|
|
 | | From: | gumby | | Subject: | The Salvador option | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:41:23 -0600 |
|
|
 | The Salvador option, funding or supporting "nationalist" forces that
will hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers.
In action, hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite
militiamen, will hunt down and kill insurgents and sympathizers.
Actions are not confined to Iraq. Could include Syria, Iran, ect.
In fact, the policy could be a formalization of what's already taking
place. "We are, of course, already targeting enemy cadres for
elimination whether by capture or death in various places including
Afghanistan and Iraq," says Patrick Lang, former chief of Middle East
analysis for the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency.
No more safe havens for the terrorist.
|
|
| | From: | gumby | | Subject: | Re: The Salvador option | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:19:57 -0600 |
|
|
| I think you would be wise to remember that in El Salvador the
"nationalist" forces we supported were responsible for an incredible
amount of death and distruction. I would think there is an inherent
danger in arming militas in Iraq because it would most likely
destablize the country even further than 'martial law' and the crushing
of rebel forces that we have already seen. An armed force accountable
to no one does not seem as though it would do anything but stir up more
violence and hatred.
As opposed to now?
This would perhaps have been a more viable option prior to our invasion
and occupation but seems impracticle now. I should also point out that
Iraq was not a 'safe haven' for terrorists prior to our invasion.
No, the Sunni owned Iraq. Could kill at will. They were in charge.
Sunni are the terrorist.
It is unlikely that an escalation in US supported violence would have
any
positive effect on the rebellion and would likely only spawn more
terrorists.
Again, look at what is going on now, can't keep doing the same. The
only way you fight an insurgency is with an insurgency.
Again, No more safe havens for the terrorist.
|
|
| | From: | gumby | | Subject: | Re: The Salvador option | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:44:37 -0600 |
|
|
| In the end they(The Iraqi people) will get what they want. Democracy,
who knows. Not Americas battle. We cannot win. Only the Iraqi people
can.
|
|
| | From: | Snowman | | Subject: | Re: The Salvador option | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:58:58 -0600 |
|
|
| I think you would be wise to remember that in El Salvador the
"nationalist" forces we supported were responsible for an incredible
amount of death and distruction. I would think there is an inherent
danger in arming militas in Iraq because it would most likely
destablize the country even further than 'martial law' and the crushing
of rebel forces that we have already seen. An armed force accountable
to no one does not seem as though it would do anything but stir up more
violence and hatred.
This would perhaps have been a more viable option prior to our invasion
and occupation but seems impracticle now. I should also point out that
Iraq was not a 'safe haven' for terrorists prior to our invasion. It is
unlikely that an escalation in US supported violence would have any
positive effect on the rebellion and would likely only spawn more
terrorists.
|
|
| | From: | Bourbaki | | Subject: | Re: The Salvador option | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 02:09:25 -0600 |
|
|
| gumby wrote:
> In the end they(The Iraqi people) will get what they want. Democracy,
> who knows. Not Americas battle. We cannot win. Only the Iraqi people
> can.
How many hundreds of times have you posted, "Not America's battle. We
cannot win. Only the Iraqi people can." What ever do you mean by
these inept and hollow words? Every day that US soldiers wake up in
Iraq and face hostile forces it IS America's battle. And Iraq will
remain America's battle until the last boots are out. By the way,
haven't you heard your president's words. "We will stay the course."
So it will likely by America's battle for a long time to come. And
even if American troops leave Iraq, leaving behind a anti-American
country, it will still be you battle because you will have left behind
a nation will to strike at you with WMD terror attacks.
You can't win? You and your fellow Americans are therefore loosers? I
say you CAN win if you put enough boots on the ground to stabilize the
country and pump in enough supplies to rebuild the infrastructure.
Only then can the Iraqi peoples win. Now, to be sure, America likely
can't win with what America is doing now.
Now, just to beat you to the punch, I'll go ahead and requote your
words, "In the end they(The Iraqi people) will get what they want.
Democracy, who knows. Not Americas battle. We cannot win. Only the
Iraqi people can." Happy to go around in inane circles feeling as
though your words carry any meaning beyond unadulterated luncy? How
about I join you. "In the end, only intelligent people will get what
they want. Idiots, who knows. Not humanity's battle. We cannot win.
Only the Martian people can win."
NB
|
|
| | From: | gumby | | Subject: | Re: The Salvador option | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:42:17 -0600 |
|
|
| 2 or 3-hundred-thousand more troops. Liberal say draft.
BTW, How long is it going to take to train these troops? Wouldn't it
be faster to train Iraqis.
|
|
| | From: | Bourbaki | | Subject: | Re: The Salvador option | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 10:57:06 -0600 |
|
|
| Nazis, along with French collaborators, never quelled the Maquis.
The British never quelled the Iraqi insurgencies from 1919 thru 1947.
The US never quelled the VC insurgency despite razing villages and
deforestation with agent organge.
Oh yes, the Irish insurgency, though it lasted for centuries, is now
coming to a peaceful, political resolution.
Perhaps the US, which can clearly bring tremendous recourses to bear,
e.g. waking the sleeping giant after the Pearl Harbor attack, the
Berlin airlift, etc., should bring overwhelming recources to fix Iraq.
Put in 2 or 3-hundred-thousand more troops. Stop the insurgency, then
train an Iraqi army and police force in peaceful stability.
Simultaneously fix Iraqi infrastructure as Mc Arthur did in Japan.
It's never too late to fix a mistake. Will the US do what needs to be
done? Or suffer a war attrition and occupation for the next decade?
Nicolas Bourbaki
|
|
| | From: | Sorackem | | Subject: | Re: The Salvador option | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:36:00 -0600 |
|
|
| "Bourbaki" wrote in news:1106326604.302665.96990
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Perhaps the US, which can clearly bring tremendous recourses to bear,
> e.g. waking the sleeping giant after the Pearl Harbor attack, the
> Berlin airlift, etc., should bring overwhelming recources to fix Iraq.
>
Yes.
Over and over this picture (viewpoint) is brought and shown to those
supporting the war.
It's a question simply of motivation. Yes; resources could be brought to
bear that would really astound people. They could, if that were what the
end had been; to fix (or help) Iraq and it's people.
Food/water and medicine for heaven's sake if nothing else.
Does anyone really think that the overwhelming number of Iraqi civilians
are really in so good a shape in that country right now and before, under
Saddam - that they wouldn't really want freedom and a fledgling type of
democracy there. Hell yes they would. Anyone would. We all would.
They know, however, that isn't really what's being imported to them.
It's what the wrapper says; but not really what's in the box.
They know this and they're not about to unwrap and take home, what, to them
is just another type of oppression with clever new slogans.
-B
|
|
| | From: | Don W. McCollough | | Subject: | Re: The Salvador option | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:09:37 -0600 |
|
|
| "gumby" wrote in message
news:1106102459.174394.33850@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The Salvador option, funding or supporting "nationalist" forces that
> will hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers.
>
> In action, hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite
> militiamen, will hunt down and kill insurgents and sympathizers.
> Actions are not confined to Iraq. Could include Syria, Iran, ect.
>
> In fact, the policy could be a formalization of what's already taking
> place. "We are, of course, already targeting enemy cadres for
> elimination whether by capture or death in various places including
> Afghanistan and Iraq," says Patrick Lang, former chief of Middle East
> analysis for the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency.
> No more safe havens for the terrorist.
Scumby's wet dream.
Scumby must be taking Viagra before he goes to bed.
The real "Salvador option" in Iraq involves spray painting
all the anglo mercs currently killing women and children
in Iraq *brown.*
Now change the sheets and go back to sleep Scumby.
|
|
| | From: | gumby | | Subject: | Re: The Salvador option | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:36:03 -0600 |
|
|
| All this from a degenerate terrorist sympathizer. Donny, why don't
you just use the name Al Qaeda bitch? It fits you perfectly.
Again, No more safe havens for the terrorist.
|
|
| | From: | gumby | | Subject: | Re: The Salvador option | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:22:01 -0600 |
|
|
| Your right, we should just pull out our troops and let the Iraqis
deal with it. It is not our fight.
|
|
|
