Does this mean we have to invade them, too?
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16531987/

I want to know more details -- this is but the tip of something largely hidden.

But it seems this is constructively prosecuting the GWOT: go where the targets are and destroy them. Doesn't get more fundamental than that. An enemy with no sanctuary to withdraw into is an enemy without hope of winning, and that's exactly what we who are humanity's, and America's, friends want.

Some wonder aloud at my equating America's cause with humanity's, but is it not so that our foes are fighting for the chance to better their chance to oppress? Are we not fighting for the other fraction of humanity, the little guys who would be the most oppressed?

That's pretty much all I need. Some others get crabbed because it's a Republican commander in chief running the war, at which view I scoff -- it's unworthy.

Appreciate a point I have been making since long before "Mission Accomplished" started. Long before the world or even UN gets involved in national problems, first it is the job of those adjacent nations. If Saddam was a threat, then this was first the problem of Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, etc. And then it was a problem for the Arab League. Then a UN responsibility and only finally a world problem. But Iraq was not even a threat to any adjacent neighbor. If you did not see that, then you are easily deceived by a political agenda or extremist political liars. You probably also believe lies about Pond's Institute for younger skin and Listerine.

Sudan, Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Cambodia, Uganda, etc are/were all solved first by regional powers. Miramar is a classic example of a problem not being solved by its neighbors. Somalia is a problem for the African Union which is so overstretched as to (will) eventually call for help first from adjacent regions and then from the UN.

UN is also too overstretched - already with about 100,000 troops deployed.

When America decides to unilaterally solve problems (justified by a political agenda rather than reality), then America loses wars. Again the lesson about smoking gun, strategic objective, and exit strategy. But political extremists learned Goebel's propaganda techniques (see Rush Limbaugh daily brainwashing). Too many American failed to first learn historical fundamentals on how problems are solved.

Notice the powers that are getting involved in Somalia - adjacent nations. Ethiopia and Kenya. Notice that entire region is really in a mess. The old Colonial power (France) is attempting to provide support for some nations. But don't for one minute take a myopic (denial) viewpoint that Urbane Guerrilla, George Jr, and Rush Limbaugh have taken. One of the more responsible regional powers is Nigeria. Nigeria is falling quickly into civil war. A major pillar of the African Union may be lost. A factor that those with minimal grasp of the news would be aware of.

George Jr openly campaigned (lied) that Bosnia had compromises US military abilities. He lied because 'big dics' don't like wars solved by a peace table.

The Balkans is a success story where little military was used because diplomacy instead was implemented by people without a political agenda. And because the military used real world numbers - 40,000 troops per every 1 million civilians. Some Balkans are now national members of the EU. Others are ongoing through reconciliation. The Balkans is an ongoing success story; a problem solved at less cost because it was implemented by people without a political agenda. Solved by those who are - by definition - patriotic Americans.

Iraq is a complete opposite. As a result, two-thirds of the US military is no longer operational. How can this be if George Jr believed what he said about the Balkans? "Mission Accomplished" war is being lost because anti-Americans refuse to admit we created a civil war. A war that America cannot win. These anti-Americans also have you ignoring the pending American defeat in Afghanistan. Notice how the mental midget president does (very successfully) has us ignore Afghanistan.

Notice that even his closest advisors who warned of defeat in Aug 2003 were instead removed. Did you notice - or did you instead listen to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and other anti-Americans? It was that simple back then. Did you understand this in 2004? If not, then just another reason why so many don't understand Somalia - did not learn the lessons of history.

We have no options. America does not even have sufficient military power to address Darfur and Sudan due to waste of American military and its equipment in Iraq. Maintaining an army too small - half way around the world - and by spending massively on corporate welfare and corruption in Iraq is destroying US military equipment, abilities, and success. Deja vue Vietnam.

Do you have any idea how much Iraq is costing America? For every one hour of flight time, a chopper requires eight hours of maintenance. That number is higher in Iraq. And that number also does not include maintenance to a supply line for that chopper maintenance. Choppers must now be used in Iraq as taxi cabs even between Baghdad and its airport - the country is that much anti-American. Costs of everything in Iraq have that much destroyed US military capability. Just another fact that those with political agendas hope you never learn. Just another fact that directly applies to this topic - Somalia.

Somalia will not promote the legacy of George Jr. Just another of ‘how many reasons' above say America cannot get into Somalia. America is being defeated in Iraq as so many advisers - even Bremer and Gen Garner were predicting in 2003. George Jr must do everything possible to maintain war in Iraq (even lose in Afghanistan) for his legacy. Don't fool yourself for one minute. George Jr's every action is about his legacy - even when it contradicts the interests of America. No wonder he hopes we don't ask this question: "When do we go after bin Laden?" Another part of the "do we go to Somalia" question.

Even if Somalia was in American interests, well, George Jr (proverbial liar) will not get involved. Somalia will not promote his legacy nor promote a neocon agenda. Without a draft, we have no ability to get into another prolonged war. Again the legacy of neocons who have a political agenda and therefore have Urbane Guerrilla knowledge.

BTW, this was America in 1970s as Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young sang "Tin soldiers and Nixon's coming." and The Temptations sang "War what is it good for... absolutely nothing". This was the attitude when the president lied so often that crime in the streets increased. That's right. When Nixion lied, then no one can be trusted - not even the police. "No one over 30 can be trusted". Another example of "85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management". Just another lesson you should have learned from history. These same anti-American extremists even promote 'more guns' as a result of their fears. Learn from history.

Forget Somalia. Their lives have no value in America. Far more serious and pending problems are coming - both domestic and international. As far as America is concerned, thousand can die in Somalia and we cannot even consider it. This is the real legacy of George Jr and of those anti-Americans who listened to Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Notice how these anti-Americans even hope you ignore the Iraq Study Group report as America also ignored the "Wise men". More lessons from history. Deja vue Vietnam.

And once again, our goat-nibbled sage tw obfuscates with his wisdom.

Really, tw, would you give credit to somebody who mixes up Miramar (presumably the Naval Air Station) with Myanmar?

We can't trust the pronunciamentoes that "we cannot win" from someone this unaware.

You are over thirty, are you not?

This is not a sentence; it is gibberish. Tw, you're possessed of only a very small mind if you think this kind of thing will persuade. Your example gives me the idea that anti-Americanism makes people stupid. I have only to read your works to see that demonstrated, aye, proven.

For something that's "no longer operational" the US Army seems plenty busy campaigning, in Iraq and elsewhere.

mmmmm...... wonder if UG would be so gung-ho and free with the gunships if the terrorists were hiding in say downtown LA or Washington....


oh, but they did, didn't they......

I'm always gung-ho, Jay. If war comes, I shoot. Simple as that.

Yet the insurgents in Iraq are in the wrong...

Yeah, I guess you would too....

A question....... ooops, too late

Did you volunteered for Iraq?

Are they picking on you UG? lol

So that's what UG stands for. When I in doubt, U GONE.

I was really very optimistic for the Islamic Courts Union. I thought that it was pretty cool that, over the past ten years, the Somalis had slowly developed a system for maintaining law and order by creating independent Islamic courts in different regions. I thought it was pretty cool that they banded together and managed to oust the warlords that have been tearing Somalia to pieces since 1991. It thought it was pretty cool that Mogadishu was peaceful again after 15 years of strife.

Of course, I knew that they were Islamic and therefore our enemy and therefore it wouldn't last. The War Nerd wrote a column on December 1st predicting that Ethiopia would invade Somalia, and the Ethiopians invaded on December 24th. (So the US didn't have to do any work at all, although we were probably funding the Ethiopians just like we had been funding a group of Somali warlords earlier this year).

The Somali army had a bunch of foot soldiers and "technicals" (a technical is basically a pickup truck with a machine gun bolted to it, invented by the Red Cross as "technical support"). Technicals are pretty popular these days, but they don't stand up to tanks very well, and the Ethiopians sent in nearly 200 tanks, along with helicopters, airplanes, and bombers. The ICU lost almost all of their territory within days. They couldn't fight a conventional war, so they gave up and switched to guerilla warfare mode. It'll be interesting to see who wins.

We don't need to invade because the Ethiopians already have. The American airstrike was a pretty small thing and probably doesn't signify much. I doubt that we'll put many troops in Somalia, and I doubt that the West will care much about what happens there.

Hey shitbag, did you forget that I served and you didn't? You were never there. Honestly, if my brain worked as badly as yours, I think I'd shoot it.

And all other snarky schmucks -- when you've got more and greater medals than I do, and have more years in service, then you can talk trash about volunteering.

Let's see if you "did volunteered" (grammar as in the original), Hip. It's like this: if you volunteered, great; if you didn't, stfu. It is an open question, you know.

Well, Ibbie, just how many of them aren't fighting for a license to oppress? I suppose the Kurds have the best credentials along that line if anyone does.

The latest Thomas Friedman column has some interesting remarks on all this, and he's pretty darn good on the Middle East.

UG, I don't care what assumptions you have about any of them, they are killing americans because we are an invading, occupying army that was not invited, not welcomed, and not prepared. If someone invaded the US, you would fight them tooth and nail. They are only doing the same.

Not welcomed? You have a memory that is shorter than your dick. The pulldown of Saddam's statue outside the Paradise Hotel in B'dad was just one example of many welcoming crowds. Now that I've reminded you of that, consider just how many other Saddam pictures got sandal-smacked -- and what that means in the Middle East. No fuckin' way could that have happened without us.

Oh, then you never saw the long shots of that crowd when Saddam got pulled down. Seems I could fit that crowd in my living room when you stood back. :lol:

And half of them were Americans anyway.

The majority of Iraqis say they had things better under Saddam. They weren't free, but they had stability and safety. They had electricity, they had working oil stuff, they could go out on the street without fearing that they would be blown up. The only downside to the whole thing is that if Saddam decided he didnt like one of them, he or she was dead. If you kept your head down, you were safe.

Now, you have no such safety. People are blowing up houses, mosques, markets because of the Americans. People are not safe, and maybe will never be again.

The Americans and the Americans alone (well, okay, the Brits and allies too) took away that safety in return for the freedom to get shot at, blown up, and reduced to a statistic. Just another number in the death toll.

Uh, excuse me. I don't agree with any of that Ibram. I think many Iraqi's were and still are scared, rightfully so. Most of them have known nothing other than Saddams dictatorship - they have no real concept of freedom nor what it can or will mean for them.

The falling of the statue of Saddam was planned by the Americans.

Iraqis haven't had electricity, medical centers, and schools for the past five years. I would be pissed if I didn't have those too. I think that is the main reason why the turned against us. We have to keep the Iraqis happy if we want them to support us, ranting about democracy won't do shit if we turned their life into a living hellhole.

I'm not saying they dont like freedom or dont need it, but a lot of them know that with that freedom comes instability, danger, death, and civil war. Under saddam, they had safety, at cost of freedom. I'm all for freedom, I think theyre better off without him (though I dont like the method of removal), but I'm just noting how a lot of them feel.

Oh well, you force me to mention again that my MOTHER was discharged from the US Army with a higher rank than you held. Please try to clash your sabres a little more quietly....

Well, Tonch, at least you're being amusing this morning -- and quite voluntarily, too.

Ibram, I'm more for freedom than you are. I've seen unfreedom and I'd bleed to leave it, thank you. Take it or leave it.

Forcing freedom on people is no way to act.

I've LIVED under a communist regime. You served in the military.
I have seen more lack-of-freedom than you ever will. I've been to Tibet, and seen the suffering the commies caused. I've seen the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge. I've seen the scars left by so many totalitarians.

That is why I despise you so, UG. You are exactly like them. You support American and worldwide rights being taken away. You support the scrapping of the bill of rights, as long as nobody touches your precious guns. You support American aggression against enemies who have not provoked us. You support unlimited power to the executive branch. You support unprovoked large-scale US military action on soverign soil.
You are nothing short of a new-age fascist, full of nationalism and vinegar, raring for a fight to dominate the world with US puppet states, in the name of freedom.

Totally irrelevant. In the military, just as in other walks of life, there is rank and then there is position. Most people grasp this concept just from watching television programs like M*A*S*H when they see a doctor who is a Captain and a Nurse who is a Major go into an operating room and that Major follows the Captain's orders.

I was at a US Army field hospital in Central America when a nearby military police station got fired up by domestic terrorists. Fearing an attack on the hospital, the troop Commander (HQ Co.) walked up to me and said "Sergeant 'NoBoxes', I relinquish my command to you." The full bird Colonel (physician) who was the hospital commander wasn't even a factor. I, a senior NCO and the senior Special Forces advisor in the vicinity established protocol for the security of the hospital proper and the security of the troops in the contonment area. I issued the weapons, established the fields of fire, and I gave the order to shoot to kill anyone* who breached the security protocols (*including US troops and indigenous allied troops who had never been under fire before).

I've related this experience because the troop Commander (Captain) and hospital Commander (Colonel) were both female Army officers. The only legitimate inference that can be made from your statement is that "Your mother wore Army boots." Nowadays, ironically, that is a good thing! :D

That was; however, your mother and NOT YOU! Using someone else's accomplishment to assert your position reflects second world ethics. I've seen others who, like you, have spent extended periods of time dealing with second worlders and have had their judgment unduly influenced by second world ethics. The change is so gradual that the person is almost never aware of it. I've seen this in you on multiple occasions which is why I have discontinued PM correspondence with you. In another forum we both frequent, even though I enabled my option not to receive PMs, you used your capability as forum Administrator there to send a PM through to me. Don't do that anymore. I have no use for people, who have adopted second world ethics, in my personal life. Live and let live. :eyebrow:

:lol2:
(from the mouths of babes)

I'm surprised at your response. You missed the original conversation here, over a year ago, which led to my remark. I was speaking totally tongue in cheek, which even UG realized, and harkened back to that previous (unrelated) thread where UG was fulminating about his medals and rank. When somebody else asked him what that rank actually WAS, it turned out that he was not exactly as "high up" as his rhetoric would make you believe, whereupon I made my remark originally. Poking UG with sticks is a time-honored tradition here and is definitely is more satisfying than getting into a rabid shouting match with him the way others have.

As for your other evaluation, I am even more surprised. Because YOUR opinions and suggestions were always appreciated and forwarded on, it is not easy to understand why you simply didn't communicate your feelings directly if you saw a problem instead of just slamming the door and then venting here. Even people who genuinely hate me and wish me serious harm will tell me so in a PM, you couldn't?

I'm surprised at your recollection. You related that story to me in a PM; though, not quite in the same context you present it here. I thought the remark improper at that time; but, didn't say anything because it was history and I didn't expect that mistake to be made again.

The change in venue was necessary. There, you are in charge and correspondingly less flexible (in the direction in which you guide both the forum and the club). I've lost confidence in your vision for them based upon some of your decisions and stated positions. My aforementioned evaluation of the underlying cause for your disposition warrants discontinuation of personal correspondence; however, I'm still posting here, I'm still posting there, and I will continue to interact with you in both places - out in the open.

Sound principles were applied to this decision; however, I'm not going to elaborate on them. Going back to an earlier level of our interaction works for me. You may choose to ignore me if you wish. Rest assured that I won't do anything to undermine your authority there; but, I will speak my mind here regardless of the consequences to you. Now, aren't you glad I chose to "vent" (as you so simplistically put it) here?! :D

jeez, both of you just shut up already!

The photo nobody saw:

Disproving a strawman is conspiracy theory tactics 101. Nobody said it was a huge massively attended event. They said it was an important event. Nobody would have expected a big crowd because at that stage of events it would have been dangerous to be on the streets taking a position. Nobody "promoted" it. Nobody ever said there was a massive crowd and crowd size was never the important aspect of the event. People took long shots like this showing the scope but nobody thought it interesting because that wasn't the point of it.

It was an unusual event because nobody expected military operations to lead to Baghdad in a week.

The piece circles tanks in yellow because it is supposed to be significant... why? They are calling that "sealed off". It looks like a nice defensive position to me. Two days earlier that nearby Palestine Hotel was hit by tank rounds. Would you head out to the street to help knock the statue down?

Except that in this case the straw man is widely cited by supporters of the war such as UG as evidence of that the invasion of Iraq was welcomed by the Iraqi people.

There aren't any people in the picture because, as the description points out, the area was "Sealed off by Marines."

Therefore, this is BS:

Funny. It was also dangerous to be in Tiananmen Square. Why did so many arrive? It was dangerous to demonstrate for the Orange Revolution. Why did so many arrive? It was dangerous to demonstrate for the Prague Spring in 1958(?). Why did so many so up? It was dangerous to demonstrate for the Velvet revolution. Why did so many so up?

In each case, the people overwhelmingly wanted that liberation. In Iraq - no. That was a fact. So many did not like Saddam. But they also did not want the Americans. So reporters had to carefully find those who so welcome Americans.

As noted in anther post, Iraqi kid would display the thumbs up sign to Americans. Americans then knew the Iraqis were welcoming them. Thumbs up in Iraq is equivalent to the middle finger salute in America. Did you know that? Some reporters were reporting (accurately) that Iraqis were not who heartedly welcoming Americans - as demonstrated by so few people in the street.

UT says there were few people on the street - even though Americans clearly had secured the street. Too many want to believe George Jr lies. Americans were not warmly welcome in Baghdad. After all, if Americans were so welcome, then why did Americans suffer first 'terrorist' casualties in the Shi'ite areas (ie Sadr City) - where Americans should have been most warmly welcome.

Reality - many were lied to by administration spin. Reality - the welcome and hate even between two adjacent neighborhoods was quite sharp. And that was when it was safe for an American to venture on Iraq streets without protection.

At what point do we concede that George Jr is a despicable liar? He was then. He is now. "Mission Accomplished".

It amazes me how one still buys into another lie - that Iraqis did not have freedom. Some Iraqis were on the wanted list. They knew who they were and had the freedoms of wanted criminals. Most others had complete freedom in a country where government corruption was rampant and widespread. Iraq was a prosperous nation. That cannot happen without a significant degree of freedom. But George Jr lies proclaim the entire nation was under Nazi like occupation. That is only a Rush Limbaugh lie.

What are they today? Whereas some once knew they were wanted men; today everyone in Iraq knows they can die at anytime. Everyone only has freedoms of wanted criminals. Today, all - not just a minority - are now daily targets. As Iraqis repeatedly and overwhelmingly said in that BBC program last year. They are now liberated to perform all the ethnic cleansing, kidnapping, and murders they want. Clearly Iraqis have more freedom? Is that what freedom is? To fear like you have never feared before? Get a grip. We did not liberate them. We condemned Iraqis - to years of bloody civil war. We liberated people who did not want to be liberated - once we remove the Rush Limbaugh propaganda.

What do we know today? Literally every general who was commanding in Iraq in 2003/4, and Gen Garner and Jerry Bremer - they all told George Jr back then that America was losing in Iraq. It was known back then when George Jr was also lying about how Americans were so welcome. At what point do you concede your mistake - you believed what the lying president was saying. They did not flood the streets to welcome liberators. Instead they gave US soldiers the thumbs up sign.

Actually, to set the record even straighter, I've never "fulminated about [my] medals and rank" or more properly my rate. Rank is officer, rate is enlisted, and anybody who thought I was a rear admiral was regrettably deceiving himself. I've merely remarked that I left the US Navy as an E-6 and that I have a couple of decorations of which I am proud, but which aren't the stuff of mighty heroism either. I know what I did, and I know the worth of it, in spite of attempts by certain fools and an antipatriot or two to denigrate it. These persons are of course despicable.

Yes, UG, you're right, saying you arent a mighty righteous super-warrior of our fatherland is SO despicable.

Would you prefer me to call you a Sturmmann, brown-shirt??

I'm certainly behaving better than you are, Ibbie.

Nah, taking the occasional (well, okay, constant) pot-shot at the resident right-wing freakshow is perfectly acceptable in MY book, and that's the only one I play by.

Could we drift back to subject of this thread? What the hell was it, anyway?

:idea: Oh yeah, Iran.

No, that's the Iran thread. This one is about Somalia.

No one cares about Somalia. UG's radical neoconservatism, on the other hand, gets people riled up.

That's why we're blowing hot air with UG instead of discussing the topic.

Sorry to have to correct you again tw, but my statement was merely an observation of my own. If the streets are blocked off how can there be crowds of supporters there? Thats all - just something blatantly obvious - no conspiracy, lies, Rush Limbaugh or any other deep rooted innuendo or BS. Just a simple fact.

Since it is about Somalia, I belive that we back the Ethopian government and we planned out their attacks but didn't do the dirty work ourselves.

Quite simply - there were not enough troops to block off the streets. That is why you see and saw rabble-rousers and looters running about. If the people so wanted liberation, they would have stormed through the security as they did to mass in Tiananmen Square.

The only place where the massive Iraqi population welcomes liberation was in the Green Zone and White House analysis. If Iraqis so welcomed Americans, then why was the parking lot in the Green Zone always so full of those black government issued Suburbans every day. Why did so many people fear to leave the Green zone even months after Iraqis were liberated and so welcomed American? Again, I believe that is even noted in the Frontline documentary The Lost Year

And then Iraq become even more danagerous to Americans. So many thumbs up signs - that meant they welcomed the liberation?

*cough*Kurdistan*cough*

The Kurds were welcoming but didn't they already control their area with the support of American airpower?

Hussein attempted full-scale genocide on them.

Of course, at that time, we didn't realize that he was a good man, merely misunderstood, taking the necessary and important steps to control his population.

LOL

Earlier timeframe.

Irrelevant.

Got it. Even though he was no longer a threat we still needed to ruin our army.

Next problem. Since the Reagan administration was supporting him while he was gassing Kurds and time is irrelevent should we hang some top Reagan officials?

When he was "no longer a threat" due to American airpower, were you in favor of continuing the American airpower? I mean, if he kills a few hundred thousand people, that's their business isn't it?

Isn't it time to whip out that Rumsfeld shaking hands picture? That always seems to convince people an actual point was made, or something.

Meaning fertile ground for a conflict with Turkey...

Genocide only when it was convenient or necessary to make a point. Remember the 'oil for food' corruption? Who did Saddam contract with to run that operation? Various factions of Kurds. Saddam even played one off on the other to get better deals for his smuggling operations into Turkey.

Kurds were not a people to massacre. They were people to use. Saddam played the three Kurdish factions against each other for great profit and with great skill. Massacres were only part of a larger program to keep the country subservient.

Meanwhile, fact remains. Americans were not welcome as the liberators so promoted by myths in America. Some sections welcomed those Americans. Others did not. And after 6 months - when it became obvious George Jr had not planned for the peace - even disbanded the Army, police and Baath party members - then Iraqis were attacking Americans daily.

Some numbers that would not be possible if Iraqis wanted to be liberated: August 2004- 3000 attacks on Americans every day. September 2004 - 2500 attacks per day. January 2005 - 3000 attacks per day. May 2005 - 2000 attacks per day. Clearly Iraqis love Americans? Clearly we have made the country better now that 90 Iraqis are known to be killed daily this past year - in a country so full of missing people with maybe one million having left as refugees. Did they leave - or are their bodies elsewhere?

This is a country that welcomes Americans?

You even contradict yourself in the same post.

Yes, if my world was only 'black and white', then I contradicted myself. But welcome to a world of reality - with many shades of gray. To appreciate what was posted, learn the many shades that match what was posted. If thinking in 'black and white', then nothing in that post will make sense. If thinking in 'black and white', then you will never appreciate the genius of Saddam to so dominate and control his country. Good or evil - makes no difference. How he manipulated the so many people (rather than massacre them) is an example of poltiical genius. Genius come good or bad. But I should not have to explain that part again either.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down, genius of saddam?

Now, I can see where you would call Mussolini, or even Hitler a genius (a crazy, murderous, evil genius), but saddam?

You have got to be kidding... Hitler was an idiot.

Nobody else in history could manipulate, persuade, and rule people quite like he could. He was crazy and terrible and awful, but he was a political mastermind.

'Course, he was still a terrible shaver...