Jump to content

Ken's trip to the desert


Recommended Posts

Obviously, you think there is no legitimate reason to occupy another nation. Boy, did we fuck up with Nazi Germany and Japan then, eh?

 

Stefan, you are so sophisticated, so nuanced, so worldly, so very morally relativistic, you almost make me smile. But probably not for the reasons that you intended. <_<

 

 

I mainly look at the big picture: what do I think of the action of a nation occupying another for whatever reasons.

154921[/snapback]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 487
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I wonder how long the US will have to remain the dominating superpower before a 'certain' group of europeans manage to conclude that condescending sophistication does not make you 1) competent 2) superior 3) right....

 

I will admit, it amuses me right up to the point that I recognize those same traits in roughly half the US population... damn socialist contamination, it just won't scrub clean.

Edited by medicjim86
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good sign:

 

New Brigade Takes Control Of Tough Area

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq - In a small but potentially momentous shift, the U.S. military has handed control of some of Baghdad's most violent neighborhoods to the Iraqi army, a first step toward taking U.S. soldiers off the streets.

 

The transfer has taken place gradually over the weeks since the Iraqi election and is now complete, leaving about 4,000 Iraqi soldiers with full authority over 10 Baghdad neighborhoods, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.

 

They include notorious hot spots such as insurgent-infested Haifa Street, which has long been a no-go area for ordinary Iraqis, and the hard-line Sunni neighborhood of Adhamiya, another insurgent stronghold.

 

"This means we do not have to be in place in those areas," said Lt. Col. Clifford Kent, spokesman for the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad. "They are some tough areas, but the (Iraqi) brigade is well-trained and they're mission-capable."

 

U.S. advisers are embedded with the Iraqi units, and U.S. forces are on call to help out should they be needed, but the four battalions of the 40th Brigade that have been granted autonomy have full control over their operations, Iraqi and U.S. officials say.

 

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1331...?ESRC=army-a.nl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stefan.....we're sending you you Honorary Good Guy of the Mukhabarat Friendship Patch by DHL. It's special for all those enlightened folk who see the the good that terror does for people.

 

Incidentally we're also sending you a very special Saddam Fedayeen Commemorative Knife, just like the ones used to behead those oppressor Japanese tourists and the occupier truck drivers.

 

But best off all....we're sending you your very own 'Martyr's Special' IED kit to transofrm your car into a rolling message of resistance and liberation. Due to posting limitations we are unable to include explosives but we have included all the instuctions you need to make up some pretty good ammonium nitrate low-ex.

Also included is a map to the US Embassy in Stockholm that you will find useful.

 

Simon

The Izzat Ibrahim-al-Duri Fanclub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're all jumping on Stefan for his views, but despite our remarks I'm sure we all know that he's not a crazed anti-US terrorist supporter. However, I would like to point out:

 

The US is indeed occupying Iraq. But I think a more important question is what kind of occupation it is. Regardless of what you think of Bush's reasons for going to war, the occupation is the right and only right thing to do now. If we pull out, the country falls into turmoil and violence. The occupation of Iraq continues at the expense of the United States (although our war economy and certain corporations are benefitting financially from the war, the economy overall seems not to be doing so well), and its primary implications are intended for the overall benefit of the Iraqi people. This is very different from the Nazis occupying Europe for, say, "lenensbraum" or some other selfish purpose which main goal is for the sole benefit of the occupying country. This is most definitely not the case in Iraq right now.

 

Moreover, the occupation is a forced occupation, but not in the traditional definition. The Iraqis are forced to endure a foreign military presence in their country because the Coalition (okay, mostly the US) is being forced to stay inside the country because it has been demonstrated continually that any sort of military pullout or lack of authority in the country will fall into sectarian groups fighting for control of local or provincial regions for their own gain. I'm sure most of the Coalition troops in Iraq right now would love to get out of there. Once Iraq's infrastructure/national military has been established, then we can go. Otherwise, we're obliged to stay and clean up the mess we've caused. And we're having to stay because the insurgents, whether you agree with them or not, and screwing things up.

 

The "big picture" is not as simple as one country occupying another. There are reasons for that occupation. And unfortunately, most of the insurgents are not the nationalistic self-protectors as Stefan describes but the dipshits that EchoFiveMike has told us about.

 

Edited for a grammatical confusion error.

Edited by Xonitex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously, you think there is no legitimate reason to occupy another nation.  Boy, did we fuck up with Nazi Germany and Japan then, eh?

 

Stefan, you are so sophisticated, so nuanced, so worldly, so very morally relativistic, you almost make me smile.  But probably not for the reasons that you intended. <_<

155008[/snapback]

 

So many replies. Sweet.

I am heartened that you think that of me, Jim. Even though you don't mean it, there must be a reason for you writing it. Didn't come up with a better one? :rolleyes:

 

That fact is - I do try to see both sides of it. It is a way to stay... what shall I call it, "nuanced"?

Looking at previous posts of yours concerning the invasion/occupation of Iraq I have no doubt that your view of it is... "nuanced". Just kidding there, Jim. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.

And doubtless that "some" would include you, Stefan. Consequently, it looked pretty snide to me.  If you subscribe to a view I'd suggest you just come right out with it and spare us the dancing around.

...

2.

Two points. First, your definition of the US/Coalition forces in Iraq as "occupiers" is self-evidently neither valid nor accurate.

...

154949[/snapback]

 

1. BillB, I am very sorry if that remark struck a nerve with you. I was making fun of WRW for typing "God" instead of "Good". I thought it was pretty obvious, with the smiley and all. Sorry for getting your underwear all twisted around. :(

Do you think that I dance around. I thought my views where pretty clear.

You can ask specifics or PM me if there is anything you need clarified.

 

2. What would you call it?

 

EDIT: format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Xonitex. No problems.

I knew that writing something that could be percieved even slightly as anti-US would bring down a s**t-storm. But since I still live in a democratic country, I do have the right to say what I think, no matter what people think of my views.

 

 

Those responding to me (see for instance Simon's last insightful post) see me as a supporter of Saddam. The truth is, I see the US as the good guys in this occupation.

I did not approve of the invasion. I do not (principally) approve of the occupation. That is certainly no secret.

But - I know that the occupation has brought some good, and I have never disputed that.

It is quite possible that many, or most, Iraqis (or others) fighting the US forces do it for monetary reasons. I can't say. But I have principal understanding for people wanting to fight an occupier.

I judge individuals, not groups or countries. And that is important to me.

 

EDIT: grammar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does kidnapping for ransom, destruction of public property(oil wells, sanitation plant, power transformers), murder of government officials and workers(not just security) etc. of a democratically elected Iraqi government (I know..I know...it wuz rigged) possibly further the Iraqi nationalist cause? As opposed to the Baathist former regime's cause or jihadist general mayhem for all cause?

 

I guess if what these happy campers is not evil to you, perhaps you'd like to share with us what constitutes 'evil behaviour'? Perhaps you can explain how blowing up mosque goers on a Friday or pilgrims in Kerbala isn't evil. Just tell us where 'nationalist resistance' ends and evil begins. I realise that I am simpleton as far as such things are concerned so you must bear with me and spell these things out clearly lest I become confused.

 

Aren't UN peacekeepers occupiers too? I guess it must make it OK to go and brrutalise people because you oppose such a presence. Which makes the cannibalism in Ituri rather justifiable I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am fortunate to interact with Iraqi soldiers daily. I speak with the privates and the Colonels. They all agree that the best thing to happen to their country is the fall of Saddam. Some wonder why it did not happen after the first war.

 

Most like us there and agree that we are helping. I am the S3 AST for an infantry battalion. I get to discuss tactics and maneuver. They are very willing to learn and are adopting our doctrine. Some still stick with the British doctrine.

 

While the democratic world can agrue the merits of whether we did the right thing or not, the people who are experiencing their first taste of freedom would not have it otherwise. It's ironic that those who would argue the plight of the homeless and starving would be so selfish with freedom.

 

I speak with men who would be too old to fight in our army signed up as privates because they want what few could have previously in Iraq. They are making a decent wage and can now afford to feed their families and have some extra money in their wallet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mainly look at the big picture: what do I think of the action of a nation occupying another for whatever reasons.

154921[/snapback]

 

Stefan

Let us suppose that the Poles (or assume another capitalist nation) come into/invade Sweden in order to free your populous from rampant godless secular socialism. The subjugation of citizenry by the elite EU "sophisticates" is overthrown.

 

The French, Russian, and other misc leftist infiltrate your nation and indulge in the full range of Al-Qaeda style operations and misadventures. Thugs flock in from across the area to theorize the population.

 

Now are the Poles occupying or freeing your nation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken,

I finally managed to track down this essay, a favorite of mine from years back. It explains your problems with the bureaucracy--and explains why you'll never fix the problems...

 

Preliminary Observations

(1) A bureaucracy is a servo-mechanism. It computes an error signal by processing the current state of the external system against the desired state. It then generates corrective commands to minimize the future error signal, and hence to drive the state of the system in the desired direction.

 

(2) The state of the system is measured in many variables, by samples from sensors. The state is modified by the actions of effectors.

 

(3) In a bureaucracy, there are a large number of sensors (low level bureaucrats) and a large number of effectors (also low level bureaucrats). Goals are provided by an external authority.

 

(4) In order to acquire and filter information from the sensors, process that information against the goals, and propagate and refine the correction (difference) signal to the effectors, a management hierarchy is required.

 

(5) The larger the bureaucracy, the deeper the hierarchy. The depth is logarithmically proportional to the sum of the number of sensors and the number of effectors. The top of the hierarchy is a single bureaucrat with a title like "Director," "Secretary," "Administrator" or "Commander." The middle layers of the hierarchy are populated by mid-level bureaucrats.

 

 

 

* * * * * * The Laws Themselves * * * * * *

Failure to Achive Goals

(1a) The probability of the decision element at the top correctly measuring the system state decreases exponentially with the depth of the hierarchy. Each level adds noise to the information as it passes through. Thus the measurement signal is very noisy in a large bureaucracy.

 

(1b) The same logic applies to the transmission of the correction signal back downwards through the system.

 

(1c) Thus the likelihood of the system correctly responding to the inputs and goals goes down at a high rate (approximately K to the 2N power where (1-K) is the error rate of one individual and N is the depth of the bureaucracy).

 

(1d) Thus LARGE BUREAUCRACIES CANNOT POSSIBLY ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS!

 

Thrashing

(2a) Furthermore, even if the signal were to be transmitted correctly, it would be delayed by the depth of the hierarchy.

 

(2b)Servo theory tells us that corrective feedback, applied with a significant time lag, causes oscillations of ever increasing magnitude.

 

(2c) Thus LARGE BUREAUCRACIES WILL THRASH WILDLY ABOUT, CAUSING MUCH COST, PAIN AND DESTRUCTION!

 

Evil

(3a) In addition, the probability of a person in society being highly amoral (a sociopath) is about 5%. A sociopath will act totally selfishly in almost all circumstances.

 

(3b) Thus the probability that a sociopath will not be in the feedback loop is at most (.95^2N)).

 

(3c) But in reality, the power wielded by a bureaucracy attracts sociopaths, so their density will be much greater in a bureaucracy than in the population at large.

 

(3d) Thus, the probability that a sociopath will not be in the feedback loop is around (.8^2N))

 

(3e) So a typical bureaucracy with 12 levels has a 99.5 percent chance that one or more sociopaths are in each control path. The actual percentage is somewhat lower because the sensor and effector information paths often overlap.

 

(3f) Thus LARGE BUREAUCRACIES ARE EVIL!

 

Heartless

(4a)In order to try to thwart the noise and sociopaths in the system, those at the top will create rules (policies) that apply directly to the sensors and effectors. Rules are also needed by government bureaucracies in order to provide an appearance of fairness or even-handedness.

 

(4b) This, of course, is doomed to failure since the information on which these policies are based was created by the noisy system.

 

(4c) But since bureaucrats must believe in their own wisdom and power, they will persist in this silliness.

 

(4c) So the effectors, who actually deal with the public, will be totally constrained in their behavior by rigid rules.

 

(4d) Thus LARGE BUREAUCRACIES HAVE NO HEART!

 

Perverse

(5a) By the way, bureaucracies are created to produce long term results.

 

(5b) But, bureaucrats have their own goals of rising rapidly within the organization.

 

(5c) So bureaucrats will demand to be measured on their short term performance.

 

(5d) So the bureaucracy will focus on these short term goals.

 

(5e) Thus LARGE BUREAUCRACIES ARE PERVERSE! [see Note 3]

 

Immortal

(6a) Of course, Bureaucracies never achieve their goals (see #1 above).

 

(6b) Thus, they must keep striving.

 

(6c) So they keep acquiring new bureaucrats as the old ones wear out.

 

(6d) Thus LARGE BUREAUCRACIES ARE IMMORTAL!

 

Grow Without Bounds

(7a) Finally, the power of a bureaucrat is determined by how many people report to her.

 

(7b) Thus she is motivated to increase her staff by increasing the reach of her portion of the bureaucracy.

 

(7c) Thus LARGE BUREAUCRACIES WILL GROW WITHOUT BOUND! [see Notes 1,2]

 

 

 

Notes and Links

 

[1] As was pointed out by Clark Jones (jones@azterra.San-Jose.ate.slb.com):

"The amount of matter in the universe is finite (and the sum of matter [times c**2] and energy at least appears to be constant). Every bureaucrat has some finite mass. This will, eventually, serve to limit the number of bureaucrats, and thus, in turn, impose an upper limit on the size of bureaucracies."

[2] The trend of governments to attempt to regulate the Internet constitutes a recent example of this law. The government is itself an enormous bureaucracy, and as such seeks power. In the case of he Internet, however, the outcome will be more consistent with conclusion 1d: LARGE BUREAUCRACIES WILL FAIL TO CONQUER THE INTERNET!

[3] Law of Bureaucracies apply outside of governmental institutions. For example, the administration of private pension funds is certainly affected by the Fifth Law of Bureaucracy: the individuals are administering funds whose owners have long term goals, but whose fiduciaries have short term goals - their annual bonuses and their reputations. Likewise, publicly regulated monopolies tend to incorporate the worst combination of governmental and private bureaucracies. See, for example, QWest, Inc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I always considered it relatively benevolent occupation, and I was a nice occupier in charge of fifteen fairly nice other occupiers...

 

I believe that by definition UN peacekeepers cannot be occupiers because one of the requirements of a peacekeeping mission (as defined by the UN) is that they are invited in by all sides.

 

NTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. BillB, I am very sorry if that remark struck a nerve with you. I was making fun of WRW for typing "God" instead of "Good". I thought it was pretty obvious, with the smiley and all. Sorry for getting your underwear all twisted around.  :(

 

Have you been talking to 5150, Stefan? Somehow whenever I make a comment around here lately I am accused of some underwear misdemeanour. :rolleyes: You didn't strike a nerve, although your lengthy response suggests I might have. :P I was just commenting on the tone of your post as I perceived it. The responses from others suggest I was not alone in my perception, either.

 

Do you think that I dance around. I thought my views where pretty clear.

You can ask specifics or PM me if there is anything you need clarified.

Look at the sentence where you claimed not to be being snide, and the one above too. My comment re being snide and dancing around then ought to be self-explanatory.

 

2. What would you call it?

 

Not occupation, at least in the negatively loaded sense you appear to be using the term. Occupiers don't tend to facilitate free elections and the establishement of democratically elected governments as far as I'm aware. In light of Chris Costello's post below, how about "liberation". But then he's just a Bush running dog occupier lackey, right?

 

all the best

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not occupation, at least in the negatively loaded sense you appear to be using the term. Occupiers don't tend to facilitate free elections and the establishement of democratically elected governments as far as I'm aware. In light of Chris Costello's post below, how about "liberation". But then he's just a Bush running dog occupier lackey, right?

 

all the best

 

BillB

155433[/snapback]

 

REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?

 

XERXES: Brought peace.

 

REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Xonitex. No problems.

I knew that writing something that could be percieved even slightly as anti-US would bring down a s**t-storm. But since I still live in a democratic country, I do have the right to say what I think, no matter what people think of my views.

Those responding to me (see for instance Simon's last insightful post) see me as a supporter of Saddam. The truth is, I see the US as the good guys in this occupation.

I did not approve of the invasion. I do not (principally) approve of the occupation. That is certainly no secret.

But - I know that the occupation has brought some good, and I have never disputed that.

It is quite possible that many, or most, Iraqis (or others) fighting the US forces do it for monetary reasons. I can't say. But I have principal understanding for people wanting to fight an occupier.

I judge individuals, not groups or countries. And that is important to me.

 

EDIT: grammar.

155277[/snapback]

Stefan, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I understand your opinion and I respect the fact that you don't approve of the invasion; I presume that most of the population around the world does not. I do disagree with you about the occupation, however.

 

If the insurgents were mainly Iraqis fighting out of national pride, then perhaps my views would be a bit different. However, it is my impression that most of these insurgents are foreign fighters or criminal/thug lowlifes. They have no concern of the welfare of their country; rather, they fight because they are either brainwashed by terrorist leaders or are looking to make some $$ at the expense of their fellow countrymen.

 

If you need evidence of this, today's San Francisco Chronicle ran an article about the deteriorating hope of young Iraqis (20's to 30's age range). Actually, the main topic of the article is irrelevant but it had outlined the state of the country since the invasion. Supposedly around March 2004, things had began to look up. Infrastructure was returning, services and commodities were restored, the Iraqi forces were regaining composure, and Iraq seemed to be headed for a bright future. But then the violence increased and drove businesses, services, contractors, and prosperity away.

 

What does this mean? March 2004 is well after the initial early-2003 invasion date. The country was back on track to stability. According to a Special Forces soldier, the US even had popular support in Najaf when they went in and throughout 2004 the domestic insurgents had mostly died or died down, including Moqtada-something-Sadr-something's Mahdi Army. So who was perpetuating the violence? This gradual move towards prosperity broken by an increase in violence signals the advent of a foreign menace - one brought about not by freedom fighters but by imported jihadi terrorists. Terrorists full of hatred, incited and brought to Iraq by terrorist groups and made to kill innocent civilians of a country they do not call their own.

 

Yes, Iraq's overall conditions right now are pretty bad. But while the occupation may be the indirect cause of the state of affairs in Iraq, the insurgents are the direct cause and therefore I believe that although the Coalition shoulders the responsibility, the insurgents take the culpability.

 

EDIT: by "state of affairs in Iraq" I mean the decline of stability following the incomplete but promising direction towards restoration in Iraq in 2004.

Edited by Xonitex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.

Have you been talking to 5150, Stefan? Somehow whenever I make a comment around here lately I am accused of some underwear misdemeanour.  :rolleyes:

 

2.

You didn't strike a nerve, although your lengthy response suggests I might have.  :P I was just commenting on the tone of your post as I perceived it. The responses from others suggest I was not alone in my perception, either.

 

3.

...

My comment re being snide and dancing around then ought to be self-explanatory.

 

4.

Not occupation, at least in the negatively loaded sense you appear to be using the term. Occupiers don't tend to facilitate free elections and the establishement of democratically elected governments as far as I'm aware.

 

5.

In light of Chris Costello's post below, how about "liberation". But then he's just a Bush running dog occupier lackey, right?

 

all the best

 

BillB

155433[/snapback]

1. No, I have not. It is just a figure of speach, since I obviously don't even know what your underwear looks like. ;)

 

2. I admit that I have problems with English sometimes. Nuances are much easier to bring forth in your own language. Lengthy response is just for trying to be a bit clearer.

The problem, as I perceive it, is that if you post something that might even be suspected of not being 100% pro-US, you are labeled anti-US. I have the luxuary of not having any emotional investments in this war, so I can look at it from different angles.

 

3. No, it was not. As I wrote - if anything I write is unclear, just ask me.

 

4. Either it is an occupation, or it is not. That is how I define it. This is an occupation, and whether it is benevolent or not does not change the term occupation to me.

 

5. I hope that in the end of the occupation, lies liberation. But I still consider it to be an occupation.

Your definition of Chris is yours, not mine.

I do not agree to it. See above - just because I am not 100% pro-US, it does not automatically mean I am anti-US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Occupation" is not neccesarily an inherently benevolent or malevolent term. By definition, the United States is carrying out an occupation. Occupations in the past have usually been oppressive and for the primary benefit of the occupying country, but this does not mean that all occupations are of that nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well. I'm at BIAP, sucking down good chow and seeing how about 60% of the military forces in Iraq live. We really were stuck out in the armpit of the country as far as living conditions were concerned. It's not even the same war.

 

Oh well, they way it's always been, so I'm told. Still, Rummie could really knock some cash off the budget by cleaning up this nonsense.

 

Been busy consolidating pictures and movies amongst the platoon. I'm looknig at well over 4GB of data. I've got video(!) of firefights, IED strikes, mortar impacts and all sorts of other unusual stuff that you never would have thought anyone would have taped. I'm going to need to put up a freaking website or something.

 

I'm killing tmie by reading old military fiction, and it really hurts the brain how poorly a lot of the technical and military aspects are researched. Currently reading "Vortex", I want to say it's a Coyle book, and it requires far too much suspension of disbelief in order to read. I mean, the SOuth Africans vs the Cubans in mechanized combat? And the Cubans have a prayer? Please...

S/F...Ken M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to know that you are life is quite so uneventful as to having you read pap like Vortex. I thought the South Aricans rather too much of an AWB caricature really. I did however like a recent film called Stander, where Tom Jane plays(not too awfully) a SA cop named Andre Stander who goes on to become a bank robber. There's a segment with the SA Police in a township and it just reminded me of a BBC report that I watched back in the 80s when they were dispersing a demonstrating crowd. Reality was much...much nastier.

 

A book, TV appearances, film rights, FPS game franchise, 'tactical' fashion, ummmm......missed out on anything?

 

Stay bored.

 

Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...