USAF 'Operation Genocide' [boardwalk]

USAF 'Operation Genocide'. psyops - 85th post - 9 Nov 2004 10:53
In view of the huge number of civillian deaths in Iraq, many of which are due to an insane strategy of bombing built-up areas from the air, I would suggest that the codename 'Operation Genocide' would be more appropriate to describe U.S military operations in Iraq. As a strategy... it isn't working... hence the need to send thousands of ground troops into Falluja. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: USAF 'Operation Genocide'. pilferer - 467th post - 9 Nov 2004 11:27
Thousands of ground troops wiull be sent into Falluja. Oh I get it. You think terrorist positions shouldn't be attacked from the air, so that those thousands of ground troops can all be picked of by roadside bombs, booby traps and sniper fire. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: USAF 'Operation Genocide'. Little Richardjohn - 309th post - 9 Nov 2004 11:36
Er no. He thinks that thousands of civilians shouldn't be slaughtered from the safety of 10,000ft to perpetuate the economic and political ambitions of a billionaire mass-murderer and his billionaire pals.
OK?

And I suspect he also believes that you don't cure appendicitis with morphine.

That even if you manage to kill and parade the bodies of a few over-enthuisiastic teenage lads trying to impress their fathers, you cannot destroy native resistance with bombs. Especially when the opposition is armed with anything more than bows and arrows. The North-West Frontier and Khartoum proved that.

So the effect of your lovely murder bombs is to make more terrorists and more American deaths, I'm afraid. So don't pretend to be the Squaddies' Pal. You are his worst enemy. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: USAF 'Operation Genocide'. Glendower - 104th post - 9 Nov 2004 13:29
'He thinks that thousands of civilians shouldn't be slaughtered from the safety of 10,000ft to perpetuate the economic and political ambitions of a billionaire mass-murderer and his billionaire pals...'
Well said Little Richard and exactly the reason we invaded Iraq as I recall, I agree entirely with your description of Saddam...more please, we look forward to your description of Al Zaqawi and Bin Laden! [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: USAF 'Operation Genocide'. Little Richardjohn - 318th post - 9 Nov 2004 13:49
Nice device, but not a little bit clunky. Nevertheless, what's your point?
Iraq was invaded and thousands of people killed to help Sonofabush, we're agreed on that.

Its also ridiculously clear that it also gave Bin Laden a huge boost, elevating him to guru status overnight and providing his constituency with a practical expression for the skills they learned in Afghanistan. Iraq is tempering the military wing of the AQ war machine and distracting us from the much more dangerous operational global force which is not hierarchical, not organised and not penetrable by our current intelligence methods.

So what use is it saying that their all villains?

We know that. We also know that fighting this with guns, and in Iraq of all places, is the worst possible strategy.

It is attractive to some because they like the idea of people being killed, or because they haven't yet grown out of the needs for the 'action-at-a-distance' kick which guns and the thought of guns gives the pubescent boy. But anyone who still believes in rational cause and effect doesn't need too much time to dismiss it as mumbo-jumbo. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: USAF 'Operation Genocide'. Glendower - 105th post - 9 Nov 2004 14:20
Mumbo Jumbo is a good word for this diatribe, and I fear that nothing is 'ridiculously clear' to you. For the record I agree with you on 'Iraq was invaded and thousands have been killed' that and nothing else.
I have many 'points' as a matter of fact, but to keep life simple for you let me mention one, and I will try (with no hope of success I will concede) to persuade you that you are addressing the wrong 'enemy'.

I'm no great lover of Bush or global capitalism, though I am part of it like you, and like you a beneficiary of it. I am very much aware however that the personal fate of Bush is neither here nor there, no doubt he is interested in his own well-being and his ego drives him to establish 'a place in the history books' but he is only the instrument of a system and so to attempt to 'Blame' Bush for anything is to indulge in unintelligent, uninformed and ultimately empty comment.

I can't say for sure but if I got £1 for every time you'd said ...'The world is a more dangerous place because we invaded Iraq..' in the last 12 months I'd be doing OK wouldn't I? My 'Point' to you is how can we say? who can tell how things would have turned out by leaving Saddam and his cohorts in place. I can easily imagine a scenario where we did not invade and I would be having a debate with you on this MB about how much safer the world would have been if we HAD invaded.

What I would like is some reasoned argument from you as to how Regional stability and a contibution to world peace has emerged from an Iraq where you have got what you wanted, we did not invade and Saddam was left in place, the UN continues to deal in 'harsh words' about the regime, but in principle Saddam has now had 18months to get on with revitalizing his weapons plans? Tell us how such a scenario improves our security?

No diatribes about how awful the world is at the moment and whose fault YOU think it is! No, a clear description please about why leaving Saddam in place was the right thing to do, and why it would have made us and the Iraqis and the middle east region safer? [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: USAF 'Operation Genocide'. Little Richardjohn - 322nd post - 9 Nov 2004 15:21
A clear description of a fantasy history he wants yet. Yeah, very scientific. If we hadn't created a new generation of terrorists by doing it, it wouldn't be a problem. If we'd strolled in, wasted Saddam and there'd been flowers in the streets it would be possible to invent the past the way you want.
The reason we were against invading Iraq was because of what is happening now. OK? We don't need to rewrite the past to justify our position, the present has justified it.

We told you that Iraq would be a cauldron of resistance and a honey pot and training ground for every Wannabee Mujhadeen in the world. We told you thousands and thousands of innocent lives would be lost.

If war is the 'lesser of two evils' then leaving Saddam in place was the lesser evil. Mainly because we knew where we was and because at that time the broad non alliance dubbed Al Qaida (by the Pentagon) was in operational limbo. Now they couldn't be happier. And the eath=tolls couldn't have been much higher under Saddam, even if you include the deaths by sanctions.

So if you wanted to get rid of Saddam, why weren't you prepared to do it via the Shias, who tried but were abandoned to their deaths by America?

Why didn't you support Iran when it tried to do it for ten years? No neither did I. I didn't want Ayatollah Khomeini controlling the Shat Al Arab either, or the Kuwaiti fields. And neither did the Americans after the Tehran hostage do.

You can simplify history all you want, but the complexities come back to bite you.

You say you don't blame the figureheads. That, what was it?

'to attempt to 'Blame' Bush for anything [ANYTHING?] is to indulge in unintelligent, uninformed and ultimately empty comment.'

Fine, so you presumably want some meaningful radical solution. How much money are you prepared to spend? Because an alternative solution which doesn't involve making expensive machinery and blowing it up is going to cost lots of money from your pocket.

As you say, you are a beneficiary of capitalism. Good for you. But to keep benefiting, and for the system not to go belly up big-time, you are going to have to be prepared to share things out a bit more evenly.

The burger test is a good one.

I commissioned a little poll the other day at the Houston Chronicle site.

'If you were assured that you could end World Terrorism by giving up double cheeseburgers in favour of regular, and by only buying a new car every 3 years instead of every two, would you make that sacrifice? (54 votes) yes 74 % no 4 % only if I believed everyone else was making the same sacrifice 22 %

Make what you like of that, but even Texans seem to realise in secret that they are consuming too much and sharing too little.

As far as I can make out, your answer is more war. What sort of radical does that make you? [reply] [Complain about this post]





re: USAF 'Operation Genocide'. Little Richardjohn - 324th post - 9 Nov 2004 16:46
Some degenerates do 'like the idea of people being killed,' If you don't believe that you haven't been reading these boards, or any others with any attention.
It is ridiculously clear that Iraq has become a focus for terrorist activity, Or why isn't all sweetness and light?

You wanted a 'reasoned argument... as to how Regional stability and a contibution to world peace has (sic) emerged from an Iraq where you have got what you wanted, we did not invade and Saddam was left in place,'

That is asking me to re-write history with knobs on.

We don't need to justify our warnings, they have been justified. You need to justify your actions.
And you keep saying you don't blame Bush but 'the system he represents' well, what is your choice of alternative system? Unless you mean more war. But that is the system's way. So how do you square it with your alternative? I keep telling you my alternative but you don't listen. Take the burger test. I don't think asking you to do that constitutes a 'mega-rant' whatever that is.

You assume that the only options available to the combined mass of human intelligence was either War or allowing Saddam free rein.

I had a lot more faith in people than that. The only real obstacle was the US military and consumer machine. It wanted war, and it got it. There was no way it was going to be denied its goal of securing cheap oil for the next twenty years.

So any discussion about what I want is totally academic. We were forced into this war and its appalling consequences by vested interests, and there doesn't seem to be much we can do about it. The War Against Terrorism was lost on the day Iraq was invaded.

So I will go on about how terrible the world is as much as I want thanks. This situation stinks, and the sooner you realise it the sooner you'll stop toadying to the warmonger Bush, and give us the benefit of your reasoned strategy for the middle East which doesn't involve killing people. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: USAF 'Operation Genocide'. Glendower - 108th post - 9 Nov 2004 18:29
Oops I thought I could avoid this but your bit about..'strategy for the middle east which doesn't involve killing people' was too much to resist.
That strategy has been invalidated by 2000 years or more of history I fear, and OBL is committed to making it sure it stays that way.

Jonathan Miller described the 'Holy Land' as the biggest outdoor asylum in the world, and how right he was. Is there a chance to heal it, yes a chance. Does the solution lie generally in the direction of secular democracy? Yes. Do we have to be 'proactive' about it? Yes. Do we have any track record of being able to do this? Yes, Kosovo, though it's hardly a strong parallel. The situation will no doubt get worse before it gets better, and Iraq is a magnet for the terrorists, that concentration may be no bad thing. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: USAF 'Operation Genocide'. Little Richardjohn - 334th post - 10 Nov 2004 13:38
How can a strategy be invalidated by a million years of history if it's never been tried?
I'll answer it myself.

You could invent the airoplane, that would be one strategy (to fly) validated by human endevour.

Literacy would be another (to combat ignorance).

Medicine - to combat disease.

You believe that the staus quo is invulerable. Nothing ever changes. Because Solomon the Great wasn't able to achieve peace, we don't stand a chance. We are the slaves of our ancestors, and so we'd better get used to it and the endless killing it implies. Oops sorry not killing, 'Allied Pro-activity'. Doubleplusgood Newspeak!!

Blast them into democracy, that'll work. It works when we're trying to send them into the Stone Age, why shouldn't it work the other way.

Apart from the monumental arrogance of such a pose, it simply isn't for you to say what is possible in the Middle East. It is for the generations involved to provide their own solutions, and if they use their imaginations and ignore the mystical reactionary ravings of the neo-Rosicrucians and other peddlers of the myth of the cyclical universe, they will be OK.

The Middle East is not some Fantasy Dark Wood of Evil Wizards and battling gods. And I would like to know the context of the Miller quote before granting it any credence, but don't bother. It didn't support your case anyway.

As Hitler once said: 'Eva, you've put too much milk in my tea again.' [reply] [Complain about this post]




re: USAF 'Operation Genocide'. Little Richardjohn - 311th post - 9 Nov 2004 12:31
'Finish the job' 'When AQ is destroyed'
How many times have we heard that since Korea? Since The Northwest Frontier?

This isn't the sort of war you think it is or want it to be.

AQ isn't a snake you can kill by chopping the head off.

Still, you seem happy enough with all those new murder-toys to relish. Like Jeremy Clarkson over the latest Ferrari. And with daily reports of more deaths to boost your sense of triumph.

When you're interested in a way of ending the killing rather than wallow in it and perpetuate it, let us know. [reply] [Complain about this post]


re: USAF 'Operation Genocide'. Dave H - 398th post - 9 Nov 2004 12:40
Yawn, yawn, yawn [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: USAF 'Operation Genocide'. Little Richardjohn - 312th post - 9 Nov 2004 12:49
Sleep tight, and dream of all those lovely bombs with their beautiful precision and amazing firepower.
And when you wake up all the nasty men will have gone and everything will be lovely. [reply] [Complain about this post]




re: USAF 'Operation Genocide'. Ama Nufan - 170th post - 9 Nov 2004 13:53
The fanaticism you talk about breeds as much in the so called friendly arab countries. To be taken seriously by the disenfranchised, desperately poor arabs, ie. the prospective terrorist, the US and west in general has to be seen to be pressuring the Saudi royal family as much as Syria (for example). To start blowing the poor Fallujans into pieces while sharing drinks and jokes with Saudis is NOT gonna make anything better. A moments empathetic thought should tell anybody that. [reply] [Complain about this post]

re: USAF 'Operation Genocide'. Little Richardjohn - 313th post - 9 Nov 2004 12:58
Go on.
Robust defence of your position called for here.

Good job the Brits who cowered in their bases in Basra all summer did a better job of defending their positions, under constant attack, than you do.

And were they under attack or WHAT?

Not reported much because it was too embarassing, the British action in the South was limited to daily perimeter patrols. And even they weren't free of constant harassment.

So even with the prettiest berets in the world, you cannot control an entire country with guns. Wherever and whenever it has been tried in modern times it has has always proved to be counter-productive, partial and temporary.

You better believe something quick. You're running out of time.