hearts and minds

[Bluffcove]

hearts and minds boys,

Forget if this guy is a taxi driver, look at the drills in this video.

We have side-on "yardie" use of side arms designed to look cool for the video - Grand theft Auto more than side arm range stances.
The Tankie narrator is more interested in impressing the bloke behind the camera than in dealing with the situation.
only after the "incident" does anyone speak to the owner of the vehicle (and confirm it is his lifeblood)
The "justice" issued to the looters appears quite kangaroo court and not particualrly official. (or sanctioned)
At no point do the Iraqis appear put at ease, or sympathised with by the Tank Crew.

http://www.killsometime.com/video/video.asp?video=Dont-Loot

Try that is N.I. and Im fairly sure youd have been seen milk bottles and flamin car tyres all over the streets. That video, as one incident, is out of order. I am not saying that all of the US military is like this, but IRONMAN do you agree that that behaviour is absolutely despicable?

[BDL]

Wonder why the Iraqis hate the occupational forces when things like that happen? The crew commander's a tool, so are the rest of them. The guy doing the "gangsta" thing with his pistol (is it the crew commander?) is a grade A tosser.

[Bluffcove]

actually I thought it was bound to make the local population accepting of our presence. In fact just the day after this event, three of the guys kneeling on the ground bounded up the check point a few miles down the road, invited all the US forces to a wedding and told the base commander over tea and buns where the could find an arms cache, insurgent safe house and the 2 of clubs from the orignal pack of 52.

or maybe......................... That tank crew fucked it all up!

"US ARMY TANKERS ROOL"

God help us - (and the Iraqi in the street before that!)

[Man of Stoat]

Feck me!

Now, remind me - are we (meaning "the coalition" meant to be an occupying force or a liberating force?

I can't even begin to list what was wrong with what they did in that clip...

Defend that, ironman! I'm sure you can quote some statistic of civvies killed by bombs in the war phase to explain why what went on in that clip was ok.

[Tubbyboy]

Feck me!

Now, remind me - are we (meaning "the coalition" meant to be an occupying force or a liberating force?

I can't even begin to list what was wrong with what they did in that clip...

Defend that, ironman! I'm sure you can quote some statistic of civvies killed by bombs in the war phase to explain why what went on in that clip was ok.

I think that, rather more wisely than I gave him credit for, IRONMAN is keeping his head down and his mouth shut.

It would not be a good idea for him to start his usual bollocks tonight after the events of the day....

[Bluffcove]

Apologies to all Americans on the forum, for showing this clip in such a sanctimonious light, If IRONMAN were one of mine Id ask him outside to dress him down a bit before letting him back in.

[SMLE]

I'm a bit drunk, but here goes...

The use of different camera angles suggests to me that it was a set-up movie. Also, when the US soldier fires his pistol at the car, the recoil looks more akin to a .22 than a 9mm, suggesting that he's firing blanks.

Much as nothing would surprise me about US treatment of Iraqi civilians, that looks like a set-up to me.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Apologies to all Americans on the forum, for showing this clip in such a sanctimonious light, If IRONMAN were one of mine Id ask him outside to dress him down a bit before letting him back in.

Well regardless I think todays events in London show that the Americans and the Brits are knee deep in the shit again. All differences and bitching's aside we again find ourselves in war together. I cant think of another country on earth that I would prefer to have on my side then the crazy, yet brave sons of bitches on that little island across the pond. :wink: :D

[Tubbyboy]

Apologies to all Americans on the forum, for showing this clip in such a sanctimonious light, If IRONMAN were one of mine Id ask him outside to dress him down a bit before letting him back in.

Well regardless I think todays events in London show that the Americans and the Brits are knee deep in the shit again. All differences and bitching's aside we again find ourselves in war together. I cant think of another country on earth that I would prefer to have on my side then the crazy, yet brave sons of bitches on that little island across the pond. :wink: :D

<Sniffs, wipes manly tear from eye>

Thanks mate, well said.

[Sturmtruppen]

STOP INSULTING,please bluffcove,if ironman insults you,send me a pm,and i will see what i have to do,but,if you continue insulting,you will receive a warning.

[Cactus]

Apologies to all Americans on the forum, for showing this clip in such a sanctimonious light, If IRONMAN were one of mine Id ask him outside to dress him down a bit before letting him back in.

Well regardless I think todays events in London show that the Americans and the Brits are knee deep in the shit again. All differences and bitching's aside we again find ourselves in war together. I cant think of another country on earth that I would prefer to have on my side then the crazy, yet brave sons of bitches on that little island across the pond. :wink: :D

Well said. 8)

[BDL]

Winning the Heats and Minds of the Iraqi people -


OSNABRUECK, Germany (CNN) -- A military court has sentenced three British soldiers to prison for abusing Iraqi detainees in southern Iraq.

Answered your own point there

[Man of Stoat]

An admirer of Blair...

:shock:

You won't find many of them amongst the Brits on this forum...

[Bluffcove]

So those photos were handed ovetr the counter of a photo developing sotre by a none too bright squaddie and he is now in prison. along with his mates.

Have any photos come out of Guantanomo? A free holiday in Cuba! bloody marvellous, the fact that the camp is on foreign territory and consequently none of the civil rights afforded to foreign prisoners on US soil have to be exteneded there is purely coincidental, it must be because of the security risk, You never know when a man manacled 24 hours a day and strapped to a spine board, might suddenly escape!

and I agree with BDL the 3 guys in that incident are now serving out their time in a prison.

How exactly does our attitude expressing disdain for the actions of those american tankees make us look bad to Iraqis? Maybe if we congratlated the tankees on their just use of force against hte liberated civilian population they would respect us more? Get a grip, dont piss of the locals and you might manage to leave Iraq with more empty body bags than full ones!

[pdf27]

An admirer of Blair...
You won't find many of them amongst the Brits on this forum...
Well, I am, a bit <hangs head in shame>. I've got no time for virtually all the rest of his party or some of his policies, but I think he personally hasn't done a bad job at all. I suspect I may be about the only UK citizen on the forum to think that way though...

[Firefly]

An admirer of Blair...
You won't find many of them amongst the Brits on this forum...
Well, I am, a bit <hangs head in shame>. I've got no time for virtually all the rest of his party or some of his policies, but I think he personally hasn't done a bad job at all. I suspect I may be about the only UK citizen on the forum to think that way though...

Im also a semi-admirer. Although I dont agree with a lot of what he says, I do with some. I also think he has had the balls to make Labour electable. I know the party is full of malcontents, and although Ive never even voted for them, I think that 90% of the time he is genuine. After all what is the alternative?

[festamus]

I know where I come from (Tony Blair's constituency is next door to mine), the difference between the old Tory government and the Labour government has been tangible - brand new hospital builty where before 1997 there was discussion of just closing the old one.

I and all of my siblings have employment, are prospering and leading happy, content lives under the current government.

Things are not perfect, but I feel that certainly in my locality, people feel they are better off since Tony Blair brought his party to power.

As for Iraq etc. I also think he's no more a liar than any other Prime Minister - if anythink I think with the ever developing 24/7 news media, it's just a case of greater scrutiny.

But then, that's just me. Those who aren't fans can sleep safe knowing your vote counts just the same as mine. :)

[Man of Stoat]

When both myself & my sister were at Uni, my parents were worse off to the tune of approx 3k.

Now they're only worse off to the tune of approx 1k, to no tangible improvement in local services (it's got so bad around here that my father's employer has had to put the employees on BUPA :shock:).

I guess it's a question of where you live. My parents live in a safe tory constituency, so have seen zero extra invenstment since 1997. I hear that a lot of marginal & Labour constituencies have seen lots of improvements, but since my parents' area is not part of the labour target audience, the régime couldn't give a damn for them.

[Walther]

Back to the topic:

I found this link on the ARRSE site, the text is quite long but interesting:
http://www.sftt.us/HTML/article07072005a.html

Jan

[reiver]

[reiver]

[reiver]

Back to the topic:

I found this link on the ARRSE site, the text is quite long but interesting:
http://www.sftt.us/HTML/article07072005a.html

Jan

Even on a first read, that's an impressive, thoughtful document, and one that confirms and builds on some of the comments already made by some posters here.
It does read as if the USMC has reached the same conclusions as the British Army, albeit somewhat belatedly.

On thing that has cropped up a few times in some of these articles, without explanation, is the depth of anger and humiliation caused to Muslims by a soldier putting his foot on their head.
This goes far beyond the physical, and far beyond the humiliation that might be felt by a Westerner in the same situation.
To Muslims, the sole of the shoe is anathema; it's unclean from contact with the ground.
When sitting in company with Muslims, care has to be taken not to even point the sole of the shoe towards them, a gross insult, which is why they traditionally sit with their feet tucked under their thighs.
It's also why Muslims and visitors remove their shoes prior to entering a Mosque.
We all saw the pictures of Iraqis beating the fallen statue of Saddam with their shoes, almost the greatest insult they could bestow, and yet most observers never asked why.
Another example of cultural differences, and a lack of knowledge of those differences, having far reaching consequences.

[Walther]

This is the same reaction the Japanese faced in the Philippines in WW2. In the Imperial Japanese Army it was customary for NCOs to beat and slap their subordinates. Now a Japanese squaddie got sent to the Philippines, but while the official policy preached cooperation between the occupied peoples and the Japanese, maybe through a missunderstanding he thinks he has to discipline a Filipino and slaps him in the face. With this action he has made himself an enemy for life. The Pinoy might say nothing and just be stonefaced, but you cvcan bet that from now on he will do everything possible to kill the people who have humiliated him.

Jan

[IRONMAN]

Get a grip, dont piss of the locals and you might manage to leave Iraq with more empty body bags than full ones!

Beating people does not exaclty make thier countrymen happy. Yes, I know, there are American f*cks that have done the same. They too have been prosecuted.

There is a bit of semantics involved in the author's comment on Vietnam. He says we (US presumably) lost. Truthfully, the US pulled out after drawing the line and keeping half of the country free of rule from the north. But I suppose you could call that a loss, since the real objective was not met. The US faught that war with a smattering, dribble of men - like feeding men slowy into a grinder. What a flub. If they had sent 250,000 and everything that goes with them, it would have turned out differently, unless China jumped us like they did in Korea once more. The same would have been true in Korea - 17,000 US troops in a war that needed 217,000. Leave it to the UN to spank the bad doggie with a wet noodle.

I think the difficulty, as one of you stated, is the cultural difference. Convincing Muslims that cultures dominated by Christians have their best interests at heart is not easy. They have had their minds filled from toddler age for so many generations with narrow-minded dogma that undoing such thinking is difficult, even in modern times. A society that is so culturally linerar that it hides the faces of it's women because the sight of a woman's mouth might induce thoughts of it's similarity to the vagina and thoughts of fellatio (banned in Muslim countries except India) is one that has difficulty in changing not only itself, much less it's relations to the west. It seems to have worked pretty well in Kuait however. The Kuatis have no problem with foreigners being their friends. However, Kuait is also a relatively wealthy little country. Iraq is very much not wealthy. Money talks, and when money talks, cultures listen. China is a perfect example of that. 30 years ago Chia hated everything American. Now there's a McDonalds every so many miles. These are defining times in the relations between the Muslim east and Christian west. If we can accomplish democracy in Iraq and make friends of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran 9 :?: :?: ), and eventually ( :idea: ) Syria, the future will be a lot less hostile.

[2nd of foot]

Walther a very good article, I have only diped into it and have marked it for further reading. This is one para that I landed on and is similar to an article I read on US troops in Macedonia some years ago.

“One of my National Guard officers said that in Bosnia, where he served, the Europeans and the locals all laughed at us for hunkering down in fortified camps and seeming scared all the time. It’s the old Force Protection crap. So I said, ‘Can it.’ No Fort Apaches. We’ll live in the towns. We will billet with the people, paying them well for the quarters we occupy. We’ll shop in the local markets, drink coffee in the local cafes. In Hattin, my headquarters is over a row of shops, right down town. We protect the shopkeepers, but they also protect us. They don’t want their shops blown up. I have troops living that way all over town. I let my captains, lieutenants and sergeants work their areas the way they see fit, blending in as much as possible.

[Bluffcove]

Get a grip, dont piss of the locals and you might manage to leave Iraq with more empty body bags than full ones!

Beating people does not exaclty make thier There countrymen happy. Yes, I know, there are American f*cks that have done the same. They too have been prosecuted.

There is a bit of semantics involved in the author's comment on Vietnam. He says we (US presumably) lost. Truthfully, the US pulled out after drawing the line and keeping half of the country free of rule from the north It was a defeat you retreated and did not return. But I suppose you could call that a loss, since the real objective was not met. The US faught that war with a smattering, dribble of men - like feeding men slowy into a grinder. What a flub. If they had sent 250,000 and everything that goes with them, it would have turned out differently The US wouldnt have a standing army and they would have run out of places to put that many troops inside vietnam, unless China jumped us like they did in Korea once more. The same would have been true in Korea - 17,000 US troops in a war that needed 217,000. Leave it to the UN to spank the bad doggie with a wet noodle. We will be sure to ask for your experitse in these areas in future

I think the difficulty, as one of you stated, is the cultural difference. Convincing Muslims that cultures dominated by Christians have their best interests at heart is not easy when beating them (UK) or driving tanks over their cars (US) . They have had their minds filled from toddler age for so many generations with narrow-minded dogma not to draw any generalisation or anything. (you cant start a sentence with "that") that undoing such thinking is difficult, even in modern times. A society that is so culturally linerar (culturally linear> interesting phrase WTF?) that it hides the faces of it's women because (men are not trusted to be able to resist beautiful women who are seductresses - in one denomination of Islam) the sight of a woman's mouth might induce thoughts of it's similarity to the vagina and thoughts of fellatio (banned in Muslim countries except India? what an anorak to know in which countries fellatio is banned is one that has difficulty in changing not only itself, much less it's relations to the west. It seems to have worked pretty well in KuWait however -"raised from a toddler on Narrow minded Dogma". The KuWatis have no problem with foreigners being their friends - Because we freed them from Iraq - not amazingly complicated and buy oil from them at quite a nice price too. However, KuWait is also a relatively wealthy little country -good use of the word relative. Iraq is very much not wealthy -that makes no sense - especially as Iraq is minted beyond belief in terms of potential revenue! all of which is presently flowing out of the Country. Money talks, and when money talks, cultures listen. China is a perfect example of that. 30 years ago Chia hated everything American- and still does. Now there's a McDonalds every so many miles. These are defining times in the relations between the Muslim east and Christian west. If we can accomplish democracy in Iraq and make friends of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran 9 :?: :?: ), and eventually ( :idea: ) Syria, the future will be a lot less hostile.Alternatively we could let syria and Iran do there own thing, or allow them to sort themselves out - and why would we need to go near Syria, other than to kick up a furore in yet another Muslim Nation!

[BDL]

fellatio (banned in Muslim countries except India)

Also banned in some states of the USA (can't be bothered googling which ones) - what's your point?

[Walther]

Bluffcove, don't feed the troll. I think it would be the best if everybody in here would just stonewall "you-know-whom-I'm-talking-about".

Jan

[reiver]

Bluffcove, don't feed the troll. I think it would be the best if everybody in here would just stonewall "you-know-whom-I'm-talking-about".

Jan

By the way Walther, and just in passing, I'm sure you were aware that India is a Hindu nation, while Pakistan is a Muslim one, the reason for partition. :roll:

[Crab_to_be]

Plus, when correcting spelling, you should try not to incorrectly correct it.
(This statement is copyright of the Rumsfeld school of plain english)

Beating people does not exaclty[sic] make thier There countrymen happy
Surely 'their'? [/smug and irritating]

[Walther]

Bluffcove, don't feed the troll. I think it would be the best if everybody in here would just stonewall "you-know-whom-I'm-talking-about".

Jan

By the way Walther, and just in passing, I'm sure you were aware that India is a Hindu nation, while Pakistan is a Muslim one, the reason for partition. :roll:

Reiver,

I don't know what you are talking about. Though my only contact with Pakistan (besides eating in a British Kebab shop) is a 1 hour stopover in Karachi airport 15 years ago, I know a bit about the history of India and Pakistan. I don't think I ever claimed here that Pakistan was NOT a muslim nation. As well I don't remember that I ever claimed that India was a muslim nation. I think you've got two wires crossed here.

Jan

[reiver]

Bluffcove, don't feed the troll. I think it would be the best if everybody in here would just stonewall "you-know-whom-I'm-talking-about".

Jan

By the way Walther, and just in passing, I'm sure you were aware that India is a Hindu nation, while Pakistan is a Muslim one, the reason for partition. :roll:

Reiver,

I don't know what you are talking about. Though my only contact with Pakistan (besides eating in a British Kebab shop) is a 1 hour stopover in Karachi airport 15 years ago, I know a bit about the history of India and Pakistan. I don't think I ever claimed here that Pakistan was NOT a muslim nation. As well I dpn't remember that I ever claimed that India was a muslim nation. I think you've got two wires crossed here.

Jan

Sorry Jan,
Just indulging in some indirect chit-chat rather than direct confrontation.
I'm well aware that you never claimed India was a Muslim nation.

[Bluffcove]

Plus, when correcting spelling, you should try not to incorrectly correct it.
(This statement is copyright of the Rumsfeld school of plain english)

Beating people does not exaclty[sic] make thier There countrymen happy
Surely 'their'? [/smug and irritating]

Yes sorry, Red Mist etc etc

[IRONMAN]

It was a defeat you retreated and did not return.

You see it that way, I know.

The US wouldnt have a standing army and they would have run out of places to put that many troops inside vietnam

In a country of 127,207 square miles? No, we did not put a real army in Vietnam for other reasons. Not because there was no space. It was because the president did not want to provoke China, remembering Korea.

We will be sure to ask for your experitse in these areas in future

:roll:

(culturally linear> interesting phrase WTF?)

A culture which maintains it's philisophical and religious antiquity over time, unswerving and constrained. Iraq was almost 100% Muslim and opposed to the philosophies of the west 1,500 years ago, and they still are today.

(men are not trusted to be able to resist beautiful women who are seductresses - in one denomination of Islam

It is not the men who are not trusted. It is the women who are not trusted. The paranoia stems from the male concept that women cannot be trusted to not wish to feel desired. In certain Arab cultures, the totalitarianist subjugation of women is taken to a greater and more hideous extreme, and girls are forced to have their clitorises cut off to keep women from indulging in masturbation. By their thinking, women should find pleasure only through intercourse with their husbands, and any sexual pleasure for women not by intercourse is condemned.

Because we freed them from Iraq - not amazingly complicated and buy oil from them at quite a nice price too

Yes, that is essentially what I said. Hence my comment that it may be possible to succeed in other Muslim countries.

that makes no sense - especially as Iraq is minted beyond belief in terms of potential revenue! all of which is presently flowing out of the Country

Iraq is not a wealthy nation. Iraq produces only @ 3% of the world's oil production (you probably thought it was much higher), and the money does not trickle down. The average Iraqi is poor by western standards.

Alternatively we could let syria and Iran do there own thing, or allow them to sort themselves out - and why would we need to go near Syria, other than to kick up a furore in yet another Muslim Nation!

Well considering that doing nothing leads to where we are today, it seems doing something is the way to go. Hence, your country and mine are over there now. As for Syria, they are at present the most prolific source of terrorists and terrorist training camps in the world. Doing nothing there (politically or whatever) is a means to the end we find ourselves in now.

Gosh. How liberal politics gets this wrold so screwed up.

[IRONMAN]

Yes, I know that India is a Hinu nation of Hindi people. I simply meant that it is banned throughout the Middle East with the exception of India. Thank God you jumped me though.

[Bladensburg]

A culture which maintains it's philisophical and religious antiquity over time, unswerving and constrained. Iraq was almost 100% Muslim and opposed to the philosophies of the west 1,500 years ago, and they still are today.

There was no Islam 1500 years ago.

[IRONMAN]

A culture which maintains it's philisophical and religious antiquity over time, unswerving and constrained. Iraq was almost 100% Muslim and opposed to the philosophies of the west 1,500 years ago, and they still are today.

There was no Islam 1500 years ago.

Ok. How about 1300 years ago then. I didn't do the math, but since you want it, there we go.

[Fuchs66]

Yes, I know that India is a Hinu nation of Hindi people. I simply meant that it is banned throughout the Middle East with the exception of India. Thank God you jumped me though.

Since when has India been in the middle east?????

[reiver]

Iraq has 5 times the proven oil reserves of the USA, and pre-war was virtually self-sufficient in food production, unlike Kuwait which effectively produces no food and imports everything.
In addition Iraq produced chemicals, textiles, construction materials and fertilizer, and had thriving food processing, , and metal fabrication/processing industries.
Kuwait produces oil, full stop.
The average first-class Kuwaiti, ie native-born of parents native in 1920, was and is, I agree, far better off than his Iraqi counterpart, but the natural resources of Iraq suggest that that situation need not continue indefinitely, and comparisons with Western incomes are very subjective, as I found out some months back in Egypt.
As for "achieving democracy", the elections held recently showed every sign that Iraq may well eventually elect a theocratic government.
We, the West, may not like or understand that, but we will have to accept it or be branded liars and hypocrites.

[BDL]

Iraq has 5 times the proven oil reserves of the USA, and pre-war was virtually self-sufficient in food production, unlike Kuwait which effectively produces no food and imports everything.
In addition Iraq produced chemicals, textiles, construction materials and fertilizer, and had thriving food processing, , and metal fabrication/processing industries.
Kuwait produces oil, full stop.
The average first-class Kuwaiti, ie native-born of parents native in 1920, was and is, I agree, far better off than his Iraqi counterpart, but the natural resources of Iraq suggest that that situation need not continue indefinitely, and comparisons with Western incomes are very subjective, as I found out some months back in Egypt.
As for "achieving democracy", the elections held recently showed every sign that Iraq may well eventually elect a theocratic government.
We, the West, may not like or understand that, but we will have to accept it or be branded liars and hypocrites.

Agreed, once Iraq gets itself sorted out again, they'll be one of the richest countries in the region and one of the more succesful countries in the world

[BDL]

(1)You see it that way, I know.

(2) Well considering that doing nothing leads to where we are today, it seems doing something is the way to go. Hence, your country and mine are over there now. As for Syria, they are at present the most prolific source of terrorists and terrorist training camps in the world. Doing nothing there (politically or whatever) is a means to the end we find ourselves in now.

Gosh. How liberal politics gets this wrold so screwed up.

(1) Sorry Ironingman, the US was defeated in Vietnam, you lost the war because you were overreliant on new shiny kit, rather than tactics and training.

(2) Going into Syria would release a wave of terrorism that would make 11/09/2001 look like a small accident. Anyone who thinks that going into Syria would be a good idea (especially after the mess that the US has made of running Iraq since the war) is a fool.

[Bluffcove]

You cannot pour troops into a country and garuantee success. You had control of small enclaves on hte southern tip from there on in everything was in flux and adding more men would not have "solved" the situation it wasnt a case of an undermanned war, your opponent simply held the geographical and tactical advantage. He was a significantly smaller force after all, just all pervasive!
And if you ahd had ground in Vietnam into which all these troops would fit you still ahvent asked what the US would do for a standing army. your initial figure of 250~ is ridiculous, but then so are you!

re: your comments surrounding men, women and concelament is in agreement with what I wrote do not "re-phrase" your posts to comply with my views.
It stated men were not trusted to resist seductresses - seductresses are women that seduce men, This involves her sleeping with you because you are attractive or beneficial to her. When you next have a woman try and sleep with you Ill explain further.
I am aware of the practice of FGM, I have written dissertations on it and dont want to become bogged down in a discussion over it that will clearly fall apart at the limits of your back of a cereal box knowledge. It should be noted that FGM is not standard practice within Islamic culture and that your suggestion that it is an accpeted norm within the religion is heinously offensive. It is more commonly a tribal african practice limited to the african continent and performed not solely to prevent masturbation but to garuantee Virginity at marriage and "improve" hygiene, encourage effeminacy and propogate female identity and unity within a community by marking the divergence between childhood and womanhood. - all in all much more complex than you give it credit for.

I thought Afgahnistan was the "centre" for training terrorists? Or was it Libya? Hang on dont tell me that they have started to train terrorists in other places! Dash, well thats just not cricket! Next thing you know Al-Quaeda will bomb sennybridge! We must remove the enemies ability to train! - Please dont tell me they permit you to vote in elections IRONMAN.

The Iraqi Elections did appear to indicate a theocracy would retrun to Iraq, I seem to remember my lectureres discussing this at a "round table" They also pointed out that the Iraqi oil reserves were amongst the most untapped in the region. Also if you get the drilling dereck over on an angle from Iraq you can drill across the border into Saudi! :lol:

[Firefly]

They also pointed out that the Iraqi oil reserves were amongst the most untapped in the region. Also if you get the drilling dereck over on an angle from Iraq you can drill across the border into Saudi!


Isnt that exactly what the Iraqis were accusing Kuwait of on 1990? Also I think Iraq has 30% of the middle east proven oil reserves

[IRONMAN]

...comparisons with Western incomes are very subjective, as I found out some months back in Egypt. As for "achieving democracy", the elections held recently showed every sign that Iraq may well eventually elect a theocratic government. We, the West, may not like or understand that, but we will have to accept it or be branded liars and hypocrites.

Perhaps, but the average Iraqi is still poor by western standards.

I don't see how anyone could expect a new government in Iraq, while democratic, to not also be theocratic. As I stated previously, Iraq is culturally linear. Expecting a culture based largely on religion to not have religion play a major part in it's political thinking would be folly, don't you agree?

(1) Sorry Ironingman, the US was defeated in Vietnam, you lost the war because you were overreliant on new shiny kit, rather than tactics and training.

That's not at all why the US did not succeed in preventing communism in all of Vietnam. As I have said, the US simply did not devote enough resources to the task, and that was because our government feared inciting China. It had nothing at all to do with technology or weapons systems. Think about it: You are China and the US plants 200,000+ men and gobs of supplies into a small country on your border. Are you going to like that? The Chinese have never trusted outsiders, particularly the US. It would not go over well. That is why when the USMC got within a few miles of the Chinese border chasing the North Koreans up to the Chosin Reservoir, there were 220,000 or more Chinese soldiers waiting for them, and they attacked. What do you think the US would do if the USSR had dropped of 200,000 men in northern Mexico? Do you think they would wait for them to get to the border of the US and say, "We're here!" Hell no. They'd hit them with everything they had without hesitation.

China had already proven their willingness to do that. Consequently, the US did not send what would have been necessary to Vietnam to take the country.

The USSR tried the same thing in Afghanistan that the US did in Vietnam, and they dropped the ball too.

(2) Going into Syria would release a wave of terrorism that would make 11/09/2001 look like a small accident. Anyone who thinks that going into Syria would be a good idea (especially after the mess that the US has made of running Iraq since the war) is a fool.

No, going to Syria would mean the terrorists there would take to the hills running for their lives just like they have done in Afghanistan. Terrorists are always trying to create another 9-11. They'll keep trying whether the US were to go to Syria or not. By "mess" I assume you mean a nation with an emerging democracy.

You cannot pour troops into a country and guarantee success.

It sure as hell beats sending a smattering of men. The USSR tried the same stupid crap in Afghanistan. Look what it got them. Nothing. At least the US managed to salvage half of the country without sending more than a trickle of men. But, it was somewhat a failure, because they did not commit to it.

It stated men were not trusted to resist seductresses - seductresses are women that seduce men, This involves her sleeping with you because you are attractive or beneficial to her. When you next have a woman try and sleep with you Ill explain further.

Seductress? First of all, a seductress is a woman who entices men for the purpose of obtaining sexual satisfaction through or combined with: money, power, or the emotional high of seeing a man desire her both physically and emotionally. Seductresshood has nothing to do with this whatsoever. BTW, a seductress does not have to sleep with her "victim" to be a seductress. Often times, to a seductress, it's not about having sex at all. It's about personal and/or sexual empowerment and achieving a goal. This goal is often nothing more than the satisfaction of having a man grovel for her.

A woman does not have to be a seductress to wish to be desired. If you see a woman's lips does that mean she's seducing you? Every women wants to feel desired. It is a primary need for women as a gender. It is one of the reasons why many relationships get stale; because he stops expressing to her that he is attracted to her even if he no longer is. When that happens, a woman harbors resentment for it, and that will surface as a lack of sex in the relationship (if there already isn't one) or by other means. In return, the man harbors resentment because she refuses his sexual advances, feeling that she is not attractive to him so he must simply want sex because he needs IT, and not because he desires HER. It is a "vicious circle" that requires effort to break. Similarly, men desire the empowerment of "capturing" or "conquering" a woman. It's the male equivalent.

Women of the mid east today are buried in centuries old religious oppression. That does not mean that if they get the chance they are going to start wearing Channel Red No. 5 on their lips and run around biting their tongues as they thumb through a book or shop in the market to get men staring at their mouth and thinking about sex. They simply want to feel like women - desired, needed, feminine, attractive. Left to their own devices, the women of the Middle East will loose the veils, as they have been doing more and more where they can get away with it. To the men of the Middle East, this represents harlotry.

The sexual qualities of the mouth is the reason that many women of Arab cultures have been required to wear veils in public to conceal their mouth and bosom. A direct allegory can be made of the symbolic resemblance of the lips of the mouth to the lips of the vagina. Veiling is more common today than it was prior to the foundation of Islam (6th century A.D.), when veils were often reserved for women of stature. The ancients of the eastern world understood very well how physically and visually pleasing the mouth of a woman can be. The Quran states, "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosom and not display their beauty except to their mahrem men." and also "O Prophet! Tell Thy wives and daughters. And the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (face) when abroad, that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." The semi-transparent veil is largely a modern notion for costumes. Traditional veils are virtually if not completely opaque. The idea of a translucent veil reflects the fact that a woman's mouth is alluring, and that it is titillating to have the sexy, curvaceous lips shrouded in mystery. It also reflects that in the western world of today a woman's mouth is more prominently a part of our image of women's sensuality and sexual prowess.

Veiling accomplishes more than one thing. It prevents men from looking at a woman's shapely mouth and becoming interested in another man's woman. It also prevents a woman, should she be so inclined, from knowingly using her mouth as a means of titillation and to make men desire her. The most prominent reason for veiling is that the veil is a form of subjugation whereby a man can keep his woman in a submissive and controlled mindset. Indeed the veils women of these cultures are required to wear cover not only the mouth and bosom, but the hair as well. In certain Arab cultures, the totalitarianist subjugation of women is taken to a greater and more hideous extreme, and girls are forced to have their clitorises cut off to keep women from indulging in masturbation. By their thinking, women should find pleasure only through intercourse with their husbands, and any sexual pleasure for women not by intercourse is condemned. Today the use of the veil is increasingly despised by Arab women as they seek greater independence under the influence of western culture, and wish to deploy their feminine whiles to attract a man of their own choosing, and not a man for whom they have been arranged to marry.

Now, if you want to start a debate about sexuality and relationships, let's make a thread for it on a forum where we can speak freely. I am an expert in that field and a renowned author on the subject, as you can summarize from the above. I am the founder of an institution of sexual learning which is internationally famous. I have counseled women and couples on sexuality and sex in the relationship, and my services have been procured by hundreds women and couples to provide tutelage to women in the arts of sexually empowerment and expertise since 1995. Pick the place and I'll be there.


I am aware of the practice of FGM, I have written dissertations on it and dont want to become bogged down in a discussion over it that will clearly fall apart at the limits of your back of a cereal box knowledge. It should be noted that FGM is not standard practice within Islamic culture and that your suggestion that it is an accpeted norm within the religion is heinously offensive.

I have not suggested that Female Genital Mutilation is widely practiced. However, it is indeed practiced in the Middle East some of the most religiously fundamental extremists.

I thought Afghanistan was the "centre" for training terrorists? It has been one of the most prolific sources of terrorism, yes. But so has Syria for the last 20 years. Today, Syria is the most prolific source of terrorits training.

EDITED TO CORRECT FORUM CODES

[BDL]

(1) Sorry Ironingman, the US was defeated in Vietnam, you lost the war because you were overreliant on new shiny kit, rather than tactics and training.

That's not at all why the US did not succeed in preventing communism in all of Vietnam. As I have said, the US simply did not devote enough resources to the task, and that was because our government feared inciting China. It had nothing at all to do with technology or weapons systems. Think about it: You are China and the US plants 200,000+ men and gobs of supplies into a small country on your border. Are you going to like that? The Chinese have never trusted outsiders, particularly the US. It would not go over well. That is why when the USMC got within a few miles of the Chinese border chasing the North Koreans up to the Chosin Reservoir, there were 220,000 or more Chinese soldiers waiting for them, and they attacked. What do you think the US would do if the USSR had dropped of 200,000 men in northern Mexico? Do you think they would wait for them to get to the border of the US and say, "We're here!" Hell no. They'd hit them with everything they had without hesitation.

China had already proven their willingness to do that. Consequently, the US did not send what would have been necessary to Vietnam to take the country.

The USSR tried the same thing in Afghanistan that the US did in Vietnam, and they dropped the ball too.

(2) Going into Syria would release a wave of terrorism that would make 11/09/2001 look like a small accident. Anyone who thinks that going into Syria would be a good idea (especially after the mess that the US has made of running Iraq since the war) is a fool.

No, going to Syria would mean the terrorists there would take to the hills running for their lives just like they have done in Afghanistan. Terrorists are always trying to create another 9-11. They'll keep trying whether the US were to go to Syria or not. By "mess" I assume you mean a nation with an emerging democracy.

(1) You dropped more bombs on Vietnam than you did on Germany in 1943/44/45, that's a fair amount of resources. It was a war were you lost 50,000 odd dead - to me that's a fairly large war, with a fair few resources committed. There's no shame in losing laddo, we've been betrayed by politicians and had to pull out of countries before to.

(2) If you attack Syria, you will turn the whole Middle East (well, the bits that don't already hate you) against the US. You will see suicide bombs as a normal occurance in American cities (and ours if we join you).

Face up to facts - Iraq is a fucking mess. How many suicide bombs go off every day in Baghdad? How long do you think the emerging democracy would last without half the American and British armies there stopping the factions trying to wipe each other out?

[Firefly]

Iron man said....

'Now, if you want to start a debate about sexuality and relationships, let's make a thread for it on a forum where we can speak freely. I am an expert in that field and a renowned author on the subject, as you can summarize from the above. I am the founder of an institution of sexual learning which is internationally famous. I have counseled women and couples on sexuality and sex in the relationship, and my services have been procured by hundreds women and couples to provide tutelage to women in the arts of sexually empowerment and expertise since 1995. Pick the place and I'll be there.'

Please expand? Im curious about the above statement, can I have an ISBN ref and a link to your website? Where is this institution? Love to know.

[Firefly]

I would also like to say that I agree with BDL. In 1967/8 the US had 500,000 men in country. There are many factors for loosing that war. One was that the Vietnamese had figured out how to beat you, the way they beat the French with a persisting strategy, stick at it long enough and you wanted out. Heck the US couldnt get out quick enough.

At some point the same will happen in the Middle east, the situation there is already de-stabilising some countries and pushing others to find a counter. If I were an Iranian leader right now Id be doing everything in my power to gain nuclear technology as N korea appears to have done.

[Bluffcove]

The sexual qualities of the mouth is the reason that many women of Arab cultures have been required to wear veils in public to conceal their mouth and bosom. A direct allegory can be made of the symbolic resemblance of the lips of the mouth to the lips of the vagina. Veiling is more common today than it was prior to the foundation of Islam (6th century A.D.), when veils were often reserved for women of stature. The ancients of the eastern world understood very well how physically and visually pleasing the mouth of a woman can be. The Quran states, "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosom and not display their beauty except to their mahrem men." and also "O Prophet! Tell Thy wives and daughters. And the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (face) when abroad, that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested." The semi-transparent veil is largely a modern notion for costumes. Traditional veils are virtually if not completely opaque. The idea of a translucent veil reflects the fact that a woman's mouth is alluring, and that it is titillating to have the sexy, curvaceous lips shrouded in mystery. It also reflects that in the western world of today a woman's mouth is more prominently a part of our image of women's sensuality and sexual prowess.

that paragraph into this search engine

www.google.com

takes you to this location.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22The+sexual+qualities+of+the+mouth+is+the+reas on+that+many+women+of+Arab+cultures+have+been+requ ired+to+wear+veils+in+public+to+conceal+their+mout h+and+bosom.+A+direct+allegory+can+be+made+of+the+ symbolic+resemblance+of+the+lips+of+the+mouth+to+t he+lips%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Highlight a random selection of Ironman's post, transfer it into google and find his exact post written by someone else!

cnut - PLEASE REFERENCE YOUR POSTS AND DONT PASS THEM OFF AS YOUR OWN,

MODS

[IRONMAN]

(1) You dropped more bombs on Vietnam than you did on Germany in 1943/44/45, that's a fair amount of resources. It was a war were you lost 50,000 odd dead - to me that's a fairly large war, with a fair few resources committed. There's no shame in losing laddo, we've been betrayed by politicians and had to pull out of countries before to.

Bombs are not people.

(2) If you attack Syria, you will turn the whole Middle East (well, the bits that don't already hate you) against the US. You will see suicide bombs as a normal occurance in American cities (and ours if we join you).

In case you haven't noticed, the Muslim world has hated the US for a very long time, and we are winning the war against terrorism.

Face up to facts - Iraq is a fucking mess. How many suicide bombs go off every day in Baghdad? How long do you think the emerging democracy would last without half the American and British armies there stopping the factions trying to wipe each other out?

And you believe that the Iraqi people will cave in to that once we leave? That's not what the vast majority of Iraqis say.

[IRONMAN]

Please expand? Im curious about the above statement, can I have an ISBN ref and a link to your website? Where is this institution? Love to know.

I do like to keep my professional and cyber lives seperate. Sorry.

[IRONMAN]

I would also like to say that I agree with BDL. In 1967/8 the US had 500,000 men in country. There are many factors for loosing that war. One was that the Vietnamese had figured out how to beat you, the way they beat the French with a persisting strategy, stick at it long enough and you wanted out. Heck the US couldnt get out quick enough.

At some point the same will happen in the Middle east, the situation there is already de-stabilising some countries and pushing others to find a counter. If I were an Iranian leader right now Id be doing everything in my power to gain nuclear technology as N korea appears to have done.


:?: We stayed too long with what little we had over there.

That's not it. The USMC almost single-handedly wiped the North Koreans,
then managed to fend off 220,000 Chinese. The reason backed down to the 39th paralel is because we did not have what it took to continue fighting an entire Chinese Army with only 27,000 men! :lol:

The problem was not wanting to get into war with China, thus we sent a portion of what was needed to accomplish the task. It will never happen in the Middle East (emboldened part). In case you haven't noticed, in Iraq 1 the US killed tens of thousands of the Iraqi Army, virtually wiping it out, in less than 2 days, and only @ 137 men died.

By your thinking, we should all just give in to terrorism and stay at home and take it. Appearently your country and mine do not think like you do. Neither do I.

[Bluffcove]

Please expand? Im curious about the above statement, can I have an ISBN ref and a link to your website? Where is this institution? Love to know.

I do like to keep my professional and cyber lives seperate. Sorry.

so seperate infact that I refer to them in order to bolster my importance.
So seperate infact that they are infact two different people, unless you are of course the author of Eros Institute? in which case youre cover is appaling bearing in mind you directly copy from that website.

[IRONMAN]

that paragraph into this search engine

www.google.com

takes you to this location.

Highlight a random selection of Ironman's post, transfer it into google and find his exact post written by someone else!

cnut - PLEASE REFERENCE YOUR POSTS AND DONT PASS THEM OFF AS YOUR OWN,



I will take that as a compliment. I am the author of that thesis.
Do you find it strange that I have the entire text of it yet you
cannot find it on the Net? :wink:

EDITED TO ADD:

Because the full text is not available to web surfers. :wink:

[Bluffcove]

I would also like to say that I agree with BDL. In 1967/8 the US had 500,000 men in country. There are many factors for loosing that war. One was that the Vietnamese had figured out how to beat you, the way they beat the French with a persisting strategy, stick at it long enough and you wanted out. Heck the US couldnt get out quick enough.

At some point the same will happen in the Middle east, the situation there is already de-stabilising some countries and pushing others to find a counter. If I were an Iranian leader right now Id be doing everything in my power to gain nuclear technology as N korea appears to have done.


:?: We stayed too long with what little we had over there.

That's not it. The USMC almost single-handedly wiped the North Koreans,
then managed to fend off 220,000 Chinese. The reason backed down to the 39th paralel is because we did not have what it took to continue fighting an entire Chinese Army with only 27,000 men! :lol:

The problem was not wanting to get into war with China, thus we sent a portion of what was needed to accomplish the task. It will never happen in the Middle East (emboldened part). In case you haven't noticed, in Iraq 1 the US killed tens of thousands of the Iraqi Army, virtually wiping it out, in less than 2 days, and only @ 137 men died.

By your thinking, we should all just give in to terrorism and stay at home and take it. Appearently your country and mine do not think like you do. Neither do I.
Stonewall

[Bluffcove]

again how seperate do you like to keep your cyber and real lives?

unless you are of course the author of Eros Institute? in which case youre cover is appaling bearing in mind you directly copy from that website -I couldnt find a bibliography for erosinstitute either! or any referees for your "wisdom" and nowhere in the text did I find indications of footnotes, how the fuck did you get a degree?

incidentally: "real" is evidently comparative even your "real" life appears to be computer based?

[Crab_to_be]

The USMC almost single-handedly wiped the North Koreans,
then managed to fend off 220,000 Chinese.

And the Glosters?
Imjin River?
Gloster Hill?

Glad to see a contribution that earned the Regiment a Presidential Citation can be written off so glibly.

[BDL]

(1) You dropped more bombs on Vietnam than you did on Germany in 1943/44/45, that's a fair amount of resources. It was a war were you lost 50,000 odd dead - to me that's a fairly large war, with a fair few resources committed. There's no shame in losing laddo, we've been betrayed by politicians and had to pull out of countries before to.

Bombs are not people.

(2) If you attack Syria, you will turn the whole Middle East (well, the bits that don't already hate you) against the US. You will see suicide bombs as a normal occurance in American cities (and ours if we join you).

In case you haven't noticed, the Muslim world has hated the US for a very long time, and we are winning the war against terrorism.

Face up to facts - Iraq is a fucking mess. How many suicide bombs go off every day in Baghdad? How long do you think the emerging democracy would last without half the American and British armies there stopping the factions trying to wipe each other out?

And you believe that the Iraqi people will cave in to that once we leave? That's not what the vast majority of Iraqis say.

(1) Obviously it was bombs not men, bombs make bigger bangs than people and you're unlikely to do much damage to a city by dropping people on it :P

On a serious note - You had half a million odd men in Vietnam, how many did you need? Half a million men with the newest and shiniest kit in the world. Surely they should have been able to win the war? It's nothing to be embarassed about kiddo, just type "America lost the Vietnam War" and see how much better it feels to tell the truth about something.

(2) "We're winning the war on terrorism" - fuck me, you really are deluded, aren't you sunshine? Winning the war on terror, yet NATO are deploying thousands of soldiers to Afghanistan early next year. Winning the war on terror, yet terrorists can bring London to a stand still. Winning the war on terror, yet hundreds of Iraqis still die in their hundreds every week. Face it - the terrorists at the moment are taking the piss. The Muslim world has hated the US for a long time, yet the US still armed Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan, still armed Saddam to fight Iran, some great forethought there (and we were just as guilty of it).

The Iraqi people may not cave in to the terror, but if we pulled out of Iraq now, I'd be deployed there again in about 3 years to scrape up what was left of the Iraqi population off the roads, bury the whole country in one mass grave and clear the buildings ready for whoever is going to repopulate the shit hole.

[reiver]

I would also like to say that I agree with BDL. In 1967/8 the US had 500,000 men in country. There are many factors for loosing that war. One was that the Vietnamese had figured out how to beat you, the way they beat the French with a persisting strategy, stick at it long enough and you wanted out. Heck the US couldnt get out quick enough.

At some point the same will happen in the Middle east, the situation there is already de-stabilising some countries and pushing others to find a counter. If I were an Iranian leader right now Id be doing everything in my power to gain nuclear technology as N korea appears to have done.


:?: We stayed too long with what little we had over there.

That's not it. The USMC almost single-handedly wiped the North Koreans,
then managed to fend off 220,000 Chinese. The reason backed down to the 39th paralel is because we did not have what it took to continue fighting an entire Chinese Army with only 27,000 men! :lol:

The problem was not wanting to get into war with China, thus we sent a portion of what was needed to accomplish the task. By your thinking, we should all just give in to terrorism and stay at home and take it. Appearently your country and mine do not think like you do. Neither do I.

The Marines weren't quite fighting the war alone.
By November 24, from left to right on line, Eighth Army consisted of: I Corps, with the 24th Division, the British 27th Brigade, and the ROK 1st Division; IX Corps, with the 2nd and 25th Divisions and the Turkish Brigade; and ROK II Corps, with their 6th, 7th and 8th Divisions. 1st Cav was in reserve. In all, about 135,000 troops.

In the east, X Corps had about 100,000 men: the 1st Marine Division (22,000), and the Army's 7th Division, with the under-strength 3d Infantry Division in reserve at Wonsan; and the ROK I Corps, consisting of the 3rd and Capital Divisions, operating along the east coast.

Total UN strength was about 250,000 men, plus a huge advantage in tanks, artillery, aircraft and ships.

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/chosin.htm

[Cuts]

......

Now, if you want to start a debate about sexuality and relationships, let's make a thread for it on a forum where we can speak freely. I am an expert in that field and a renowned author on the subject, as you can summarize from the above. I am the founder of an institution of sexual learning which is internationally famous. I have counseled women and couples on sexuality and sex in the relationship, and my services have been procured by hundreds women and couples to provide tutelage to women in the arts of sexually empowerment and expertise since 1995. Pick the place and I'll be there.

......

Are you an expert in sexuality and relationships in the same way as you're an expert in tactics, i.e. by having no experience ?

[2nd of foot]

http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/stalemate.htm
STRENGTHS
Peak strength for the United Nations Command was 932,964, on the day the cease-fire was signed:

Republic of Korea 590,911
United States 302,483
United Kingdom 14,198
Canada 6,146
Turkey 5,453
Australia 2,282
Philippines 1,496
New Zealand 1,385
Ethiopia 1,271
Greece 1,263
Thailand 1,204
France 1,119
Columbia 1,068
Belgium 900
South Africa 826
The Netherlands 819
Luxembourg 44

only a ball park figure.

[IRONMAN]

On a serious note - You had half a million odd men in Vietnam, how many did you need? Half a million men with the newest and shiniest kit in the world. Surely they should have been able to win the war? It's nothing to be embarassed about kiddo, just type "America lost the Vietnam War" and see how much better it feels to tell the truth about something.

The war was faught in a way as to prevent the mass slaughter of civilians. Had the US wished, we could have carpet bombed them off the planet. But we did not. Fighting the war as we did was simply a meat grinder for men. The public outcry caused the US to withdraw after drawing the line in the middle.

(2) "We're winning the war on terrorism" - fuck me, you really are deluded, aren't you sunshine? Winning the war on terror, yet NATO are deploying thousands of soldiers to Afghanistan early next year. Winning the war on terror, yet terrorists can bring London to a stand still.
The Iraqi people may not cave in to the terror, but if we pulled out of Iraq now, I'd be deployed there again in about 3 years to scrape up what was left of the Iraqi population off the roads, bury the whole country in one mass grave and clear the buildings ready for whoever is going to repopulate the shit hole.[/quote]

But we (US) are not pulling out now. Where do you get that crap from. Just the other day Bush stated in a speech to the American people on TV that we will not pull out with the Iraqi's so unable to take up the cause.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You first imply that we are making a mistake by being there, then you say that the Iraqia will cave in if we leave, now you say they won't, then you imply we are not winning the war on terrorism, now you say we are, then you say "if we pull out now" but we aren't pulling out...

Make up your mind about what you think already. What is the point in debating if you don't have a clue about what you think? You've done such a good job debating yourself I have no reason to say more.

[2nd of foot]

Walther’s link is worth the read.

http://www.sftt.us/HTML/article07072005a.html

The document was put together by;

The seminar itself is composed of officers from the U.S. Marine Corps, Royal Marines, the U.S. Army and the Army and Air National Guard. It is led by Mr. William S. Lind, who created the framework of the Four Generations of Modern War in the 1980s.

Have only managed to get through half of it so far, but this stood out. It justifies earlier comments on how HM Forces do business.

These changes point to another of the dilemmas that typify Fourth Generation war: what succeeds on the tactical level can easily be counter productive at the operational and, especially, strategic levels. For example, by using their overwhelming firepower at the tactical level, Marines may in some cases intimidate the local population into fearing them and leaving them alone. But fear and hate are closely related, and if the local population ends up hating us, that works toward our strategic defeat. That is why in Northern Ireland, British troops are not allowed to return fire unless they are actually taking casualties. The Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld argues that one reason the British have not lost in Northern Ireland is that they have taken more casualties than they have inflicted.

It also clearly identifies the problems the US is having.

[2nd of foot]

In case you haven't noticed, the Muslim world has hated the US for a very long time, and we are winning the war against terrorism.

Shouldn’t this begin with “once upon a time……”

[IRONMAN]

The Marines weren't quite fighting the war alone.

True. But at Chosin, the battle that I mentioned, most of the fighting against the 220,000+ Chinese was done by 7,000 USMC. What's more amazing is that the Chinese generals stated that their 4 divisions were not sufficient to take the frontmost regiment of USMC, and that they needed more.

The Korean war had the same lousy outcome: not enough commited to the war and we had to pull back and draw the line in the middle.

[IRONMAN]

Oh just for info, someone stated in some thread here that the concept of "heats and minds" was a British notion. It's not. It's an American one.

[pdf27]

......
Now, if you want to start a debate about sexuality and relationships, let's make a thread for it on a forum where we can speak freely. I am an expert in that field and a renowned author on the subject, as you can summarize from the above. I am the founder of an institution of sexual learning which is internationally famous. I have counseled women and couples on sexuality and sex in the relationship, and my services have been procured by hundreds women and couples to provide tutelage to women in the arts of sexually empowerment and expertise since 1995. Pick the place and I'll be there.......
Are you an expert in sexuality and relationships in the same way as you're an expert in tactics, i.e. by having no experience ?
Hang on a sec, wasn't he claiming his degree was in Philosophy a while back? Is this some new course - "Make your relationship better using the ancient wisdom of Thales of Miletus"?

The blunt truth, Ironman, is that without overwhelming proof we're going to assume you're lying again. You have consistently posted rubbish and claimed knowledge in areas where some members of this board are specialists (infantry weapons/tactics and jet engines spring to mind). Quite a few of us do this for a living, so we can spot bovine excrement at a hundred yards.

If you want to prove us wrong, it's dead easy. If you're a published author, quote your name (or pseudonym you wrote the book under), publisher, date, and ideally ISBN. If you founded this world famous institute, give us it's name and website (if it's that famous, it will have one). From that, we can get an email address and contact you via that - something that's hard to fake. If you do this, we might start taking you seriously. Until then, we'll just continue treating you as the sad, Walter Mitty-esque character that I think you are.

Not quite an edit: Looked at the website linked from google - for an "internationally famous" place, an expired website and a whois page that has been (deliberately?) corrupted is not a good sign. I could almost see the tumbleweeds rolling accross the website!

[BDL]

The war was faught in a way as to prevent the mass slaughter of civilians. Had the US wished, we could have carpet bombed them off the planet. But we did not. Fighting the war as we did was simply a meat grinder for men. The public outcry caused the US to withdraw after drawing the line in the middle.

You had total air superiority over Vietnam, I'm sure the people carpet bombed by B-52s would argue that your air war wasn't all that limited. You had complete air and naval superiority and you had 500,000 of the best equipped men in the world, and you lost. There's no excuse, there's no ifs or buts, you lost.

[BDL]

Oh just for info, someone stated in some thread here that the concept of "heats and minds" was a British notion. It's not. It's an American one.

Wrong again - it was introduced in Borneo by the SAS

[BDL]

But we (US) are not pulling out now. Where do you get that crap from. Just the other day Bush stated in a speech to the American people on TV that we will not pull out with the Iraqi's so unable to take up the cause.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You first imply that we are making a mistake by being there, then you say that the Iraqia will cave in if we leave, now you say they won't, then you imply we are not winning the war on terrorism, now you say we are, then you say "if we pull out now" but we aren't pulling out...

Make up your mind about what you think already. What is the point in debating if you don't have a clue about what you think? You've done such a good job debating yourself I have no reason to say more.

I never once said that the US was pulling out - I said that IF they did, the Joe Daqis would tear each other apart. We did make a mistake by being there, Iraq would cave in if we left (because most of them will be dead), we're not winning the "War on Terror".

[pdf27]

Oh just for info, someone stated in some thread here that the concept of "heats and minds" was a British notion. It's not. It's an American one.
Would the full quote expounding the original theory be "If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow"? The USMC did use hearts and minds type tactics in the 1920s with the "oil-spot" theory and the like, but they were comprehensively overruled in Vietnam by the Army.

True. But at Chosin, the battle that I mentioned, most of the fighting against the 220,000+ Chinese was done by 7,000 USMC. What's more amazing is that the Chinese generals stated that their 4 divisions were not sufficient to take the frontmost regiment of USMC, and that they needed more.
How many CCF were actually in contact at Chosin? Somehow I can't see it being all 220,000 - if for no other reason than you'd have great difficulty fitting that many people into the space around a mere 7,000 marines!
Furthermore, given the human wave tactics prevalent at the time, it's not exactly unusual - the 1st Battalion of the Gloucestershire regiment (as already mentioned) was attacked by a very large number of Chinese in the battle of the Imjin river (Chinese attackers were the 63rd Army - various sources give strength as between 10,000 and 27,000). Depending on which source you take, this means that the Glosters were actually more outnumbered than the USMC at Chosin. I would be surprised if this was anything particularly exceptional for the war - it is really a reflection of the state of infantry weapons and tactics of the time, and of the terrain.

[2nd of foot]

Another quote from Walter’s link. Puts the Vietnam question to rest I think.

America's greatest military theorist, Air Force Colonel John Boyd, used to say:

“When I was a young officer, I was taught that if you have air superiority, land superiority and sea superiority, you win. Well, in Vietnam we had air superiority, land superiority and sea superiority, but we lost. So I realized there is something more to it.”

[2nd of foot]

Oh just for info, someone stated in some thread here that the concept of "heats and minds" was a British notion. It's not. It's an American one.
Would the full quote expounding the original theory be "If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow"? The USMC did use hearts and minds type tactics in the 1920s with the "oil-spot" theory and the like, but they were comprehensively overruled in Vietnam by the Army.

True. But at Chosin, the battle that I mentioned, most of the fighting against the 220,000+ Chinese was done by 7,000 USMC. What's more amazing is that the Chinese generals stated that their 4 divisions were not sufficient to take the frontmost regiment of USMC, and that they needed more.
How many CCF were actually in contact at Chosin? Somehow I can't see it being all 220,000 - if for no other reason than you'd have great difficulty fitting that many people into the space around a mere 7,000 marines!
Furthermore, given the human wave tactics prevalent at the time, it's not exactly unusual - the 1st Battalion of the Gloucestershire regiment (as already mentioned) was attacked by a very large number of Chinese in the battle of the Imjin river (Chinese attackers were the 63rd Army - various sources give strength as between 10,000 and 27,000). Depending on which source you take, this means that the Glosters were actually more outnumbered than the USMC at Chosin. I would be surprised if this was anything particularly exceptional for the war - it is really a reflection of the state of infantry weapons and tactics of the time, and of the terrain.

I seem to remember a RM commando being there too.

[IRONMAN]

Hang on a sec, wasn't he claiming his degree was in Philosophy a while back? Is this some new course - "Make your relationship better using the ancient wisdom of Thales of Miletus"?

There is a bit of philosphy in sexuality as a matter of fact. Particularly so in relation to gender roles and the psychology of sexuality.


The blunt truth, Ironman, is that without overwhelming proof we're going to assume you're lying again. You have consistently posted rubbish and claimed knowledge in areas where some members of this board are specialists (infantry weapons/tactics and jet engines spring to mind). Quite a few of us do this for a living, so we can spot bovine excrement at a hundred yards.

I have no need of providing you proof of anything. Believe what you like.

If you want to prove us wrong, it's dead easy. If you're a published author, quote your name (or pseudonym you wrote the book under), publisher, date, and ideally ISBN. If you founded this world famous institute, give us it's name and website (if it's that famous, it will have one). From that, we can get an email address and contact you via that - something that's hard to fake. If you do this, we might start taking you seriously. Until then, we'll just continue treating you as the sad, Walter Mitty-esque character that I think you are.

Not quite an edit: Looked at the website linked from google - for an "internationally famous" place, an expired website and a whois page that has been (deliberately?) corrupted is not a good sign. I could almost see the tumbleweeds rolling accross the website!

Again, I keep my professional and cyber lives seperate. However, here's an edited log of a debate I held with some heavy SM/BD dweebs some years ago. Just thought you'd find it interesting reading. I had it on my personal web site for the longest.

http://home.jam.rr.com/director/debate.html

[IRONMAN]

Oh just for info, someone stated in some thread here that the concept of "heats and minds" was a British notion. It's not. It's an American one.

Wrong again - it was introduced in Borneo by the SAS

Nope. John Adams, the 1st Vice President of the United States coined the term. The British simply began using it because they like it and what it was in reference to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearts_and_Minds

[BDL]

Love the second comment on "your" site Ironman

The article...is horribly inaccurate and out of date and terribly misleading"

:lol:

[IRONMAN]

Love the second comment on "your" site Ironman

The article...is horribly inaccurate and out of date and terribly misleading"

:lol:

:lol: Uh huh.

[Cuts]

......

Again, I keep my professional and cyber lives seperate. However, here's an edited log of a debate I held with some heavy SM/BD dweebs some years ago. Just thought you'd find it interesting reading. I had it on my personal web site for the longest.

http://home.jam.rr.com/director/debate.html

Which unsurprisingly is entitled, "A Debate With The Mentally Ill" !

Ring a bell with the rest of the site members ?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[LargeBrew]

I would'nt go as far as mentally ill but having view'd the link Ironman posted in comparison with his post( on this site ) and style/ methods of argument I would say ( in a professional capacity ) that there are strong indicators of an enduring personality disorder, possibly steming from a difficult relationship in childhood.
I was going to run a profile but as this would require the subject to respond honestly it would be pointless.

[IRONMAN]

I would'nt go as far as mentally ill but having view'd the link Ironman posted in comparison with his post( on this site ) and style/ methods of argument I would say ( in a professional capacity ) that there are strong indicators of an enduring personality disorder, possibly steming from a difficult relationship in childhood.
I was going to run a profile but as this would require the subject to respond honestly it would be pointless.

:wink: Yea, sure. Can we get back to the subject now guys? We've gone a bit off the mark.

[LargeBrew]

Ironman, I understand if you don't want to go further, so lets stick to the topic for now if it make you feel more comfortable.

[IRONMAN]

Ironman, I understand if you don't want to go further, so lets stick to the topic for now if it make you feel more comfortable.

If you want to debate sexuality I am willing, but this is not the appropriate forum to do it. If you find one and wish to persue it, I'm willing.

Otherwise we should not fill THIS thread with THAT subject.

[LargeBrew]

I did'nt mention your sexuality in fact it was far from my train of thought, I was leaning towards your dominant( narcissistic personality traits ) and your inability to develope meaningful relationships although this may be linked to concerns around your sexuality ( between the physical and masturbatory fantasy)and your fear of inadaquacy re you relationship with a significant adult.Your use of patonising terms ie, kiddo and My boy and editing your past posts to justify your position in any given argument elude to the above
I agree this is not the forum for an anallisys of your behaviour or psycho-sexual difficulties so lets stay on topic

The real issue is that though John Adams may have coined the phrase Hearts and Minds but did he put into practice?.

[IRONMAN]

I did'nt mention your sexuality in fact it was far from my train of thought, I was leaning towards your dominant( narcissistic personality traits ) and your inability to develope meaningful relationships although this may be linked to concerns around your sexuality ( between the physical and masturbatory fantasy)and your fear of inadaquacy re you relationship with a significant adult.Your use of patonising terms ie, kiddo and My boy and editing your past posts to justify your position in any given argument elude to the above
I agree this is not the forum for an anallisys of your behaviour or psycho-sexual difficulties so lets stay on topic

Sure. So you don't want to debate sexuality then? Ok. I understand. I really don't either. Not here.

The real issue is that though John Adams may have coined the phrase Hearts and Minds but did he put into practice?.

He coined it and used it was the 1st to use it in reference to war. Appearently the British like it and adopted it.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Ironman, I understand if you don't want to go further, so lets stick to the topic for now if it make you feel more comfortable.

If you want to debate sexuality I am willing, but this is not the appropriate forum to do it. If you find one and wish to persue it, I'm willing.

Otherwise we should not fill THIS thread with THAT subject.

Yes please if you all want to have some kind of male bonding moment do it on another site please.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Firefly]

This is possibly the weirdest thread/site/forum I have visited for a long time. Especially for one that is supposed to be primarily aout WW2.

On the one hand we have a large number of serving and ex military, together with engineers both civil and aircraft. Together their collective knowledge is vast and should be used to increase the knowledge of the site.

On the other hand we appear to have one person, whose post rate is very high (indicating what?) and who appears to have little real knowledge of any given subject, but will intercede on these subjcts constantly.

Now it turns out that he is also amounst othe things actualy the GURU, well bugger me, Ive never met one so expert in everything.

Incidentally I'm really Tom Clancy, but prefer to keep my private and personal life out of it, just Google, another bollox book where yanks save the world and take no casualties and kill no civvies, youll find me there.

What a thread................

[Bluffcove]

RM - were in Korea and not only that, but with the USMC at Chosin.Royal Marines were involved in the Korean War. No 41 Commando was reformed in 1950, and was originally envisaged as a raiding force for use against North Korea. It performed this role until after the landing of United States Army X Corps at Wonsan. It was then put into the line, as part of the US 1st Marine Division, and took part in the famous retreat from Chosin Reservoir. After that, a small amount of raiding followed, before the Marines were withdrawn from the conflict in 1951.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Royal-Marines

Hearts and minds - Was first used in its present incarantion (as a Military tool for suppressing resistance) http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Desert_song/Hearts.htm <<<<<Example of how it was performed.
As well as patrolling the border, the SAS took on another very important task - that of winning the 'hearts and minds' of the native people. By gaining an understanding of their lifestyle and language, by living with them and despensing medical aid when needed, the SAS gained important allies in intelligence gathering. The local people, who still crossed the border freely into Kalimantan to trade their goods, often brought back valuable information on Indonesian troop movements. http://www.geocities.com/saspastandpresent/borneo.htm
<<<example of the benefits
This is the first recorded example of Hearts and minds being used In a large scale way and with direct psychological intent, in Borneo, by SAS, during the Malayan conflict.

Vietnam - Your intent was to protect the civilians and not carpet bomb them - My lai? agent orange / napalm :evil:

Winning the War on Terror - George Bush has just banned US service personel from entering the M25 (in the same week the British have declared we shall not be cowed) - Does this suggest the terrorists have "beaten" the American spirit of 9/11?
We are fighting the war on terror, however..... The war by the very fact it is a war against an abstract noun can never be "won" in a conventional military sense, and for as long as we fight conventional military wars against it we will never see victory. You yourself have stated that the terrorisits have moved their training camp from Afgahnistan to Syria (?) well surely all you need to train terrorists is a weapon a field and some leadership/motivation. By waging wars lead by Christian troops in Muslim states leadership and motivation are plentiful. Especially if matters such as oil, political influence and religion cloud the issue - we are fighting a war on terror not a war agaisnt Islam, and yet you reference Islam far more than Terror. There are enough weapons and angered men across the world that the war cannot be won through a military scenario. That said, the war in Iraq can be won, If we dominate the ground and deny the terrorists political influence Iraq will stabilise (but terror will continue elsewhere) This however would be winning a war against one particular group of terrorists in one particular timeframe, not winning a war against all "terror."

How do you think we can actually measure success in this campaign, and what if the day after Bush declares victory in Iraq (for the second time) Somebody gets blown up by a nail bomb, would we then re-liberate the people with foreign forces? At what stage do we hand Iraq back to its own citizens and government and allow them to control their own future?
Revolutions happen and to a large extent they are a matter for ones own government to deal with. not external governments to control. (this is purely a "political theory" note) but what about Pakistan, a Military Dictatorship of sorts, formed through a coup d'etat, that has been left untouched by US foreign policy? Are certain governments above reproach despite their evident militant nature?

Muslims have always hated the US? - ask a Bosnian Muslim if he liked the US during the mid 90's Im not so sure hed have been resented our presence.

I am a sexual orator and fount of knowledge - :lol:

Firefly I concur!

[Bluffcove]

A source of wisdom on

Political theory
International politics,
British and American Military structures,
Religion,
Psychology,
Military tactics,
Aircraft design,
Weapons systems,
Infantry fighting skills,
Pilots and airbourne troops
Women (of various ethnicities)
Womens sexuality,
Mens sexuality,

My God! there is only one conclusion















The Name Is Walt, IRONING WALT.
http://www.bttw.co.uk/stills/images/0183.jpg

[IRONMAN]

RM - were in Korea and not only that, but with the USMC at Chosin. Royal Marines were involved in the Korean War.

Yes. So? However, the USMC did most of the fighting. It was the USMC that the Chinese generals said one regiment of could not be whipped by their 4 divisions. They were referring to a regiment of the 1st Marines. I don't see where you are going with that.


Hearts and minds -

Interesting. John Adams probably had no idea that the term would be used so much.

Vietnam - Your intent was to protect the civilians and not carpet bomb them - My lai? agent orange / napalm :evil:

That was the intent I am sure.


Winning the War on Terror -

Yes, we are. That does not mean we will ever kill everyone who wants to be a terrorist. That would require killing them before they made it apearent that they were terrorists - impossible.

Muslims have always hated the US?

Since the 1950's at least.

EDITED TO CORRECT FORUM CODES

[reiver]

RONMAN
[quote="Bluffcove"]
Winning the War on Terror -

Yes, we are. That does not mean we will ever kill everyone who wants to be a terrorist. That would require killing them before they made it apearent that they were terrorists - impossible.

Muslims have always hated the US?

Since the 1950's at least.

EDITED TO CORRECT FORUM CODES[/quote:6229a3025b]
A highly questionable statement, that we are winning the War on Terror.
We ousted the Taliban certainly, although they are not wiped out by any means, witness the downing of the SEALs Chinook a couple of weeks back.
Casualties continue to be taken: mainly insurgents, but troops and civilians too.
"More than 660 people have been killed since March, including 465 suspected insurgents, 29 US troops, 43 Afghan police and soldiers, and 125 civilians, a level unprecedented since 2001."
(Telegraph 30th June: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/06/30/wafg30.xml )
So that aspect of the war is still ongoing.
Iraq did nothing to address the War on Terror, except to give the recruiters another justification to give the would-be suicide bombers, and to encourage a new crop of jihadis from surrounding countries and elsewhere.
Palestine remains a fertile recruiting ground and seems likely to continue so.
Muslim and Hindu extremists continue to kill each other in India and Pakistan.
Muslim extremists continue their war in Chechnya and in Russia.

It's a long list, a lot longer than I have time for here, and shows no signs of growing any shorter because of actions in Afghanistan or Iraq.
I'd be interested to know the grounds for the original statement that we're winning.
You can defeat a state by superior force; you can defeat a coalition of states by superior force, but you cannot defeat an idea by superior force.

What you can do is firstly show, by example, that the idea is false.
Then you work to persuade, cajole, coax and, just possibly, gently pressurise the vast majority of the populations from which the terrorists are drawn to disown them, condemn them and indeed to turn them in to the authorities when they come to recognise them for what they are.
As Mao said "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea."
The only way to win this "war", which we are certainly not doing so far, is to deny them the water in which to swim.

[BDL]

Yes. So? However, the USMC did most of the fighting. It was the USMC that the Chinese generals said one regiment of could not be whipped by their 4 divisions. They were referring to a regiment of the 1st Marines. I don't see where you are going with that.

Interesting. John Adams probably had no idea that the term would be used so much.

That was the intent I am sure.

Yes, we are. That does not mean we will ever kill everyone who wants to be a terrorist. That would require killing them before they made it apearent that they were terrorists - impossible.

Since the 1950's at least.

EDITED TO CORRECT FORUM CODES

I'm sure the Glorious Glosters would argue with you about who did the most fighting - the USMC are undoubtedly good soldiers Ironingman, they don't need people like you denying that any other soldiers in the world could ever have fought as well as them.

John Adams probably didn't have a clue what "hearts and minds" warfare was. He said the war was won in the hearts and minds of the American people, as far as I'm aware, there was never a hearts and minds campaign during the American Civil War. The first (as far as I am aware) was the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment in Borneo in the 1950s.

Dropping liquid fire and gene altering chemicals on civillians was part of an intent not to cause civillian casualties?

WE ARE NOT WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM - where is Bin-Laden? he's an old man with kidney failure and the cream of the US Army and intelligence services, backed up by the SAS can't find him. There were more suicide bombs in Iraq today. The media hardly even bother to report anything that happens in Afghanistan anymore. Tell me where the victories are?

[Bluffcove]

The civilian casualties of My Lai were accidental - terrible what injuries tripping over repeatedly whilst carrying a bayonet can cause!

Agent orange and napalm? not exactly the most discriminate weapons are they?

USMC had RM attached consequently they were part of the body of men that the Chinese generalys repsected, Imjin river was no sideshow either.

Muslims have hated the west since the 1950s? Right so we didnt lose any gurkhas or anyhting whilst ensuring there safe transit to Pakistan during the partition of the Indian subcontinent>
and no peace keepers ever went to The Balkans in an attempt to quell violence directed at Muslims?

Muslims do not hate the west - saying that they do, is both a lie and a simplification for no purpose at all. (I have not used any qualifying terms infront of the term "muslim" because neither did you in your original post and now can both enjoy the vagueness that you so utilise)

Winning the war on terror - how do you intend to win the war on terror? If not by killing everyone that wwants to be a terrorist? By removing the factors that make terrorism a vable option in their circumstances? so that would mean. Considerate foreign policy? non aggresive behaviour within theior locality? lessening aggresion in theatre and not antagonising the locals?

[pdf27]

He said the war was won in the hearts and minds of the American people, as far as I'm aware, there was never a hearts and minds campaign during the American Civil War. The first (as far as I am aware) was the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment in Borneo in the 1950s.
The "Hearts and Minds" campaign during the Malayan Emergency was the first post-WW2 incarnation. There are other earlier incarnations (from memory the USMC Small Wars Manual has quite a bit on it, and arguably the British Empire was founded on a similar princple - they might not like you, but if they don't dislike you too much you stay in charge).
The problem with a concept like this is that to some extent it is as old as warfare itself, but has gradually mutated over time - the Romans after all may have had the same objective but went about it in a very different way. Therefore identifying the first modern use is a rather risky business.

[2nd of foot]

RM - were in Korea and not only that, but with the USMC at Chosin. Royal Marines were involved in the Korean War.

Yes. So? However, the USMC did most of the fighting. It was the USMC that the Chinese generals said one regiment of could not be whipped by their 4 divisions. They were referring to a regiment of the 1st Marines. I don't see where you are going with that.

http://www.britains-smallwars.com/korea/41.html

They had received a Presidential Citation for their Chosin operation the previous year and gained 30 British, and 14 American, gallantry awards.

http://www.rt66.com/%7Ekorteng/SmallArms/41RMCpub.htm


41 Commando had suffered 93 casualties and was particularly short of

Not bad for a unit of 235 men.

[2nd of foot]

Is it me or is something going wrong with this thread, first it would not take a post now it is all ski whiff.

[Gen. Sandworm]

Is it me or is something going wrong with this thread, first it would not take a post now it is all ski whiff.

I have no idea WTF is wrong with this one. Might just be this page. ww2admin just updated the forum version..........it would seem that is has a few bugs in it.

[Tubbyboy]

In another forum, I have seen this happen when someone uses the "quick reply" function, something we don't have on this site..,

Simple answer, I don't know but it normally cures itself after one page

[Walther]

What's this? Mass delete of messages? I can see the messages, but no content!

Jan

[Tubbyboy]

Jan,

Scroll to the right to read the posts.

Then again, you probably can't see this message (how Zen is that?)

Tubs

[Bluffcove]

Maybe he needs "broadband" internet
or a larger monitor?

Ohh ha ha ha - :| TAXI!

[Walther]

What's wrong with this thread? Since Reiver's post at 12.11, I can see the message boxes with the avatars, nbut there is no text in the boxes!

Jan

[Cuts]

If


this


strange


layout


only


lasts


for


one



page



then



perhaps



this



might



help



us



get



over

it

?





Or



not



?



Has



it



hepled ?






Walther, just scroll right.

[Tubbyboy]

I think this forum holds 15 posts per page, unfortunately, we only have 14 on here so far.

[Tubbyboy]

I think this forum holds 15 posts per page, unfortunately, we only have 14 on here so far.

This should now be a new page. I guess it really is 15 per page then.

[Tubbyboy]

OK, this should be a new page.

[Gen. Sandworm]

OK, this should be a new page.

It would appear misson accomplished :D

[reiver]

Well, it's pretty much official.
The London bombs were suicide missions, and by British born Muslims.
Since the Madrid bombings were carried out by Spanish nationals, we know it's not only the British Muslim community that's sufficiently radicalised to produce home-grown "martyrs", so it's hard to see how anyone can claim we're winning the War on Terror.
It's also difficult to see what steps can be taken to combat this phenomenon that won't be counter-productive, in that any Draconian measures will simply radicalise more potential bombers for the "cause".
It has to be "hearts and minds" in the relevant communities, and a long, hard slog ahead.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/13/nbomb13.xml

[festamus]

Its all well and good saying we need to win hearts and minds with the Muslim community, but to be honest I think it's more a case of that community realising that acting victimised won't solve the problem.

I have Muslim friends, and I worry about repraisals against the Muslim community, but I do worry that the Muslim community need to stand up and be counted (rather than feel victimised) by shopping those people amongst them who are doing these things.

It's a sad fact these guys, while not representing Islam and Muslims in general, believe they do. They are recruited by people who the communities allow to preach amongst them. Parents need to make sure their sons (and daughters) don't fall for the bile thrown out by the people who recruit terrorists.

And they need to stand up and denounce these terrorists for what they are so that any other of their sons considering it know how their fellow Muslims will know them not as martyrs, but as what they truly are when they commit these acts: murdering scum

[Walther]

In Germany it has been discovered thast most of the radical preachers don't have German citizenship. So lately immigration law has been used to cancel their residence permits (for acting against the constitution), and they have been deported, the most recent case was the Turkish wannabe caliph Metin Kaplan, who bought an old factory in Cologne and declared it his caliphate state, where he had absolute power. He already served three years in a German prison for inciting his followers to murder a rival, then he was confined to his home by police law (probably the worst punishment for him, according to the police, who had his house bugged, he was thorougly henpecked by his wife and his teenage daughter :twisted:), while the authorities were getting a way to send him back to Turkey. The biggest obstacle was that he was wanted in Turkey for planning a bomb attack on the Turkish government, after which he wanted to take over in Turkey to make it an Islamist state. They charged him with treason, which is punished by Turkish law with hanging. Now Germany is not allowed to deport somebody to where he is facing the death penalty, but after some talks the Turkish government gave in and excluded the death penalty from his trial, so he got sent back to Turkey. There he was sentenced to life imprisonment for the attempted overthrow.

Jan

[Bluffcove]

We have a charming chap called ABU HANSA, who is also an illegal immigrant (I think) definetly an Asylum seeker, And having arrived here in a "safe" country he has devoted most of his efforts to destroying it, through purposefully creating strife for the ethnic minorities and the Blair Government, conngratulating OBL on his actiivites and actively encouraging Jihad.

[2nd of foot]

We have a charming chap called ABU HANSA, who is also an illegal immigrant (I think) definetly an Asylum seeker, And having arrived here in a "safe" country he has devoted most of his efforts to destroying it, through purposefully creating strife for the ethnic minorities and the Blair Government, conngratulating OBL on his actiivites and actively encouraging Jihad.

Is he not in jail sponging the system for all its worth?

[King_Nothing]

Yes, he's got a personal arse wiper in jail aswell.

[bas]

Interesting responses guys, once again our PC crap politics is allowing these ass wipes to walk all over our society!

Good going to parliment <sarcastic>

[Walther]

Well, as a convicted criminal, will he not get deported after he has served his sentence? In most countries a conviction voids the residence permit. Wasn't he also Egyptian, with the Egyptian police waiting for him back home?

Jan

[IRONMAN]

RM - were in Korea and not only that, but with the USMC at Chosin.

I never said that UK soldiers were not in Korea. It was, after all, a UN action. I have no desire to try to undermine the contribution made by UK soldiers. However, I stated that the majority of the combat in Korea was done by the USMC and you disagreed. They did. From Inchon to the retreat, the USMC did more of the fighting than anyone else and remained at the front. The UK soldiers you mentioned took up the rear and fought with elements of the USMC in a fierce battle to make a way for retreat. Nothing wrong with that. They fought fiercely and were needed where they were to provide support and help fight our way out. But the USMC still did more fighting than anyone else in Korea.

Hearts and minds - Was first used in its present incarantion (as a Military tool for suppressing resistance) http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Desert_song/Hearts.htm <<<<<Example of how it was performed.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I can say this though, the term "Hearts and Minds" has been used by the US in more than one war, although it is safe to say that it seems that it has been used a lot more by the British than by Americans.

Winning the War on Terror - George Bush has just banned US service personel from entering the M25 (in the same week the British have declared we shall not be cowed) - Does this suggest the terrorists have "beaten" the American spirit of 9/11?

(my embodiment)
You are spewing bullchit right there. You are trying to imply the American people have cowered. WTF are you trying to suggest? You must not understand Americans very well or you'd never say such out of fear of how utterly bullhocky such an implication would make you seem. It's pretty offensive to make such an implication. Please don't spout such crap as that.

We are fighting the war on terror, however..... The war by the very fact it is a war against an abstract noun can never be "won" in a conventional military sense, and for as long as we fight conventional military wars against it we will never see victory.

I don't share your defeatist philosophy.

A highly questionable statement, that we are winning the War on Terror. We ousted the Taliban certainly, although they are not wiped out by any means, witness the downing of the SEALs Chinook a couple of weeks back.

Yea well, British soldiers have lost their lives over there too. So WTF. The US has lost helicopters in other conflicts. That never stopped us. You think a helicopter going down means defeat? :roll:

Yes, I do think we are winning the war on terror. We are taking away their training grounds and making life hell for them. Just because we have a lot of work ahead does not mean we are losing the war on terror. Certainly we will never stop terrorists from existing or doing dastardly things. But the goal is to get other nations, especially in the Middle East, to take up the cause and police their own countries and combat terrorists locally. When that day comes, there might not be a need for your country and mine to be over there, and there will be a lot less terrorists and acts of terror in the world.

I'm sure the Glorious Glosters would argue with you about who did the most fighting - the USMC are undoubtedly good soldiers Ironingman, they don't need people like you denying that any other soldiers in the world could ever have fought as well as them.

Who is denying that other soldiers fought in Korea? I never said that. I said that the USMC did the bulk of the fighting in Korea, and that is true. They were at the front from the landings at Inchon to the Battle of Chosin, and the retreat. As for "fought as well" I have no desire to say that British troops did not or have not fought very well anywhere! But since you bring up "fought as well" in reference to Korea, I will remind you that the USMC, and only the USMC, achieved a 10-1 kill ratio against the Chinese in Korea. That kill ratio is typical of the USMC in no matter what conflict. Thier ability to achieve such kill ratios consistently has given them an unchallenged place as the most effective fighting force in the world. Nobody has ever fought as well, in any war in the history of modern warfare, as the USMC at Chosin Reservoir. Nobody. I strongly suggest that you read as many articles from highly authoritative sources on that subject as you can find. You'll be amazed.

Again, I have not said and do not believe that british forces did not fight well anywhere in modern warfare.

John Adams probably didn't have a clue what "hearts and minds" warfare was. He said the war was won in the hearts and minds of the American people, as far as I'm aware, there was never a hearts and minds campaign during the American Civil War. The first (as far as I am aware) was the 22nd Special Air Service Regiment in Borneo in the 1950s.

I understand that the term has been used more by the British than by the US. I also understand that John Adams did not use the term in exactly the way it is used today.

Dropping liquid fire and gene altering chemicals on civilians was part of an intent not to cause civilian casualties?

OK. Now you're spouting chickenshit crap right there. Let's not revert to the "you point out a US military blunder, then I point out a British military blunder, then you, then me, then you, then me..." crap. It can go on forever. The napalm was to destroy enemy positions and the Agent Orange was to defoliate the jungles so bombers could see the enemy. Neither was used with the intention of killing civilians. Please, lets discuss and debate, but don't spout chit you know is a lie. You only demean yourself.

[quote=BDL]WE ARE NOT WINNING THE WAR ON TERRORISM

I do not share your defeatist attitude.

Muslims do not hate the west - saying that they do, is both a lie and a simplification for no purpose at all.

This is the dumbest remark yet make on this site. There was a little thing called the Crusades a long time ago. Read up on it. :shock:

The Muslims hate everything about the west. They see us as infidels. They believe we are bidding against God. They believe that the west is the source of all of the evil and infidelity in the world. The believe that western society is corrupted, evil, and practices indirect idolatry. They dislike us also because we are allies of Israel.

Does this mean that it will never be possible to make them like us? Absofreakinglutely! As long as they are not Christian and the west predominantly is, it will be so. Does that mean that we cannot make friends with them and even allies of them? Perhaps for a while, but not permanently.

Are you completely blind to all of the world that is being conducted by Muslims against predominantly Christian peoples? Even in Chechnya, the bombings in schools which killed 200+ children were conducted by Muslims against Slavic Christians. Sometimes it is politically motivated, other times it is plainly religious. But the basis of i