If they can't find him, he's hopefully not being touchered by the terrorist or he ran away is hiding, it's very strange to have a "unknown" where abouts. I really want to know why the aircraft crashed, it said the F-16 was going up and down erratically, but what was the cause?

Quote:



I noticed some time ago the Army Corps of Engineers logo you're using.  I assume you're Army?

Quote:



Cool, very cool!  Stay safe!

I'm about to finish We Were One, and you combat engineers definately get the job done!   

I hope the Army have found the remains.
Which reminds me 15 years ago a Mig 21 did the same thing during a Pratice mission they only found some Human parts quite macbare but thats life.

Quote:



sucks, that likely means his head will be seperated from his body.  that's very saddening.   

long before daniel pearl was murdered, i saw this video of chetchins killing a russian soldier.  they didn't chop his head off, they slowly carved his head off like they were carving a turkey, while the hapless soldier was still alive.  the website owner warned us that this is what was in store.

How insanely counter-productive is that!  (with regard to the horrorfying video mentioned, which I have not and won't see).  Here's the message the terrorists are sending:  "What ever you do, DO NOT SURRENDER.  The only thing you can do to avoid having your head carved like a turkey is to fight to the death.  Don't ever give up because your fate is sealed.  So kill as many of us as you can and maybe you'll survive."

Geez.  I know these guys are a bit on the cracked side but that's rediculous.  I understand (though obviously don't agree with) using terror to achieve political ends.  The whole "stop supporting Isreal or we'll crash more planes in to your buildings" thing.  But torturing soldiers who surrender doesn't send this message at all.  All it says is that a soldier must never surrender, he must fight until dead.  The Japanese used the same tactic during WWII.

There's a certain wisdom in treating surrendered combatants humanely.  The army you fight will know that if they surrender they will be protected.  Heck, treat 'em like kings!  Thank them for surrendering.  Perhaps the word will get out and you'll have more surrendering.  Kinda like the first Gulf war.  Do you think there would be mass surrenders if the Allied forces were torturing everyone who surrendered?  No, they'd fight until dead.  And the war would have been longer and bloodier.

Sorry for straying off topic...

expat wrote on Dec 20^th, 2006 at 12:40pm:

Yeah, like I said, I understand (but disagree with) the political terrorism thing.  It does work (unfortunately).  Even if all it does is draw attention to the terrorist's cause.  I didn't know nearly as much about the US's involvement in various issues affecting Muslim countries before 9/11 as I do now.  I don't agree with the terrorists methods, but they are effective.

The thing I don't get is the torturing prisoners thing.  There's no message there.  There's no political gain.  All it does is solidify your opponent in their fight against you.

expat wrote on Dec 20^th, 2006 at 12:40pm:


Terrorism only works when societies lack sufficient balls to make the decision to do whatever it takes to stamp it out.

Speaking of foreigners, I just finished a book on the battle of Fallujah.  The Marines encountered evdicence of foreign fighters from 19 different countries as well as numerous torture rooms.

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2006 at 4:31pm:

It's all very well if the Terrorists are a six man cause all barricaded into the same building. However, when the terrorists have the support of a nation, or a religion, then to stamp them out would mean you'd have to be far more ruthless than just carving the occasional prisoners head off. On a small scale not negotiating with terrorists works. On a large scale you have to be prepared to negotiate or watch the deaths of millions in wars that cannot be won.

I don't think the Japanise beheaded many allied POWs. They didn't think twice about working, or beating them to death though.

Now we arrived at ww2 Japan... What they did in China (which is usually ignored) still has a majopr influence on regional relations... They did bioweapon experiments on POW camps...

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2006 at 4:31pm:



Really? Maybe you could have been of use to tell the world how to solved the problem of the Northern Ireland problem...

Charlie wrote on Dec 21^st, 2006 at 4:17pm:



Isn't it solved?

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2006 at 4:29pm:

To a certain extent. No ones killing eachother any more. We didn't get to this stage though by "stamping it out".

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2006 at 5:36pm:



I understand your point.  Maybe I was implying the sort of terrorism that's currently going on now.  When we have a leader of a nation that is likely the chief national sponsor of global terrorism proclaim that everyone should convert to a certain religion or be destroyed, how can you negotiate with that?

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2006 at 9:16pm:

How can you stamp it out without causing religious genocide?

Scary thing is that the description fits Bush better than it does Hussein.

Chris_F wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2006 at 8:16am:



Based on well known facts, neither!   

Care to guess again?

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2006 at 12:33pm:

I don't live in Oz.

Quote:

Are you talking about Iran there?

expat wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2006 at 12:41am:


You'll get no debate from me because I never said that.  And your point regarding increasing the liklihood of terrorism is debatable.  However, we do know Saddam was busy, such as paying the families of suicide bombers in Israel after the bombers have completed their acts of terror.  And let us not forget the mock-up of an airliner used for terror training found just outside Baghdad.  But prior to 9/11, the terrorist have been able to perform their terror activities with impunity.  For the most part, the world treated the terrorism as police responsibilities:  for the most part, arriving after the crime has been commited and seeking to bring the perpetrators to justice.  Post 9/11 means the battle had finally been joined.

What can be, and is being debated is whether post 9/11 activities in Iraq had any positive results or not.  I expect several with vehimately disagree with me, but my opinion is there were two catigories of mistakes in Iraq.  The first is intelligence failed to appreciate the difficulty of post-invasion Iraq.  Obviously, there were mistakes in this regard, but my opinion is many critics like to wax with wisdom, ignoring the fact that they are armed with the hindsight which is always 20/20 vision.

The second point, is in my opinion not a mistake, but is quite deliberate.  And I expect vehimate disagreement with this point as well.  I draw upon history to come to this conclusion, something I wish more people did when they form their opinions.  We can go all the way back to Viet Nam.  There were several catigories of mistakes there as well, but I will focus on the media, and the part it had to play.  At that time, global, electronic relatively real-time media was a fairly new concept.  There had been a growing anti-war movement in the states.  It was what it was and I will not explore it, but suffice it to say, the reporting of it reached the eyes and ears of the North Vietnamese.  The north calculated that the US will ultimately loose the will to fight.  After Tet in 1968, even though the US suffered great casualties, the NVA and the VC suffered more, and in fact they were demoralized and some even suggested they had lost the war.  But those on the battlefield were not privvy to the knowlege that the North's commanders had back in Hanoi.  The US was loosing the will to fight.  So the North just had to keep hanging on, and the US will ultimately give up.  And we know, that's exactly what did occur.

Now, fast forward to the US action in Somalia, what was an action to protect those feeding starving Somali's from the warring factions.  In the age of CNN, when there were several US casualties being shown on the news in real-time, President Clinton feared this would become domestically unpopular and withdrew the US forces.  Audience to this was Osama Bin Ladin, and he made that famous statement: The Americans cannot tolerate they soldiers being killed (as brought to their tv screens in the age of CNN).  He calculate the US would only respond with a tit for tat type of response, such as Clinton's cruise missles being shot into Afgani Al Qaeda camps.

Now fast forward to Iraq in the present.  We have a repeat of the same scenario that occurred in Viet Nam.  The constant media barrage, and clear bias that the coalition's actions in Iraq were ill-advices and should not have occurred in the first place, it serves to demoralize the troops and encourage the terrorists.  All they have to do is keep up, no matter how many of their numbers are lost, because the US will ultimately loose the will to fight.  And that is exactly what is happening right now.


Now, I expect to be quoted and challenged at length.  I've thought about this stuff for a long time.  I'm just offering my opinion.

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2006 at 3:14pm:


In 10 years of the Vietnam war as we all know 58,000 members of the armed forces died. The Iraq "problem" has been forecast to last up to 30 years or even a generation. What you be an acceptable figure of deaths before you would say, it cannot be won? As it stand we are at about 10 more troop deaths than people killed in the twin tower attacks.

expat wrote on Dec 26^th, 2006 at 4:33pm:


Using that logic, I suppose we should have quit fighting the Japanese in WWII after 1 month on Guadalcanal?   

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2006 at 4:53pm:

Shame that a lot of people dont read anything longer than 2 alineas... Some of the replies are really good while others are missing the point by miles

Winable really depends on the reasons for getting involved in the conflict.  Despite what the politicians, media, and special interest groups say Iraq isn't about Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, or Oil.  If it were any of these it would have made much more sense to invade some other country (Iran, Korea, Venezuela).  Instead Iraq was a statement to the world that the US was going to be an active policeman on the world stage.  Effectively Iraq was an attempt to erase Somalia, Bosnia, and the other recent instances where the US showed the world that it didn't have a taste for committing to armed engagements (beyond perhaps bombing a few huts).  Iraq is about keeping countries like Iran and Korea in line and show the various despots around the world that the US will commit to armed engagement against you if you do something stupid, like support terrorism.  Iraq was just politically and militarily the easiest target.  Compound that with the bad intelegence already mentioned and we are where we are today.

Now combine that with dcunnings argument and now its obvious how dangerous the Iraq situation is: disengaging (which we most certainly will do) will show the world that we do indeed have a lack of commitment for such engagements.  Perhaps that's a good thing (as I'm no fan of being a tax payer funding the policing of the world, nor do I enjoy having my friends and family members in harms way), but perhaps it will embolden those same rogue states we wanted to scare.  Time will tell.

So is Iraq unwinable?  Depends on the intent.  I think Iran and Korea would be much more active and dangerous today if we hadn't gone to Iraq, I think Iraq delayed them significantly.  Perhaps the engagement has already had the desired effect.  But perhaps it won't.  I can't tell the future...

First off, the war with Iraq, if intended to show the world that America intends to be an active policeman, has backfired. It's demonstrated that the world won't stand America invading countries on the thinnest of excuses.

As for not fighting, no I don't think we should stop gathering intelligence and disrupting terrorist cells etc. Invading nations though is an entirely different kettle of fish.

dcunning30 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 1:38pm:

No. My point was with Guadalcanal it was clear what had to be done to achieve victory. Eleminate japanise resistance. I didn't make any mention of how difficult or easy it was, nor did I say it was a foregone conclusion. All I said is that it was clear what had to be done to win.

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 1:42pm:



In the first 6 months of Guadalcanal, the only thing that was clear was the 1st Marine Division was expected to defeat the Japanese with not enough supplies, not enough aircraft, not enough food, not enough naval support.  And at that time, the myth of the Japanese super-jungle-fighter had not been dispelled.  It was not a foregone conclusion.  Japanese BB's were ranging up and down Sealark Channel lobbing 14" shells onto Henderson field with impunity.  You said Guadalcanal was winnable.  That's hindsight because we know it was won.  But at that time, winning was definately a precarious goal, and was not a foregone conclusion.

Heck, during the battle of Savo Island, the Japanese Navy handily ate the US Navy's lunch.  It wasn't just a loss, it was a naval disaster!  So we have this picture:  The Marines on shore lacked supplies and naval support due to IMHO the timidity of Admiral Fletcher.  Then the very first surface engagement occurring the very night of the American invasion, the US and Australian naval vessals were soundly beaten by the Japanese Navy.  It was a very, very bleak picture.  But they ultimatelu came back to win.

Now, put that into the context of today's vast array of criticism, there would be calls from the media and armchair generals getting their "intelligence" updates from the BBC and from CNN to pull out, the Pacific War was unwinnable.

Chris_F wrote on Dec 27^th, 2006 at 9:59pm:


My opinion is Iraq had multiple effects.  Notice suicide attacks had waned in Israel, and so far the number of suicide attacks have not picked up to the level of pre-Iraq.  It appears this can be attributed to the fact that Saddam is no longer around to pay the families of suicide bombers.

Also, it has upset Al Qaeda's timetable of international attacks.  This can't yet be proven nor disproven, but there are hints to this in intercepted communications.  Iraq had become the magnet for the jihadis.  If the US takes the advice of the media and the Baker surrender report, then Al Qaeda will view a pullout as nothing less than surrender.  Of course mistakes were made, but a pullout would be a mistake magnitudes greater than all previous mistakes.

Personally, I'm not too worried about North Korea, but Iran is being exposed in ways it wouldn't have otherwise.  Thise who think that Iran is not a big deal just aren't paying attention.

Woodlouse2002 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 8:29am:

It also showed that the world won't do anything substantial (economic sanctions, use of force, etc) when the US does invade a country using the thinnest of excuses.    Sadly the world reacted to Iraq the same way they reacted to Hitler's early invasions in Europe: lots of words, absolutely no action.  I just hope my fellow countrymen aren't silly enough to continue to persue such a path given the lack of international incentive to the contrary.

However the excuses for the invasion need not be thin in this case.  Hussein clearly violated the Gulf War I Cease fire agreement on many occasions.  One could argue that the second Iraq invasion was merely a resumption of hostilities in response.  But that doesn't play as well in the press as Weapons of Mass Destruction or Terrorism.

Chris_F wrote on Dec 28^th, 2006 at 4:52pm:

I think the eventual reaction more than made up for it. Anyway, if nations went to war every time they had a disagreement they would never be at peace.

Quote:

What do you want... a unpredictable madman in your back garden or a religuous extremist on the other side of the street that is noisy but predictable.

While the current Iranian leader might seem a little on the agressive side, he got far more experience and political feel than Khatami. He holds (and has held) some fairly high positions in various organisations, and before he became president he was major of Tehran (which is considered the 2nd most difficult political position in Iran). The amount of anti-Israel screaming is often directly related to internal poll results (he sees himself as a populist).
About the weapons program... don't forget that the supreme leader is AGAINST nuclear weapons (he made an official statemen about that).

Getting in trouble with Iran will more likely result in a reaction of North Korea than the Iranians themselves doing something nasty... China will have a reaction... and the most effect has been proven to be when they untighten the leash on the DPRK.

And the biggest unstable factor at the moment is Pakistan... every day more information is leaking out that suggests that the government is actively helping Al Qaeda. Musharraf won't take action against this because when he does his career is finished (in a quite permanent way).