraq prior to GW2. Yet, with his little poodle Blair, they embarked upon the wanton destruction of another nation, leaving afghanistan very much on a back burner and very much in the lurch. A nation that we could have used to demonstrate that an alternative is available (and not neccesarily that god-awful word "freedom") to opressive Islamofacist bullies. But no we attack Iraq, a nation that after 10 years of UN sanctions posed little, if no threat to anybody other that of its population. It was up to the Iraqis, NOT Bush and Blair to sort out their little mess, brought out by the DEMOCRATIC, yeah thats right DEMOCRATIC election of Saddam Hussein to power. And they did it in a way, ignoring those advisors that predicted with 100% accuracy the situation we now find ourselves in, that leaves me with no other conclusion that Bush and Blair, in their actions, are no better off morally than the man that hung this morning. The only "solution" now for us would be to turn our backs on Iraq, (bearing in mind we shouldn't even have gone in the first place and leave them to it); frankly, in response to how thay have treated the forces involved in attempting the reconstruction of their nation, they dont deserve anything better.
If I were American, the question I would be asking is, Perhaps if Bush had paid a little more attention to his nation, in other words his "Democratically" elected role, perhaps we would not see a nation increasingly crippled by debt, facing major recession and frankly falling rapidly from its global pinnacle of power.

brickhistory

30th December 2006, 15:30

Nope, there is not, but so the hell what? What the hell has it to do with us? And what, more importantly did it have to do with sept. 11th, global terrorism or "the weapons of ............

...... perhaps we would not see a nation increasingly crippled by debt, facing major recession and frankly falling rapidly from its global pinnacle of power.

Now THAT was a rant! Well done!

However, regarding your last three items - crippled by debt, facing recession and falling from global pinnacles - ummmm, ?Que?

Crippled by debt - a robust stock market, low unemployment, etc, etc. Not all is rosy, admittedly, but hardly crippled.

Facing recession - even pessimistic economists predict growth, albeit only at a modest 1-2 per cent for the next year. Different definitions of recession on the ends of the Atlantic?

Falling from a pinnacle - I'm all for it. Let the world sort itself out without us. I'd love to end the Operation DENY CHRISTMAS x infinitum we've had. Best practice up your Mandarin.......

BEagle

30th December 2006, 15:32

brick - the barbarism of some of the old methods of public execution practised in Britain would probably be too much even for Dubya. Up until 1870, the lawful penalty for High Treason in the UK was the gruseome hanging, drawing and quartering. You may do your own research to find out what this involved.

The last hanging in Great Britain was in 1964; in 1999 the Home Secretary (Jack Straw) formally signed the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights in Strasbourg, on behalf of the British government formally abolishing the death penalty in the UK.

This year there have been 53 executions in your so-called Land of the Free....

Exrigger

30th December 2006, 15:37

When my family said 'how did we know Iraq had weapons of mass destruction', my answer was that we gave them to Iraq to use against Iran. If I am actually correct does that not make us nearly as bad as Saddam and others of his ilk.
Also there are other rulers in the world that are as bad, or worse and we don't bat an eyelid, wonder why.

threepointonefour

30th December 2006, 15:38

There is no logical argument I know of that would support not hanging Saddam.

Notwithstanding NOT wanting to make him a martyr by hanging him; letting him 'rot' in a high security prison would not have the same adverse effect?
Apart from when killing him gives the fundamentalists the argument of, "Look what the west have done to one of our Muslim brothers!" ?

What moral code can value his life over the death, pain, and misery he and his followers inflicted upon Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait?

Interesting fact I heard yesterday is that since 1780, there has been only ONE year (1892) in which the US armed forces were not involved in military operations against, invading or occupying another country. Granted, some of the 'stats/claims' are a little thin on the ground, but let's just look at 'post-WW2' ... the US has 'protected its interests' in Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Iran, Iraq (x3 - 2 GWs + threat of Nukes in the 50's) Afghanistan etc etc.

A synopsis, with some omissions, can be found on a US Navy website - http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

One might suggest you have too many pies and only one thumb.

February, 1982. Despite objections from congress, President Reagan removes Iraq from its list of known terrorist countries.

December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. Now why would the US do that for such a threatening dictator? I know we Brits did the same thing, but I am not claiming innocence in the arming of said dictator - I just think we should maintain our dignity in 'victory' and learn from the mistakes of the past, and maybe then gain respect from those muslims who could be described as 'on-the-fence'.

Humble is a word that most Americans could do with learning. We Brits also have our part to play.

threepointonefour

30th December 2006, 15:45

Let the world sort itself out without us.

I'm quite sure the world would love to.

Unfortunately the US just can't help 'protecting its interests abroad' (OIL OIL OIL OIL OIL) every minute of every day.

brickhistory

30th December 2006, 16:03

Up until 1870, the lawful penalty for High Treason in the UK was the gruseome hanging, drawing and quartering. You may do your own research to find out what this involved.

I'm up to speed on the terms. I also liked your old time ways of dealing with convicted pirates.

A few more modern day examples might be just the ticket to regain some respect for British institutions which, if I'm to believe what I read on pprune, seems to be sadly lacking.

The last hanging in Great Britain was in 1964; in 1999 the Home Secretary (Jack Straw) formally signed the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights in Strasbourg, on behalf of the British government formally abolishing the death penalty in the UK.

Pity.

This year there have been 53 executions in your so-called Land of the Free....

It's a start......

We need to pick up the pace to clear out the Death Row rosters.

Obviously we disagree on this issue which is fine. If I find I need to 'do' somebody, I'll make sure I'm on vacation in the UK. Won't work for you in reverse, I'm afraid.

West Coast

30th December 2006, 16:08

The UK's latest jack the ripper is far too good to hang isn't he Beagle?

He'll languish in prison for a number of years and then be allowed his freedom. One execution that won't happen in the other land of the freed.

SASless

30th December 2006, 16:13

Three,
occupying another country.
Does that include the UK, Germany, Italy, South Korea, Kosovo, Cuba, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Japan, Spain, Iceland, Belgium, Greece and all those kinds of places?

Used to be the usual British put down for other military forces was a very similar argument but used as an affirmative statement....along the lines of the "most battle tested military in the world". Heck fire....your bunch held that title for centuries....you lot were fighting others before we asked you to leave us out of it the first time.

As I recall you lot were wanting to hang onto our cotton and other goods when you tried to force us to remain in the fold. So what is different in the end between cotton and oil for the time period in question?

I would love to bring the troops home....and keep them home and let the rest of the world fight their own battles but the world is a much changed place. Your cousins are just picking up where the Brits left off after the fall of your "empire". One day that burden will be picked up by someone else...probably the Chinese and we too will become one of "the also ran's".

Reach

30th December 2006, 16:51

SASless,

:E is a suitable smilie for kicking butt at football or banter not a terrorist attack that cost many lives.

Your use of the London bombings to score points over a country that counts the US as its friend puts you on a par with those you said "you had it coming" on 9/11.

SASless

30th December 2006, 17:36

Reach,

Do you know what that "difference" is between the USA and UK I was referrring to? You have been around the pprune house long enough to recall the various views put forth concerning the suicide attacks perpetrated in the UK by Islamic Terrorists (of British nationality).

There is no need to go over old ground.....there are those of us who believe the PC movement and a lack of assimilation of traditional British standards of conduct by the Muslim community in general combined with the lack of prosecution of those urging such acts of violence within the UK itself are that difference. There are those who oppose that view.

Nothing is going to change in that regard....until there are more outrages committed against the British population by terrorists.

Thus, if you care to argue smilies and football rather than discuss the real issues....perhaps we can see yet another example of ignoring the reality of modern life in the UK.

threepointonefour

30th December 2006, 19:46

As I recall you lot were wanting to hang onto our cotton and other goods when you tried to force us to remain in the fold. So what is different in the end between cotton and oil for the time period in question?

Nothing.

It just shows that 'you' are as greedy, stupid and foolish as the British Empire was. It shows that you cannot learn from yours and others' mistakes.

You (and sometimes we) show the same lack of respect for another nations citizens that the British, Spanish, Dutch and French invading forces did. You only have to look at Metacafe.com and Youtube.com for all the homemade videos of troops goading Iraqi children and youths whilst pretending to have been doing something 'humanitarian' - particularly, have a look at the one where an armoured vehicle crew make a small child run about a mile for a bottle of water, only to then throw it out of his reach.

I give you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUzRsZq9V9M . Feel proud.

I'm old enough to remember seeing US NORAID supporters collecting funds on TV, funds that sponsored the terrorists we in the UK now treat as equals - my parents remember the bomb that exploded 2 blocks away from their lunchtime cafe in Manchester, planted by those very same terrorists less than 20 yrs ago.

I note that you never seem to address the question of recent historical US support for both Saddam and Osama Bin Laden? Why not?

How can you justify the US death toll in Iraq/Afghanistan? It now exceeds that which Osama Bin Laden inflicted on 11th September ...

MSNBC, Updated: 12:20 a.m. ET Dec. 26, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military death toll in Iraq has reached 2,974, one more than the number of deaths in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, according to an Associated Press count on Tuesday.
I can go some way to seeing a justification for Afghanistan, but the removal of Saddam from Iraq was a grave and costly mistake. He was the one single stablizing figure in the middle east (as most of his neighbours didn't like him) - and yet he apparently was a threat? The country is now effectively a free-for-all, much like Afghanistan.

I suspect you wouldn't be too happy if your son/daughter was serving in Baghdad right now. Would you be able to justify the loss of their life for your 'freedom'?

Footnote (for clarification): I am not anti-American, just anti-idiocy. I am not pro-muslim fundamentalism, just pro-respect.

threepointonefour

31st December 2006, 11:01

Why no reply ?

SASless

31st December 2006, 12:39

Always_broken_in_wilts

31st December 2006, 13:08

SAS old chum I think you missed the point, if you had read

"Quote:
Originally Posted by SASless
As I recall you lot were wanting to hang onto our cotton and other goods when you tried to force us to remain in the fold. So what is different in the end between cotton and oil for the time period in question?
Nothing.

It just shows that 'you' are as greedy, stupid and foolish as the British Empire was. It shows that you cannot learn from yours and others' mistakes.
You (and sometimes we) show the same lack of respect for another nations citizens that the British, Spanish, Dutch and French invading forces did. You only have to look at Metacafe.com and Youtube.com for all the homemade videos of troops goading Iraqi children and youths whilst pretending to have been doing something 'humanitarian' - particularly, have a look at the one where an armoured vehicle crew make a small child run about a mile for a bottle of water, only to then throw it out of his reach.

I give you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUzRsZq9V9M . Feel proud.

I'm old enough to remember seeing US NORAID supporters collecting funds on TV, funds that sponsored the terrorists we in the UK now treat as equals - my parents remember the bomb that exploded 2 blocks away from their lunchtime cafe in Manchester, planted by those very same terrorists less than 20 yrs ago.

I note that you never seem to address the question of recent historical US support for both Saddam and Osama Bin Laden? Why not?

How can you justify the US death toll in Iraq/Afghanistan? It now exceeds that which Osama Bin Laden inflicted on 11th September ...
Quote:
MSNBC, Updated: 12:20 a.m. ET Dec. 26, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military death toll in Iraq has reached 2,974, one more than the number of deaths in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, according to an Associated Press count on Tuesday.

I can go some way to seeing a justification for Afghanistan, but the removal of Saddam from Iraq was a grave and costly mistake. He was the one single stablizing figure in the middle east (as most of his neighbours didn't like him) - and yet he apparently was a threat? The country is now effectively a free-for-all, much like Afghanistan.

I suspect you wouldn't be too happy if your son/daughter was serving in Baghdad right now. Would you be able to justify the loss of their life for your 'freedom'?

Footnote (for clarification): I am not anti-American, just anti-idiocy. I am not pro-muslim fundamentalism, just pro-respect.
Yesterday 18:36"

Then followed that by immediately reading

"Why no reply ?"

You might have gotten 3.4's drift..................but as I have noticed you have a penchant for avoiding the tricky issues I suspect you are simply being you usual disingenuos self:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

edited to say I was going to cut most of 3.4's first post out but as it impressed the hell out of me I kept it in, apologies to those who see it as space wasting:D

threepointonefour

31st December 2006, 15:28

Three,

If you have a map of the world someplace....take a peak at it and count the time zones between the UK and the USA and consider that there are five time zones in the USA in addition to those between the shores of Blighty and Ellis Island.

Simply put....while you are having your afternoon Tea...some of us are still snuggled up in our beds snoozing away.

No you weren't (see below). Glad to see the US penchant for the truth still doesn't get in the way of a dig at a foreigner.

That is the answer to your question.

No it isn't (but then again, it never is!).

I hate to a typical British pedant, but if you follow this link;

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=257932&page=3

... you'll perhaps remember being wide awake when you posted THREE replies (all GMT ... my post here - posted at 2046 edited at 2212; yours - 2347, 0013 and 0237) to the hilarious thread re Saddam's hanging?

Again, I and others would accuse you of ducking the issues and only responding when it suits you. Much like the US foreign policy on aid/intervention. I suppose limiting yourself to pithy one liners is an acknowledgement of your limits.

__
3.14

BenThere

31st December 2006, 15:58

Not pretending to speak for SASless, but if his last post was at 0237Z, that would be 2137L for him. That's a reasonable time to call it a Pprune day.

Some posts, even though they scream for a response, require too much energy to reply to acceptably. A one line riposte can be done in a minute or two.

A Ppruner may be tired, have a temporary writer's block, or simply not be motivated to tackle any given topic at the moment.

There is no obligation to respond to a post. I've let many go by because I didn't feel like getting into it at the time. SASless' mea culpa was reasonable, plausible, and may or may not have been a polite brushoff as to why he didn't choose to be bothered.

As one might say regarding Saddam, I suggest for SASless: Cut him some slack.

threepointonefour

31st December 2006, 16:28

BenThere:

I take your point re the effort reqd for a lengthy answer as opposed to a one liner, but, as stated in the Forum Rules, ALL times are GMT. Therefore neither coversion nor allowance was necessary as they are relative. They show that he was active on PPRuNe and very selective in the 3-4 hrs (specifically between 2347 GMT and 0237 GMT) after my orginal question, not asleep as he claimed.

BTW, to avoid confusion, why not post a one liner saying "I'll post tomorrow" or "I can't be @rsed to continue this discussion". Either is clear enough for most here. I am also aware that he is not obliged to respond.

Always_broken_in_wilts

31st December 2006, 16:34

3.4

Top detective work fella outin SAS in such easy fashion:D , shows him to have the same fiction skills as Dubya and Tone and certainly confirms all that I suspected:rolleyes:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Reach

31st December 2006, 16:36

He's had a difficult 2006...still no WMD found in Iraq, the "Bush hating luvies" routing the GOP in the mid-terms, the slow dawning realisation that the the mission isn't accomplished, the insurgency isn't in its last throes and the mess in Iraq isn't a liberal media lie.

SASless

31st December 2006, 16:45

Shortly after 0900 somewhere on Christmas Day.....I started this thread by posting the following:
Have we violated the "rules" of war in Iraq?
"VICTORIOUS WARRIORS WIN FIRST...
AND THEN GO TO WAR,
WHILE DEFEATED WARRIORS GO TO WAR FIRST...
AND THEN SEEK TO WIN." Sun tzu
Seems Sun Tzu knew what he was talking about.....shame how wisdom gets lost over the centuries.
It is amazing the ground we have covered the past week....some of it actually attempted to answer the original question.
Reading some of the posts with all the anger and bile....was no surprise.
You guys reckon we (emphasis on the all inclusive "We" )can do better in the New Year?