a short guide to iraq

[nageov3t]

I came across this manual while browsing Wonkette the other day and it was a pretty interesting read.

http://digitallibrary.smu.edu/cul/gir/ww2/pdf/w0025.pdf

comments about back-stabbing japs aside, some highlights...

As a soldier your duties are laid out for you. As an individual, it is what you do on your own that counts ? and it may count for a lot more than you think. American success or failure in Iraq may well depend on whether the Iraqis (as the people are called) like American soldiers or not. It may not be quite that simple. But then again it could.

The tall man in the flowing robe you are going to see soon, with the whiskers and the long hair, is a first-class fighting man, highly skilled in guerilla warfare. Few fighters in any country, in fact, excell him in that kind of situation. If he is your friend, he can be a staunch and valuable ally. If he should happen to be your enemy ? look out! Remember Lawrence of Arabia? Well, it was with men like those that he wrote history in the First World War.

But you will also find out quickly that the Iraqi is one of the most cheerful and friendly people in the world. Few people you have seen get so much fun out of work and everyday living.

You aren?t going to Iraq to change the Iraqis. Just the opposite. We are fighting this war to preserve the principle of ?Live and let live.?

Right now Iraq is threatened with invasion ? as America is now. The Iraqis have some religious and tribal differences themselves. Hitler has been trying to use those differences to his own ends.

Moslems here are divided into two factions something like our division into Catholic and Protestant denominations ? so don?t put in your two cents when Iraqis argue about religion.

There are also political differences in Iraq that have puzzled diplomats and statesmen. You won?t help matters any by getting mixed up in them.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I guess they should have dusted this off prior to invading Iraq. Turns out the Sunni/Shiite divide runs a little deeper than the typical American sports rivalry.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I guess they should have dusted this off prior to invading Iraq. Turns out the Sunni/Shiite divide runs a little deeper than the typical American sports rivalry.

What they should have dusted off is Al Gore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

 

[techs]

It would have been nice if even ONE of the Bushies cracked a book before the invasion.
Then they might have had SOME semblance of reality.

 

[Starbuck1975]

What they should have dusted off is Al Gore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

Wow those Gore clips are quite interesting, as are the links provided to other campaign trail speeches by Gore.

Given the rhetoric Gore is spewing in those clips, you would think he would get along just fine with our NeoCon overlords.

Terrorism...WMDs...Saddam Hussein...sound like Bush sound bytes.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

What they should have dusted off is Al Gore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64

Wow those Gore clips are quite interesting, as are the links provided to other campaign trail speeches by Gore.

Given the rhetoric Gore is spewing in those clips, you would think he would get along just fine with our NeoCon overlords.

Terrorism...WMDs...Saddam Hussein...sound like Bush sound bytes.

Well come on now, you can't blame Gore, he was obviously tricked by Bush&co.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Sanctions are a whole lot different than invasion, but don't let that intervene in your evaluation, JD50.

Gore's point is that Saddam had ample reason to miscalculate wrt the invasion of Kuwait, which led to the whole falling out with the GHWB Whitehouse, and ultimately the imbroglio of today... had it not been for that, he'd have served the Neocons as a most excellent ally in the ongoing efforts against Iran...

Messing with the Al-Sabah family was his downfall. He should have known better, since they and the Saudi royals have been thick as thieves with the Bush clan and the oil business in general for decades...

And the Bush clan should have known better than to invade, given Iraqi history, no matter how good a pretext they could create by conflating Saddam and Al Qaeda...

 

[Lemon law]

The other point is that Gore was not alone in the parade of people who took cheap shots verbally bashing Saddam---name calling is at the cheap shot end of the spectrum.
But when it came to actually matching deeds to rhetoric---in the final analysis its only GWB&co. that escalated it up from rhetoric to an actual invasion. As they say, sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. And there is quite a difference between words and actually casting that actual stone and breaking bones.

So ask yourself---how many people died because of Gore's words----and how many people have died because of GWB's words and deeds?

Get a clue--its no contest---0 to only God only knows how many. But GWB may soon get over a million notches on his gun belt. It just depends on how you count and what methods you use to estimate.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The other point is that Gore was not alone in the parade of people who took cheap shots verbally bashing Saddam---name calling is at the cheap shot end of the spectrum.
But when it came to actually matching deeds to rhetoric---in the final analysis its only GWB&co. that escalated it up from rhetoric to an actual invasion. As they say, sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. And there is quite a difference between words and actually casting that actual stone and breaking bones.

So ask yourself---how many people died because of Gore's words----and how many people have died because of GWB's words and deeds?

Get a clue--its no contest---0 to only God only knows how many. But GWB may soon get over a million notches on his gun belt. It just depends on how you count and what methods you use to estimate.

So what you are basically saying is that Al Gore and the rest of the democratic leadership are liars and just say whatever is the popular opinion at the time being in order to get elected, even though they have no intention of ever carrying out their promises and are aware what they are saying is blatantly false but will call for impeachment/firings/jailings of their political opponents for doing exactly what they were calling for them to do?

*head explodes*



I know that you don't actually believe what you posted. You are just desperately clawing for an excuse to justify your political heroes' actions and statements in your own eyes so that you don't have to admit "hey, maybe the democrats are just assholes that are endangering the country's security for their own mere political gain!"

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The other point is that Gore was not alone in the parade of people who took cheap shots verbally bashing Saddam---name calling is at the cheap shot end of the spectrum.
But when it came to actually matching deeds to rhetoric---in the final analysis its only GWB&co. that escalated it up from rhetoric to an actual invasion. As they say, sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. And there is quite a difference between words and actually casting that actual stone and breaking bones.

So ask yourself---how many people died because of Gore's words----and how many people have died because of GWB's words and deeds?

Get a clue--its no contest---0 to only God only knows how many. But GWB may soon get over a million notches on his gun belt. It just depends on how you count and what methods you use to estimate.

So what you are basically saying is that Al Gore and the rest of the democratic leadership are liars and just say whatever is the popular opinion at the time being in order to get elected, even though they have no intention of ever carrying out their promises and are aware what they are saying is blatantly false but will call for impeachment/firings/jailings of their political opponents for doing exactly what they were calling for them to do?

*head explodes*



I know that you don't actually believe what you posted. You are just desperately clawing for an excuse to justify your political heroes' actions and statements in your own eyes so that you don't have to admit "hey, maybe the democrats are just assholes that are endangering the country's security for their own mere political gain!"

That pretty much sounds like every politician to me. I was once a shill for the Republican party, and now I despise them as much as the democrats. Now democrats are finding out, again, that their party is full of crap too. I pity the fools here that are shills for a party. Supporting your cause is fine, but the parties have let us down so many times, they are unworthy of any intelligent persons support.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The other point is that Gore was not alone in the parade of people who took cheap shots verbally bashing Saddam---name calling is at the cheap shot end of the spectrum.
But when it came to actually matching deeds to rhetoric---in the final analysis its only GWB&co. that escalated it up from rhetoric to an actual invasion. As they say, sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. And there is quite a difference between words and actually casting that actual stone and breaking bones.

So ask yourself---how many people died because of Gore's words----and how many people have died because of GWB's words and deeds?

Get a clue--its no contest---0 to only God only knows how many. But GWB may soon get over a million notches on his gun belt. It just depends on how you count and what methods you use to estimate.

So what you are basically saying is that Al Gore and the rest of the democratic leadership are liars and just say whatever is the popular opinion at the time being in order to get elected, even though they have no intention of ever carrying out their promises and are aware what they are saying is blatantly false but will call for impeachment/firings/jailings of their political opponents for doing exactly what they were calling for them to do?

*head explodes*



I know that you don't actually believe what you posted. You are just desperately clawing for an excuse to justify your political heroes' actions and statements in your own eyes so that you don't have to admit "hey, maybe the democrats are just assholes that are endangering the country's security for their own mere political gain!"

That pretty much sounds like every politician to me. I was once a shill for the Republican party, and now I despise them as much as the democrats. Now democrats are finding out, again, that their party is full of crap too. I pity the fools here that are shills for a party. Supporting your cause is fine, but the parties have let us down so many times, they are unworthy of any intelligent persons support.

:thumbsup:

 

[SilthDraeth]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
That pretty much sounds like every politician to me. I was once a shill for the Republican party, and now I despise them as much as the democrats. Now democrats are finding out, again, that their party is full of crap too. I pity the fools here that are shills for a party. Supporting your cause is fine, but the parties have let us down so many times, they are unworthy of any intelligent persons support.

QFT

 

[Lemon law]

Another point worth making about the link is the following quote---The tall man in the flowing robe you are going to see soon, with the whiskers and the long hair, is a first-class fighting man, highly skilled in guerilla warfare. Few fighters in any country, in fact, excell him in that kind of situation.

This was especially true at the time the manual was written in 1943. Because those same tall men in flowing robes had just recently spent almost the past two decades expelling the British in their occupation of Iraq. As I recall the British occupation of Iraq lasted from about 1920 to 1937 when the existing British government fell over the issue. And that same British occupation of Iraq also drained British resources and distracted from the greater danger Hitler posed.---easy to say with 20 20 historical hindsight--but true none the less.

Somewhat the point I wish to make is that almost two decades is a quite adequate time to form a learning curve on how to be effective against an occupation. And when we invaded in 2003, the lessons learned by Iraqis were only partly remaining in living memory. And we are now only four years into the Iraqi learning curve and in deep trouble already.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

That pretty much sounds like every politician to me. I was once a shill for the Republican party, and now I despise them as much as the democrats. Now democrats are finding out, again, that their party is full of crap too. I pity the fools here that are shills for a party. Supporting your cause is fine, but the parties have let us down so many times, they are unworthy of any intelligent persons support.

The party system has always been a disappointment to me. I really wish that everyone would just be independant, but I doubt that'll happen.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

That pretty much sounds like every politician to me. I was once a shill for the Republican party, and now I despise them as much as the democrats. Now democrats are finding out, again, that their party is full of crap too. I pity the fools here that are shills for a party. Supporting your cause is fine, but the parties have let us down so many times, they are unworthy of any intelligent persons support.

It's just the way of the universe... Individual bodies will eventually start to form larger clusters. The larger the cluster the more mass it accumulates. The greater the mass the greater the gravity. Pretty soon, gravity takes over and begins to suck in even the most distant bodies. Eventually what used to be billions of individuals is coalesced into a dozen planets.

Except that in American politics, gravity made two parties. And the thing that sucks the most about gravity is that once it takes hold... it's virtually impossible to overcome on a grand scale. We can fire a rocket into space, but we can't break the earth into a million pieces. And even if we could, the would eventually group back together again.

Such is politics.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The other point is that Gore was not alone in the parade of people who took cheap shots verbally bashing Saddam---name calling is at the cheap shot end of the spectrum.
But when it came to actually matching deeds to rhetoric---in the final analysis its only GWB&co. that escalated it up from rhetoric to an actual invasion. As they say, sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. And there is quite a difference between words and actually casting that actual stone and breaking bones.

So ask yourself---how many people died because of Gore's words----and how many people have died because of GWB's words and deeds?

Get a clue--its no contest---0 to only God only knows how many. But GWB may soon get over a million notches on his gun belt. It just depends on how you count and what methods you use to estimate.

So what you are basically saying is that Al Gore and the rest of the democratic leadership are liars and just say whatever is the popular opinion at the time being in order to get elected, even though they have no intention of ever carrying out their promises and are aware what they are saying is blatantly false but will call for impeachment/firings/jailings of their political opponents for doing exactly what they were calling for them to do?

*head explodes*



I know that you don't actually believe what you posted. You are just desperately clawing for an excuse to justify your political heroes' actions and statements in your own eyes so that you don't have to admit "hey, maybe the democrats are just assholes that are endangering the country's security for their own mere political gain!"

They're both assholes, no doubt. But it's a matter of who's the more dangerous liar.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Another point worth making about the link is the following quote---The tall man in the flowing robe you are going to see soon, with the whiskers and the long hair, is a first-class fighting man, highly skilled in guerilla warfare. Few fighters in any country, in fact, excell him in that kind of situation.

This was especially true at the time the manual was written in 1943. Because those same tall men in flowing robes had just recently spent almost the past two decades expelling the British in their occupation of Iraq. As I recall the British occupation of Iraq lasted from about 1920 to 1937 when the existing British government fell over the issue. And that same British occupation of Iraq also drained British resources and distracted from the greater danger Hitler posed.---easy to say with 20 20 historical hindsight--but true none the less.

Somewhat the point I wish to make is that almost two decades is a quite adequate time to form a learning curve on how to be effective against an occupation. And when we invaded in 2003, the lessons learned by Iraqis were only partly remaining in living memory. And we are now only four years into the Iraqi learning curve and in deep trouble already.

According to Chamberlain, Hitler was not a threat