Stratovarius Community

I thought that was one of the reasons they came back to the negotiating table. They probably need more food.

Oh, there's a catch!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17658737

NeonVomit wrote:Edit: miditek, I posed a number of questions in my post-before-last that you did not answer. I am curious, that's all.

Let me review the last post (prior to this one) again, and I'll reply to it, as well as this one, shortly. (Sorry)!

NeonVomit wrote:I think the Iraq war is/was even more pointless than the Vietnam war. And I think the American public has finally grasped this.The US could have won the Vienam war? Most probably. And gained what exactly for it? What were they fighting for? 'Freedom'? It was simply a move in the game against the Red Scare.

I'm afraid that the truth of the matter as to why we were there is a bit more complex. If you'll recall, what is now known as the Vietnam War was actually the last of a series of wars. American involvement began in the 1950's during the French Indochina War.

We were asked to by the French Republic to provide support and material during the insurgency that was launched by Ho Chi Minh and General Giap against French colonial forces. That's what was the original cause.

The US would have done well at the time if Eisenhower had told the French to solve their own problems. After all, it was their colony, their insurgency, and their war. This was the third time in less than fifty years that the French Republic had called upon the United States to help it out of an unworkable political and military situation.

I've always wondered why the United States, rather than France, was always blamed for "imperialism" when it was the French that had established the colony, and we were (unwisely, in my opinion) assisting and aiding a longtime ally. French involvement in that war ended shortly after their disastrous defeat at Dien Bien Phu, where some 10,000 French troops were forced to surrender. I challenge anyone to find a similar or parallel defeat of US forces during the American phase of the war.

NeonVomit wrote:What would the soldiers on the ground feel like? It's one thing to defend your country against a direct threat, and another to be dying in the jungles of some godforsaken hellhole for a mere political ideal. Moreover, to have been drafted to die for an idea, and not joined on a voluntary basis. That is why morale and therefore discipline was so poor in the Vietnam war.

You can't really say that all soldiers felt exactly the same way all of the time. However, any soldier is likely to experience fear (a completely normal emotion), loneliness, isolation, anger, etc. Moreover, all soldiers and Marines were not drafted. There were also, many volunteers during that time.

There were, of course, some disciplinary problems during that time, as there are in all wars. But not so many as to where we had to, for instance, have penal or punishment battalions, similar to the ones used by the Russians and the Germans. In fact, many units served with distinction and tremendous courage.

Again, the performance by US forces at Khe Sanh, La Drang, as well as during the Tet Offensive would certainly suggest that by decimating the enemy, morale and discipline had to be at least at minimally acceptable levels in the military sense, or otherwise, the aforementioned campaigns would have ended in complete disaster, or something along the lines of Dien Bien Phu.

NeonVomit wrote:Faced against fighters like the ones Kurtz described, who would do the most horrible atrocious things for what they saw as defending their country against foreign intervention, how could someone who didn't even WANT to be in the military, let alone Vietnam, hope to compete?

The events described by the character of Kurtz were fictional. If such an event ever did happen, (the pile of arms from kids that had been inoculated), then those responsible should have been hunted down and executed immediately. There is no honor in doing things like that. And there is no excuse for it. It does not make heroes out of the insurgents.

Kurtz's character was at least loosely based on former Green Beret Colonel James "Bo" Gritz though. But if you ask how could they hope to compete? Well, most of the US forces did compete, and they did rather well. Even General Giap himself admitted this, and he was certainly a highly competent and experienced commander. And many units, particularly the Air Cavalry (Air Mobile), Special Forces (Green Berets), Navy SEALS, and the Army Rangers units were particularly feared by the enemy.

Let's just say that a 35 to 40 year old Sergeant Major that had fought in WWII and Korea was a much more cunning, ruthless, and experienced opponent, than a 19 year old raw recruit that had just arrived "in country".

NeonVomit wrote:It was a matter of will. Will, from the soldiers on the ground and will from the political leadership, and will from the population at home.They say he who wants it most wins. The US didn't want victory as much as the VC did.

The liberals, the hippies, the news media, and others in the anti-war movement did not want victory. They have long hated the military establishment, and will do anything possible to impede the progress of any war. Does this also suggest that ARVN soldiers were any less motivated, or is it possible that their collapse was due to the fact that a democratically controlled Congress stopped funding them?

To suggest that all of the US wanted victory less than the NVA or VC is not 100% accurate. The anti-war left, of course, did not want victory. They feel that the military is evil, and that the US does not need to ever fire a shot in anger, regardless of the situation.

NeonVomit wrote:Overall, American strategy in the Vietnam war was appalling (and I'm not talking about military strategy, US forces convincingly won most direct engagements, and VC forces learned to avoid them at all costs). Many lessons were learned from that, but then the Iraq war happened.

IF- you send troops in to do a job, it is important for the politicians to set the objectives, provide the resources, and then get the hell out of the way, and let the Army do it's job. If not, then don't send them. Period.

NeonVomit wrote:Plenty of parallels with Iraq today, and that's reflected in dwindling recruitment numbers. The US supposedly intervened due to a WMD threat. None were found.

I think intelligence-wise, you are above average. However, you're going to have to try harder than that to convince me. As you said earlier, many of the troops in Vietnam were obtained via conscription. And yet, there were plenty that volunteered to go to Vietnam, and there are plenty that are volunteering to go to Iraq (in fact, all of them are volunteers now.)

Vietnam had nothing to do with WMD, so you'll have to provide at least one example of parallels of Vietnam and Iraq other than WMD. Also, do you feel that Saddam did not have the means, there wherewithal, and most importantly, the time to move any WMD's across the border to Iran or to Syria?

We've established the fact that no major stockpiles have been found (although about 500 rounds of 155mm with gas rounds have been recovered thus far), but you are suggesting that Saddam did not have enough time to move them (whether you believe that they existed or not?) He had many months to play the shell game with Syria and Iran.

NeonVomit wrote: Selling the 'to remove a brutal dictator' line is a joke, if that were even remotely true the US would have to be charging into many other countries to do the same 'good'. I imagine soldiers there are fed up with just being attacked, and being there when they feel they're not achieving anything.

Well, how many US soldiers or Marines that are or were there do you actually know? Of course, no soldier wants to be sniped at or bombed, but to say that they have achieved nothing, imo, insults the uniform that they wear. I don't personally blame you for that opinion, but it's as if Ted Turner's opinion is the only one that counts these days. As long as it is bad news, and as long as it bashes Bush and the troops, then CNN decides that it MUST be broadcast over and over and over again.

NeonVomit wrote:The first war against Saddam was different. He invaded a neighbouring country, and there was an international outcry. The US and other coalition forces knew they were going in to liberate Kuwait, and that objective was achieved with clarity and efficiancy. In my mind, they should've finished off the job there and then, with world opinion on their side and clear provocative action from Saddam.

I feel that Gulf War II was simply a continuation of the same conflict. Very little was resolved, other than pushing Saddam out of Kuwait, and Saddam had been pushing his luck with us for a long time. Schwartzkopf should have been allowed to go on to Baghdad and taken out the regime then. Of course, he was overruled by Powell, Scowcroft, and the first President Bush. Saddam had long been a thorn in the side of both successor administrations.

NeonVomit wrote:Soldiers are not stupid, blind automons, much as people may imagine to the contrary. They're people who think and feel. They are bound to follow the orders they're given, but when they are not sure what they're even fighting for, there's a lot less motivation to even bother or care.

Of course soldiers are people, although there are some that are extremely stupid. PFC Lyndie England is one that comes to mind. The PR damage that she and fellow soldier Granger did was a massive propaganda victory, not only for the enemy, but also for the anti-war left in America.

NeonVomit wrote:Actually, I heard a very interesting theory last night from a half Iraqi/half Iranian friend of mine. Her dad had been exiled from Iraq under Saddam, but after his fall he returned and started a radio station in Baghdad. She claims the US forces could easily sort out the situation if they wanted to, but don't, simply to have an excuse to maintain a presence in the region.

I think you can learn a lot from people like your friend. People that are "on the ground", and are aware of the language and the culture of the region in question. One of the problems is that the US is kowtowing way too much to Shiite demands. al-Sadr's head should have been put on a pike a long time ago, in my opinion. Shock troops and flame throwing armored units would also have gone a long way to clearing out the insurgents' nest. I could literally write a book on what could have/should have been done.

I would have declared martial law a long time ago, and been very heavy handed in the military sense, and also would have been much stricter regarding individual unit discipline.

Rape an Iraqi kid? You will be executed. Desert from your unit? You'll be in the stockade at Leavenworth for the rest of your life, if you are lucky, and if we don't make an example out of you, like Eisenhower did with Pvt. Eddie Slovik. Of course, I am not a commander, so I can only suggest what should have been done. Overall, I think that our troops have done an outstanding job, although we haven't exactly had competent and most importantly, despotic qualities in our leadership, unfortunately.

NeonVomit wrote:She's been there quite a bit recently, and dislikes the Americans for not doing enough to clear up the mess and letting the status quo perpetuate. I didn't get that deep into it because it's a sensitive subject and the time and place were all wrong, but it is an interesting concept, and food for thought. I'll have another chat to her soon about it and let you know more.

Actually, I agree with your friend. Perhaps if Congress had spent more time working on solutions, rather than pointing their fucking fingers at each other, then perhaps events may have taken a different turn at a much earlier stage in the game. That's one reason why I hate the war protesters so much- they really don't care about what's going on in Iraq, all that they are here for is to be good little Marxists and condemn anything that the Bush administration does.

NeonVomit wrote:And the whole 'press conspiracy anti-government propaganda' theory is a stretch. Or maybe it's like the OPEC conspiracy to destroy the US economy you mentioned?

With that, I do have to disagree. The modern day media are really not that much different than other traitors in history, such as Lord Haw-Haw, Axis Sally, Tokyo Rose, or Jane Fonda. The left and its media outlets never shut up, and may as well pack it in, as far as their credibility is concerned.

NeonVomit wrote:Are you saying the press should blindly support the government no matter what, and anything other is treason? Rubbish.

In my opinion, all the press is doing is whatever it can to damage the administration, and thus, the country itself. It distracts from our mission, and our objectives. President Roosevelt would probably have had people like Wolf Blitzer, and most definitely Michael Moore, imprisoned for violation of the treason and sedition act.

NeonVomit wrote:The press should attack, question, probe. A free, critical press is what keeps democracy alive and breathing, and the government and politicians should be terrified of the press and the people.

Even if the press here sounds almost identical to al-Jazeera? Reporting the news is one thing. Spreading propaganda is another. Bill Keller of the NY Times crossed the line of treason when he went into detail regarding the covert operations against terror financiers.

NeonVomit wrote:If it's the other way round, then you have a dictatorship. Unless you have a population made up of complete sheep-like idiots, people will come to their own conclusions (and filter out the tabloid nonsense in the process).

If the press actually played fair, then that would be one thing. If this were a dictatorship, as you fear, then most journalists that are critical of Bush would have met the same fate as the ones that are critical of Putin. After all, Russian journalists are dropping like flies these days.

NeonVomit wrote:Are you saying the American public are sheep?

No, not at all. But I would like to quote a friend that retired as a senior NCO from the US Army after 30 years of service. "No, not sheep. However, many of the American people are gullible and stupid." I think that my friend meant the left coast, as well as the northeast.

That's what I've been saying all along, US forces were not 'defeated' in the traditional sense. The war was lost due to the appalling strategy of the administration back home, and a lack of direction and vision of quite what they were meant to be doing, as well as a general lack of conviction that trickled down the ranks.

I say morale and discipline was poor compared to other conflicts the US was involved in before and since. I am not comparing them to anyone but themselves. It makes a difference to really know and believe what you're fighting in. For the VC, it was a simple matter of fighting off foreign intervention, a very clear-cut issue. It's a similar issue with Iraqi insurgents, they see themselves as trying to repel a foreign invader. Attacks on other Iraqi civilians are the actions of theirs that I see as totally inexcusable, attacks on US forces are to be expected I think.

The events described by the character of Kurtz were fictional. If such an event ever did happen, (the pile of arms from kids that had been inoculated), then those responsible should have been hunted down and executed immediately. There is no honor in doing things like that. And there is no excuse for it. It does not make heroes out of the insurgents.

I think you missed the point of that story. That event showed the lengths fighters on the other side would go to, to ensure victory. Actions that they knew Americans would never try to copy. Kurtz was praising them for their will, and not the actual actions they carried out. I imagine that this was based on a similar factual incident, perhaps not as horrible but you can see similar examples of this happening every day, around the world.

It doesn't make them heroes or have any honour in your eyes. They would see things differently, and this is perhaps the single biggest issue with this whole debate.

I would never excuse anyone for doing something like that, ever. But one is simply left awstruck at the things some people will do in the name of an ideal. His whole line was that the US forces were not nearly brutal enough, and was probably intended as an 'STFU' at those who accused soldiers of being 'baby-killers'.

The liberals, the hippies, the news media, and others in the anti-war movement did not want victory. They have long hated the military establishment, and will do anything possible to impede the progress of any war. Does this also suggest that ARVN soldiers were any less motivated, or is it possible that their collapse was due to the fact that a democratically controlled Congress stopped funding them?

To suggest that all of the US wanted victory less than the NVA or VC is not 100% accurate. The anti-war left, of course, did not want victory. They feel that the military is evil, and that the US does not need to ever fire a shot in anger, regardless of the situation.

Your paranoia comes out again. Why did we not see any of this during the Second World War? Or the Korean war? And before you say anything about the changes in broadcasting and reporting, how about the 1990 Gulf War? Of course, there were dissenting voices to each of those wars like there are to any conentious issue, but nowhere nearly as many as either the Vietnam war or the current Iraq conflict.

I'm pretty anti-war myself, but if it's justified and for a clear purpose I'd support it. I think most people feel the same. You get very few people complaining about the operations in Afghanistan. Most felt the actions were justified, and I think NATO success there is both possible and indeed vital.

IF- you send troops in to do a job, it is important for the politicians to set the objectives, provide the resources, and then get the hell out of the way, and let the Army do it's job. If not, then don't send them. Period.

And that is exactly why everyone blames the President, Vice-President and former Defence Secretary of the USA for the current mess, and not the armed forces themselves. You see very few people criticizing the Army. They're doing what they can in their difficult situation.

Do you honestly believe Syria would be stupid enough to want anything to do with WMDs and hiding them? Iran is slightly more plausible, but not much. Distrust between Iran and Saddam was far too high, memories of the long war still too raw. And even if he did 'hide' them in Iran, there was nothing stopping Iran simply keeping them for their own.

And, more importantly, why would he hide his WMDs instead of use them? He knew perfectly well that defeat meant his downfall. He would have no second chances, and no escape. If he's as crazy as everyone claims he was, why didn't he simply use them to fight off the attacking forces, since he knew he was far outmatched in conventional terms? He would have lost either way, I don't see what was stopping him. It was his last stand.

I said I could imagine combat personell are fed up of standing around not achieving any clear objective, I didn't say that's what they all feel. They've removed Saddam, installed some form of democracy in the country and are in the process of training a replacement force. Now what? That's what must be dragging them down.

I never said Iraq parallels Vietnam due to its causes, that would be a faulty claim since it is not the 1960's anymore. The parallels are there in the sense of a lack of direction, vision, foresight and terrible overall strategy from leaders back home. Lack of exit strategy, lack of clearly-defined aims after major combat operations were completed. Plenty of parallels.

That's one reason why I hate the war protesters so much- they really don't care about what's going on in Iraq, all that they are here for is to be good little Marxists and condemn anything that the Bush administration does.

It's good to see you agree with what someone who actually knows what's going on.

Does the current administration really care about Iraq? Your paranoia and labelling arises again. You need to be careful about that. Yes, some people do blame anything that goes wrong on the current administration which is basically retarded. And essentially, why should the protestors care about Iraq? They want to see their country cease involvement. Which, theoretically would be nice, but is simply impossible now. The US is stuck in there for the long haul, and the American population has only itself to blame for that.

However, I agree that most protestors are pretty stupid and will choose any issue to make a fuss about. But calling them traitors and Marxists is going too far. Be happy you live in a country which allows that. Watching things like that should fill you with pride, because it means that your home allows the most cherished of freedoms, freedom of speech and expression. I'm always glad when I see some lunatic talking about total rubbish. It means I'm in a free country.

If the press were to be censored to support the government's aims, then that freedom would be dealt a nearly fatal blow. That's what Putin does in Russia, do you think that would be good for America and what it stands for? I never said that America was a dictatorship, I never said anything even remotely of that nature. If however things like in Russia started happening, it would be stunningly hypocritical for America to talk about freedom. And why should the press 'play fair'? I think the more aggressive the press is, the better. As I said, the government should fear the press, not the other way round.

In my opinion, all the press is doing is whatever it can to damage the administration, and thus, the country itself. It distracts from our mission, and our objectives. President Roosevelt would probably have had people like Wolf Blitzer, and most definitely Michael Moore, imprisoned for violation of the treason and sedition act.

Who said everyone wants to have the same mission and objectives? Perhaps distraction from the 'mission' is a good thing. It prevents single-mindedness and opens eyes to more wide-reaching matters. The press expresses this sentiment. And this is not WWII. If someone did things like imprison journalists, America will have already lost.

I think that my friend meant the left coast, as well as the northeast.

So anywhere that tends to vote Democrat. I think many people in those places would claim he means the opposite

I'm too lazy to write these essay posts, I get to write too much at the university.

But I'd like to point out that Putin most probably is not behind the murders, cause the killings are damaging his position and credibility more than those journalists did.

Carcass wrote:I'm too lazy to write these essay posts, I get to write too much at the university.

But I'd like to point out that Putin most probably is not behind the murders, cause the killings are damaging his position and credibility more than those journalists did.

I write loads as well for my university course, I just never shut up any way

Who would gain from killing the journalists then? (possibly a discussion for another thread, would be good to get comments from people who live there too!)

If we are talking about Anna Polikovskaya, I think there is a big chance that the killing was ordered by Chechenya's pro-Moscow authorities. She was writing a story about torture practiced by the authorities and she was going to file it the next day before she got murdered.

Some others have been writing about mafia, it's not difficult to figure out who killed them. A guy I know actully saw an alleged mafia murder while in a restaurant in Russia. Drive-by shooting with a bazooka, pretty wild.

But yes, this is a topic for another thread

Carcass wrote:Drive-by shooting with a bazooka, pretty wild.

That's like using a lawnmower to remove a few weeds

Anyway, since we're on the topic of Iraq

NeonVomit wrote:

miditek wrote:

Carcass wrote:Exactly, this is why I'm positive about the sanctions.

I'll check the BBC article out in just a minute. In the meantime, here's another one to check out.

The Coming War with Islam
frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27385

The interviewer, a Dachau survivor, interviews an Israeli Arab who is a former history instructor.

(DISCLAIMER: I am very, very, VERY drunk while writing this, so please do NOT take offence miditek/shurik/anyone else who may disagree with me)

No offense taken at all, @NV, and will do my best to reply on this post as well as time permits. I feel that Iran is very epicenter of this entire Islamic terror thing though, and will elaborate shortly.

Also, -FYI (and no offense intended, either) miditek stopped drinking some time ago. I really could find no benefit to it, despite the fact that I'd really abused liquor (in particular) for years.

I have a younger brother that is killing himself with alcohol, and I just can't stand to see it happen. He's had pancreatic attacks, and more than one doctor that said, "stop drinking and doing drugs, or you are going to die." I'm joining Al-Anon (a program for the family members of alcoholics) later this week, to see if I can get some help dealing with inevitable.

Yeah, I went through a phase a few months ago where I was hitting booze quite hard, but then got off it. My financial situation disagreed with it, plus I decided to start fixing myself up physically (I'm far too thin and actually a bit underweight, as well as had lost all of the fitness I gained in the army) so I started going to the gym. Incredibly enough, during my 'Season of Haze' as my friends call it, I managed to make all my lectures and seminars and get all my coursework done, as well as not miss a day of work. I'm still not quite sure how I managed it.

The good thing with me is after a heavy night, the mere thought of alcohol makes me feel queasy for about 3-4 days afterwards. My body punishes me for abusing it like that, and I pay attention to it unlike some other people. I play in a blues band here in UK, and our drummer is a raving alcoholic. He will drink himself unconscious, then come to the next day and the first thing he'll do is open a can of beer. He has also stated that he doesn't expect to live past 35.

We laugh when he says that, but it's not funny if you think about it. He's obscenely intelligent, extremely well read and very knowledgable and a truly engaging person when sober. It's just a shame, but there's not much we can really do. He's an adult.

NeonVomit wrote:I'm far too thin and actually a bit underweight, as well as had lost all of the fitness I gained in the army

Welcome to the club!!!

Now this whole situation with the British sailors. Quite funny I think. Ahmedineijajdiajdnaindiadinnaiaidaindanjad is really grasping at straws here. Despite the UK trying to maintain civilised relations with Tehran, he's really just trying to hype stuff up.

The UK government won't sink to their level. Iran doesn't dare harm those sailors. They gain nothing from this whole fiasco. They've already had a unanimous UN Security Council resolution against them over the nuclear issue, how much more international credibility can they afford to lose?

Real screwup guys, back off.

Here's a pretty good, through breakdown of the situation from my American/Iranian friend (who is far more knowledgable about Iran than almost anyone else in this discussion).

You're all talking about President Ahmadinejad as if he has real power in Iran's international affairs when he does not. The office of the presidency in Iran is nothing like, say, the office of the presidency in the United States.

He doesn't run the country. The country is run by the Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hossayni Khameneî, who is elected by the religious Assemby of Experts. The President is head of the executive branch of government, but is not in charge of the armed forces (as the US president is considered the Commander in Chief) and does not declare war. Those duties are reserved for the Supreme Leader - Ayatollah Khamenei - at whose pleasure the president serves (despite being elected, he can be dismissed by the Supreme Leader, who is his organizational boss).

As head of the executive branch, President Ahmadinejad accepts the credentials of ambassadors, submits bills to the legislature, appoints cabinet members, and so on. But don't confuse this with actual power.

The Supreme Leader - Ayatollah Khamenei - can declare war and peace, is in charge of the military, appoints the heads of the national radio and television, and all the leaders of all the military branches. That's actual power.

President Ahmadinejad is a "lightning rod". It's my opinion that he serves the mullahs who run Iran extremely well in that role.

The Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons is a rational course of action, based on Iran's self-interest. The fact that they are surrounded by hostile forces make it an eminently sensible policy. That policy is in opposition to general US interests in the region. We may not *like* it - but it is a rational policy. Saying that Iran is crazy for pursuing such a course is not really accurate, in my opinion.

Likewise, suggesting that "Ahmadinejad wants a showdown" also seems silly to me. After all - all they really need to do is wait until the US leaves Iraq, and they'll be well on the way towards establishing a Sharia-based return of the Persian Empire, either through partnership with the Shi'a in Iraq or through integration. This is something that *is* in their interests.

Iran is in a relative position of strength - not weakness - vis a vis the power politics of the region. They're relatively safe in terms of the country - they have every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would not succeed, since the attack on Iraq has not worked out the way that the US leadership has hoped, plus Iran is much larger than Iraq and the terrain is more unforgiving. Since it's now clear that the "more technology = fewer boots on the ground" strategy of the US Defense Department (begun with troop drawdowns during the George HW Bush presidency and continued during the Clinton years, culminating with the first George W Bush administration) is a failure, there will necessarily be a "boots on the ground" campaign in Iran if US goals are to be met. There is no political will in the US for such a campaign.

The Iranians aren't seeking a conflict. They don't have to have one. All they have to do is wait.

Just sayin'.

Several of these Conspiracy-type sites are predicting Bush will hit Iran in April(LOL-they did say March, but they are backing it off a month--LOL). I wish these people would STFU because nobody can predict anything with certainty regarding this issue. And, this world has enough real problems without these "theorists" who know nothing about the real situation adding to the tension with their contrived "predictions".
Yeah, I think it takes someone living in this situation&this region to know the real score.

Yesterday night was quite shocking. Oil went up more than 5 dollars (around 68 $) when rumours came out that Iran launched a missile at a US plane carrier (how do they call these things really?)
Since this was not true though the price fell again.

I feel this time if something happens, the 100 $ mark will be pretty easy to pass...

stratobabius wrote:Yesterday night was quite shocking. Oil went up more than 5 dollars (around 68 $) when rumours came out that Iran launched a missile at a US plane carrier (how do they call these things really?)
Since this was not true though the price fell again.

I feel this time if something happens, the 100 $ mark will be pretty easy to pass...

If Iran fires any missiles at US naval forces, I think that they'll live to regret it. In addition to, let's say, several thousand cruise missiles being launched in response by the US, having a blockade of gasoline on Iran (they have very little refinery capabilities, and import most of their gas), would bring their war machine to a grinding halt.

The rumor that you heard was just that- a rumor, and commodities (like oil) will jump in price at any sign of bad news, unfortunately.

Again, read what my friend has said on the issue. Iran will not launch a missile at anyone any time soon. It is not in their interests to do so.

Oil prices are jumpy, because the futures traders on Wall Street are jumpy (and THEY are the ones who state oil prices, not the oil companies, so next time don't bother cursing Exxon-Mobil for paying through the nose at the pump. Exxon-Mobil are one of the world's most profitable companies, because they are one of the world's best run and best managed companies).

NeonVomit wrote:Again, read what my friend has said on the issue. Iran will not launch a missile at anyone any time soon. It is not in their interests to do so.

That's why it looked suspicious.
It's convenient knowing both sides of the coin(I think).

miditek wrote:If Iran fires any missiles at US naval forces, I think that they'll live to regret it.

Correct that with anyone.

What do you guys think of the March 2008 deadline Congress passed for USA troops to leave Iraq?
Bush tried to Veto it, but the Senate vetoed HIM!
Reckon Bush will start a war in Iran just to keep the thing going?
Anyway, I think a year should give sufficient time to get Iraq in better shape. Of course, I'm not there&don't know the conditions these guys are working under.
It would be nice if someone who has BEEN THERE would discuss things here. I know of a lady registered here who was in the Medical field&stayed in Iraq a very long time. But, understandably, I don't think she feels like discussing it. Very painful experience, I'm sure.

browneyedgirl wrote:What do you guys think of the March 2008 deadline Congress passed for USA troops to leave Iraq?

I'm sort of siding with Bush on this one.. I know, I know.. I checked my temperature, I don't have a fever, I'm not delirious, I'm not on drugs!

I see it this way: Politicians (like Bush) made a mess out of getting into this war. It was extremely unfortunate. But that's how it is. Now politicians should try the hardest they can to also NOT make a mess of the withdrawal.

My wish would be for a solution that both parties agree on that's the "best" solution (or, I guess the "least bad" solution). Guess that's not going to happen. So .. no matter what happens now, one side can blame the other side for .. something or other. So the fucking bickering will continue, and all the while, kids (of whatever nationalities are involved in the conflict) will have their balls or other bits blown off. Like in every other fucking war.

Anyway, I think a year should give sufficient time to get Iraq in better shape.

Yeah as always, let's hope for the best.

NeonVomit wrote:Again, read what my friend has said on the issue. Iran will not launch a missile at anyone any time soon. It is not in their interests to do so.

I did read your friend's post, and it was very well written. I always pay attention (if not always agree) with what people that are in the know (like your friend) have to say.

NeonVomit wrote:Oil prices are jumpy, because the futures traders on Wall Street are jumpy (and THEY are the ones who state oil prices, not the oil companies, so next time don't bother cursing Exxon-Mobil for paying through the nose at the pump. Exxon-Mobil are one of the world's most profitable companies, because they are one of the world's best run and best managed companies).

I was among the ones that cursed Exxon, most do when we see the law of diminishing returns applied directly at the gasoline pump, but after seeing their quarterly financial statements, I do have to say that 10% net income is not exactly what I'd call "excessive profits".

Some links regarding the British soldiers that Iran is holding "hostage":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17827481
A lady soldier may be released today, or tomorrow.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17810017
USA's reaction so far.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17809763
Tony Blair is Angry!

Well, IMO, if modern-day Muslims hold to ancient beliefs the soldiers will not be harmed because they are being given water&some food. So, although being held against ones will is scarey to say the least, I think the matter wil be resolved soon. I don't think THIS President or Tony Blair will tolerate a hostage situation like 1979!! And, I believe the Iranians know this!

miditek wrote:

NeonVomit wrote:Faced against fighters like the ones Kurtz described, who would do the most horrible atrocious things for what they saw as defending their country against foreign intervention, how could someone who didn't even WANT to be in the military, let alone Vietnam, hope to compete?

The events described by the character of Kurtz were fictional. If such an event ever did happen, (the pile of arms from kids that had been inoculated), then those responsible should have been hunted down and executed immediately. There is no honor in doing things like that. And there is no excuse for it. It does not make heroes out of the insurgents. Kurtz's character was at least loosely based on former Green Beret Colonel James "Bo" Gritz though.

Weirdly enough, the book "Heart of Darkness" was first published in 1901. I guess some things about human nature don't change much. Just fill in some local color and you have a story about Vietnam. :\

I shudder to think how the script for the movie "Apocalypse 2068" might read ...

browneyedgirl wrote:Reckon Bush will start a war in Iran just to keep the thing going?

Iran should be a piece of cake.... just send in 300 Greek guys!! It's apparently been done before ...

There were a lot more than 300! Didn't you see that film by Stone?

miditek wrote:

NeonVomit wrote:Faced against fighters like the ones Kurtz described, who would do the most horrible atrocious things for what they saw as defending their country against foreign intervention, how could someone who didn't even WANT to be in the military, let alone Vietnam, hope to compete?

The events described by the character of Kurtz were fictional. If such an event ever did happen, (the pile of arms from kids that had been inoculated), then those responsible should have been hunted down and executed immediately. There is no honor in doing things like that. And there is no excuse for it. It does not make heroes out of the insurgents. Kurtz's character was at least loosely based on former Green Beret Colonel James "Bo" Gritz though.

JensJohansson wrote:Weirdly enough, the book "Heart of Darkness" was first published in 1901. I guess some things about human nature don't change much. Just fill in some local color and you have a story about Vietnam. :\

Yes, it is most definitely an old book, what I meant by the comparisons of Kurtz to Gritz was that the screenplay itself was heavily modified by Coppola.

Both were "old men" (late thirties/early forties) Green Beret colonels, both were feared by the enemy, and both were more than a bit crazy. I have a friend that was temporarily stationed with Gritz that can most definitely confirm the craziness factor.

JensJohansson wrote:I shudder to think how the script for the movie "Apocalypse 2068" might read ...

The Last Temptation of the Mahdi? -or- Mahmoud Don't Surf!

A kind of paranoid article, yet......

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ma ... ranwar.htm

Not Found
The requested URL /articles/march007/270307iranwar.htm was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Yeah, I get super paranoid whenever I see that screen

NeonVomit wrote:

Not Found
The requested URL /articles/march007/270307iranwar.htm was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Yeah, I get super paranoid whenever I see that screen

It works now, NV, I had left out the 2. Just leaving out one element in an URL renders it useless.
Kinda like leaving one wheel off a car, I guess.