30 Dec 06
Originally posted by wedgehead2Absolutely correct about a Shia controlled Iraq having stong relations with Iran. That's a garauntee. The Shia already have "relatively" strong relations with Iran. These relations would most certainly get stronger. I will get back to the concern about Shia relations with Iran shortly.
You point out the different groups within Iraq, and then go onto say that all the Iraqi people wantone sovreign naion, free from Iranian influence. Surely some Shia would support separation, and a strong, close alliance with Iran.
Another potential solution being floated is the partitioning of Iraq. Shia, Sunni, and Kurd getting their own state. Kurdistan would be a problem for Turkey as Turkey has a large Kurdish population and would border this newly created Kurdistan and combined with the past acts of Iraqi Kurds against Turkey this has all the makings of another headache. This time dumped by America on Turkey who has done a lot to be a good friend to America.
Oil wealth is another problem. Oil fields would be in Shia and Sunni Nations, the current Kurdish controlled area does not have a piece of that pie.
Back to Shia relations with Iran.
The black caped Ass-a-hole-a's in Iran will not be in power forever, the ties that could exist today are not garaunteed to exist in say 20 years.
Sistani might be out much earlier than that.
American tours of duty are being extended in Iraq. 140,000 people is a lot of people, but the U.S. miltary could sustain that without extending tours at the current rate. Troop surge? Sure. They will even be in Iraq for a while. The Eisenhower carrier group in the Gulf. Troop sruge? The 82nd being deployed. (Everybody knows they have a reputation as an invasion force. They're Airborne for cryin out loud.)
This very well could only be a troop surge in Iraq, but it could also be part of a build up for a forthcoming war with Iran. I am almost inclined to keep an eye out for word on where the 101st and the 3/5 is.
4th I.D. might be worth looking at as well. You may remember they were the anvil from the north that was supposed to be a mate to the hammer from the south, but were not allowed through Turkey. The 4th is as capable as any fighting force and got left out last time.
It's either a troop surge or a CENTCOM head fake. Military build up
Ju-Jitsu.
Are you starting to wonder if replacing the SECDEF was a purely political move???????
The nature of Shia ties to Iran could change dramatically before the next POTUS.
30 Dec 06
For US use of phoshorus - as an incendiary device, not just as a marker or for smoke generation.From your first link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4441822.stm
For UK use, although my countries government are currently claiming they only use it for flares and to generate smoke to give cover to troops. This use is legal under the Geneva convention, but is highly irresposible, as the flares can drip the ...[text shortened]... ur own dear primeminister weren't as careful when they were talking about WMD's isn't it?[/b]
"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
"The combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about by the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives," he said.
San Diego journalist Darrin Mortenson, who was embedded with US marines during the assault on Falluja, told the BBC's Today radio programme he had seen white phosphorous used "as an incendiary weapon" against insurgents.
However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.
From your second link.
An Italian TV channel has reported that the US used white phosphorus against civilians in Falluja, and showed pictures of burned bodies.
The US has denied this.
"A bullet goes through skin even faster than white phosphorus does," Gen Pace said.
"So I would rather have the proper instrument applied at the proper time, as precisely as possible, to get the job done, in a way that kills as many of the bad guys as possible and does as little collateral damage as possible.
Gen Pace said no military went to greater lengths to avoid civilian casualties than the US army.
You're accusation the "The U.S. used white phosphorus on civilians in Fallujah" is a half-truth (half at best) to support your ideology.
If you feel I have somehow impugned on your integrity, please do not take it that way. My intend was only to show the dishonesty of the statement. Not the individual
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by wedgehead2Wow. An isolationist stance. And here all this time I thought everybody hated America because we stuck our nose in everybodys business. Hmm... Maybe were damned if we do, damned if we don't. To some extent anyway. In all fairness, we do drop the ball sometimes on things we should and should not be involved in.
Whereas Americans are willing to do anything- provided that they have had something done to them (911, Pearl Harbour) in the first place, to move them out of their isolationist stance in relation to the rest of the world.
Look at the stunning US successes in getting things done in Indochina and Iraq! 😞
Indochina?
Granted, the U.S. got the 2nd place trophy from the South-East Asian wargames.
If I remeber correctly in was French (Vietnam, Cambodia)and British (Burma) fingers that started that ball rolling. Lets not forget that Vietnam has asked the U.S. to help them. The U.S. are training troops n Vietnam because Vietnam wants to be prepared for another potential Chinese invasion.
If anything, this legitimizes the original ideal for U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Stopping the spread of communism. Behold, Vietnam fears being taken by a Communist nation. They've seen how well that worked out for Tibet.
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by MerkAnd the US attempts to stop communism spreadng in Indochina-Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, was counterproductive to say the least.
Wow. An isolationist stance. And here all this time I thought everybody hated America because we stuck our nose in everybodys business. Hmm... Maybe were damned if we do, damned if we don't. To some extent anyway. In all fairness, we do drop the ball sometimes on things we should and should not be involved in.
Indochina?
Granted, the U.S. got the 2nd pla ...[text shortened]... tnam fears being taken by a Communist nation. They've seen how well that worked out for Tibet.
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by MerkIt was the colonial powers that led to the US getting involved? That s pushing it a bit.
Wow. An isolationist stance. And here all this time I thought everybody hated America because we stuck our nose in everybodys business. Hmm... Maybe were damned if we do, damned if we don't. To some extent anyway. In all fairness, we do drop the ball sometimes on things we should and should not be involved in.
Indochina?
Granted, the U.S. got the 2nd pla ...[text shortened]... tnam fears being taken by a Communist nation. They've seen how well that worked out for Tibet.
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by wedgehead2I think we can both agree on that statement.
And the US attempts to stop communism spreadng in Indochina-Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, was counterproductive to say the least.
My personal opinion (I have zero facts to base this on) is that U.S. assistance to Vietnam is an attempt to have another American ally surrounding China. Tiawan is already a pain in Chinas side, and I think we're hoping that enough thorns surrounding China could equal containment.
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by MerkAre you talking about the present day? Is the US training troops for the Vietnamese governemnt, which is still communist?
I think we can both agree on that statement.
My personal opinion (I have zero facts to base this on) is that U.S. assistance to Vietnam is an attempt to have another American ally surrounding China. Tiawan is already a pain in Chinas side, and I think we're hoping that enough thorns surrounding China could equal containment.
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by wedgehead2No. U.S. involvement was as I said. Some sort of world police "Stop the spread of the Communist menace" crap.
It was the colonial powers that led to the US getting involved? That s pushing it a bit.
My point about the French is that Vietnam and Cambodia would have already been a settled issue well before American involvement if they would have not done their colonial thing. It is not to say that the Frech or the British are to blame for American involvement in Vietnam. That fault (If one feels it is fault) is solely American.
History already recognizes the problems created by colonialism. Colonialism in the Indochina was as much a mistake as it was in the Middle East.
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by MerkAnd colonising America- look where thats landed us! 😉
No. U.S. involvement was as I said. Some sort of world police "Stop the spread of the Communist menace" crap.
My point about the French is that Vietnam and Cambodia would have already been a settled issue well before American involvement if they would have not done their colonial thing. It is not to say that the Frech or the British are to blame for American ...[text shortened]... colonialism. Colonialism in the Indochina was as much a mistake as it was in the Middle East.
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by wedgehead2Yes. Present day.
Are you talking about the present day? Is the US training troops for the Vietnamese governemnt, which is still communist?
With their experience in Afghanistan and Iraq American and British troops are the most battle experienced troops in the world. Vietnamese troops have not seen war since they pushed out Chinas feeble attempt shortly after Vietnam. Vietnam knows first hand the value of experience. They had the experience edge at the time. They had recently been at war with the U.S. and China had not seen any significant battles since Korea.
30 Dec 06
Originally posted by MerkSo much for spreading freedom, democracy and the american way...
Yes. Present day.
With their experience in Afghanistan and Iraq American and British troops are the most battle experienced troops in the world. Vietnamese troops have not seen war since they pushed out Chinas feeble attempt shortly after Vietnam. Vietnam knows first hand the value of experience. They had the experience edge at the time. They had recently been at war with the U.S. and China had not seen any significant battles since Korea.