RE: Evening With a Colonel (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


LotusSong -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/29/2006 11:57:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveMastery

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

The best way I heard to combat gang graffiti is to get a stencil that reads "sucks!" and every time you see a gang name on the wall or whatever..spay paint the stencil over it :)


I'd love to see how many times you managed to do that in urban Baghdad and live to tell about it.


psst.. I did but it's in arabic:  بله, المعتوه, اّحمق, المغفل  (they don't have a word for "sucks".. so I had to use "idiot"




stef -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/29/2006 12:02:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

Live on your feet or die on your knees, I say

Why do I get the feeling that saying it is all you'll do?  When you actually put that master plan into practice, be sure and let us know.  By the way, who is the Rhodes Scholar who told you this was the "best way" to combat gang graffiti?

~stef




slaveMastery -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/29/2006 12:32:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

psst.. I did but it's in arabic:  بله, المعتوه, اّحمق, المغفل  (they don't have a word for "sucks".. so I had to use "idiot"



As always - knowledge is power!

By the way, that makes for some very confusing pillow talk: "Yo babe...idiot me harder and use less teeth!"




sleazy -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/29/2006 12:37:16 PM)

As I understand it, the situation over there is not gang warfare in the sense a resident of LA South Central would understand it. There are no "gangs" as such, just religous sects, families, other groups all trying to get control and the methods used are more akin to gang warfare than "traditional" warfare.

This helps explain some of the differences between the way US and UK troops operated initially. Brit troops having dealt regularly with disorganised urban warfare for decades. I dont know how much coverage the methods of brit troops in Basrah recieved in the US after the original "liberation" but Basrah was actually a peaceful (relatively speaking) for a while as once the brit troops had an estabished prescence in the city off came helmets and body armour (where issued), the APC's were parked up and the troops walked round the city in shirt sleeves and berets and actually interacted with the populace. Even now Basrah is a far more peaceful place than most Iraqi cities due to the methods first employed.




juliaoceania -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/29/2006 12:56:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

As I understand it, the situation over there is not gang warfare in the sense a resident of LA South Central would understand it. There are no "gangs" as such, just religous sects, families, other groups all trying to get control and the methods used are more akin to gang warfare than "traditional" warfare.



Guerrilla warfare is a more applicable term than gang violence, would you not agree? Factionalism based on cultural traits such as religion, ethnicity, and language does not equate to gangism. Kidnappings in South America, revolutionaries, and whatnot does not a gang make. Saddam himself was a member of a Sunni group that became predominant and that was how he attained power, he was a "gang" member too I suppose.

It negates what is going on over there to dismiss it as a street gang problem, it is much more systemic than that. It is not a civil war, it is a street gang problem, it seems to me a rather myopic view of the situation. It reminds me of calling Iraqis "insurgents" instead of rebels or guerrillas. It is all newspeak. How many Iraqis have to die in this conflict before we call it what it is?

Gangs are indicative of underworld crime and they usually operate outside of the governmental structures and laws... if there is no substantive governmental body to oversee the populace then how can we label these groups "gangs"? The lack of civil society in and of itself would seem to contradict that label.... but that is just my opinion.

BTW I wonder what separates gangs from  police forces that cannot be trusted to serve and protect? Some of the organized government sanctioned police in Iraq have been some of the worst human rights violaters... are they gang bangers too?




sleazy -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/29/2006 1:20:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

As I understand it, the situation over there is not gang warfare in the sense a resident of LA South Central would understand it. There are no "gangs" as such, just religous sects, families, other groups all trying to get control and the methods used are more akin to gang warfare than "traditional" warfare.



Guerrilla warfare is a more applicable term than gang violence, would you not agree? Factionalism based on cultural traits such as religion, ethnicity, and language does not equate to gangism. Kidnappings in South America, revolutionaries, and whatnot does not a gang make. Saddam himself was a member of a Sunni group that became predominant and that was how he attained power, he was a "gang" member too I suppose.
At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, I personally regard guerrilla warfare as being an organised, or at least semi organised group, often not militarly trained, fighting using non-traditional tactics against a traditionally organised army/government with a political/religous motiviation. Vietnam would be the first example of this that springs to mind. In Iraq there are/were 3 predominant groups, organised on mainly religous grounds, now there are hundreds, even thousand little groups with allegiences to individuals rather than higher ideals. Much as if the rule of law withdrew from south central for a month or two then the national guard went in to try restore order.


It negates what is going on over there to dismiss it as a street gang problem, it is much more systemic than that. It is not a civil war, it is a street gang problem, it seems to me a rather myopic view of the situation. It reminds me of calling Iraqis "insurgents" instead of rebels or guerrillas. It is all newspeak. How many Iraqis have to die in this conflict before we call it what it is?
I do not think it is a civil war, yankees v confederates, americans v brits, these were civil wars, one group trying to wrest control of a nation from another. These people are not trying to control a nation, but their own street, block, neighbourhood, village. There are very few with a vision for their country, more a vision for their own greed and power. No matter what kind of conflict it may be, no matter what label is given to the combatants, the OP's source came up with a very good description "gang warfare" that best describes how the conflict is fought to Joe Public who has only Fox/CNN as an information source. I shall not answer how many more must die as it is sure to create nothing but a flame war.

Gangs are indicative of underworld crime and they usually operate outside of the governmental structures and laws... if there is no substantive governmental body to oversee the populace then how can we label these groups "gangs"? The lack of civil society in and of itself would seem to contradict that label.... but that is just my opinion.
Tribal warlords as in Afghanistan could perhaps be a better label? There is a government body, there are police officers, and there is a domestic army, all "supported" by foriegn powers. Again I say it is not necessarily a gang problem, but described as being like a gang problem, a very good description imho.

BTW I wonder what separates gangs from  police forces that cannot be trusted to serve and protect? Some of the organized government sanctioned police in Iraq have been some of the worst human rights violaters... are they gang bangers too?
I did comment earlier that in many cases the police officers were as often as not the worst culprits, merely sanctioned bullies with a badge and legal gun. Many are illiterate, some signed up with altruistic motives, many simply to further their own ends. To continue along the gang lines, red hat, black jeans, blue top, shiny badge, what difference does it make what the gang colours are?




WyrdRich -> RE: Evening With a Colonal (11/29/2006 3:31:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong
Isn't it Glenn that is stressing we need more body armor?  That the Iraqis are inept?  Where we can train our troops in 6 weeks.. and in how many YEARS now they STILL haven't "gotten it"?  There is no need.. we are fighting FOR them.  The Colonel sort of blows holes in all of Bush's hysteria he spews using Beck's  program.  If I ever meet Beck..I'll have to ask him what Bush's ass tastes like.

I admire you Rich.. you are going down fighting like the little trooper that you are.



        I have no more idea what Glenn Beck is stressing than I do what Tyra will be selling tampons and soap with tomorrow.  I've actually watched his program once, a special about the varieties of hate-speech on ME TV.  I didn't think it was all that well done, and Beck repeatedly stressed that he was a commentator, not a journalist (if only more people in media were so honest).

       Why else would you want the Colonel's impartial view from the ground to be handed over to such a voice than to make it easy to dismiss?

         And I'm not a "little trooper," Lotus, I'm a great big one with a DD214 in my wallet that puts me beyond the reach of Charlie Rangel's plan for a new draft.




Chaingang -> RE: Evening With a Colonal (11/29/2006 3:48:52 PM)

Good points there, Sinergy. I grew up in and around the Los Angeles "Avenues" gang of precisely the era you describe. Maybe some anthropologist might quibble with you over some details but I think you fleshed out the broad strokes quite well.

And yeah, I would take everything from the colonel with a grain of salt. I would tend to consider someone like a military colonel a person that is already indoctrinated toward military action as a solution for conflicts that have alternative peaceful solutions. Further, the size of his sample set and their truthfulness for any opinions are a major concern as was mentioned by others including Julia.

More troops will not help Iraq. It's time to get the fuck out. We should never have gone in the first place.




Sinergy -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/29/2006 7:09:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, I personally regard guerrilla warfare as being an organised, or at least semi organised group, often not militarly trained, fighting using non-traditional tactics against a traditionally organised army/government with a political/religous motiviation.
 

 
The problem in Iraq is that there are no organized groups fighting.  You have joe and bob and ali who import a weapon from Iran, blow up a Humvee, and then disappear into the populace.

Despite what Monkeyboy and his Ilk want to present, there is no organized resistance to American occupation.  There are people who dont want us there and try to kill us, but they dont answer to a higher command structure.

Sinergy
 




sleazy -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/29/2006 9:09:07 PM)

Thanks sinergy, that is actually what I was trying to say, however I'm stuck here with my work head on that isnt always the best head for saying what I mean to folks who dont deal with me day in day out on issues like this. :)

I was actually trying to say to Julieoceana that I do NOT think the Iraqi situation is one of guerrila warfare, but more likened the disorganised ragtag conflict to expected amongst the gang warfare people are more familar with.

Yes Ill admit I have some odd views on this topic, but I am one of those making jack from the situation, and get most of my data from people outside both the military and the media.




juliaoceania -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/29/2006 10:27:38 PM)

I think that my problem with the term "gang" warfare is that it has a very different connotation here. Gangs are very heirarchial in some ways, they have a command structure, they have an economic base, and they are as organized as any guerrilla army when it comes to making money and who has the right to which areas of economic exploits. In my eyes gangs are as much about economic activity as they are about "turf"... the stakes in Iraq are as much political as they are anything else.

I have a problem with the word "street gang" violence because I believe it under estimates the problem in Iraq. I do not think that the word is appropriate to be honest with you, unless you can define what "gang" means.




caitlyn -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/30/2006 5:49:33 AM)

General response ...
 
Believe me, I completely understand how easily this can be dismissed, because this is someone you don't know (which hasn't stopped one person here from claiming to know all about someone they don't know [;)]) ... but, it all becomes a little harder for me, because I know this person very well, and I know he is telling the truth as he sees it.
 
I hung out with him last night and we talked about this for a while. I'm told it's rude to bring these topics up to a soldier on leave, so I don't have a ton of additional information, but he did mention a few things and we talked about them a bit ... including his choice of gang warfare (I sort of segwayed into that, based on some posts here). If anyone wants this information, please email on the other side. [:)]




peterK50 -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/30/2006 5:57:22 AM)

I'm sure the Colonel has given his, one man's, opinion. However, Colonels don't become Generals by admiting mistakes or pointing out Generals mistakes either.
The General Accounting Office in two seperate reports listed a lack of body armor as a on going problem. "60 Minutes" did a piece on how the soldiers were welding pieces of metal on their vehicles that were lacking protection. Over 60 reporters have been killed since the fighting in Iraq began, probably not all inside the Green Zone. Sunni's are shooting at Shiites & they both shooting at the British/US troops. Civil War? Who cares.




caitlyn -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/30/2006 6:15:55 AM)

Isn't it true that the vast majority of these casualties are Iraqi journalists, with home made credentials from home made newspapers?
 
There was a big stir about the five Iraqi 'journalists' the Army was holding ... the American press had a field day with it, but when it all came down, they seemed to be practicing their journalism with AK's and IEDs. [;)]
 
I swear, the reason that we can't get anywhere with this issue (or any other issue) in this country, is that people on both sides seem to be willing to say anything to get their way. To be quite honest, I thing the hard anti-war crowd is just as full of shit as President Bush.
 
P.S. If you want to know more about welding armor to vehicles, try Googling the Sherman tank from the Second World War.




sleazy -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/30/2006 6:37:03 AM)

Just to try clarify, in the experience of the folks I know out there there are two ways to describe the situation out there to an average joe in the street that they can relate to. The first is as the OP's source said "He says what is going on is strictly urban gang warfare, much like the Crips and Bloods. ", the second to quote one of my friends who has been there on and of since desert storm is "the next best thing to complete bloody anarchy"*. Perhaps better terms would be urban unrest (although it applies in the rural areas too), or just a plain lack of law and order, but I maintain that Joe Public would understand if just told it was like gang warfare. A crip or blood gains immense kudos from his peers should he shoot a cop, imagine how much he would get if he and a couple of buds decided to shoot up the entire police station, or bomb a couple of police cars? Now imagine the police could do nothing about it! That is the situation troops are probably experiencing over there daily.

The way I would describe many things depends very much on who I am talking to, I would try to make my description fit things they understand.  If I say my car is blue it would make more sense to many than if I called it colour104 :) To try for a definition of gang, I shall not refer to websters, but to how I see gangs. A group of persons with an allegience to each other centred on a person, area or other common belief with a belief that their group has an absolute right to power where their influence extends often with an aim of extending that influence. So that can be 3 kids in a tree house, the crips, or even some governments.

Gang warfare/urban unrest is a police problem, however in this case the police are infiltrated/corrupt/just as bad/plain inept and an army designed, equipped and trained for comabt does not make an effective police force, even when assisting a proper police force, just ask any brit who served in ulster. An army is great for conquering, but not much use for pacifying.

Let me also state where I am getting my information from, the company I work for has staff all over the middle east at the moment, and right across middle Asia to Pakistan and Afghanistan, not to mention a great deal of Africa and Latin America. Wherever people do not trust the rule of law you will find people like those that work with me trying their best to protect people and property. If you watch TV closely, you may on occasion see them, or at the very least their brothers in arms. Yes they are those that are hated by many in uniform, they are those making serious money too, but on the flip side they go where the army often cannot or will not go undertake tasks that official forces cannot or will not do for whatever reason be it political or merely lack of resources. I dont rely on TV, the printed press, or the internet for my info, I can only act and plan based on the data I get from the people down there on the ground doing their job.

*from an email in my inbox this morning from a small town on the Euphrates.




cloudboy -> RE: Evening With a Colonal (11/30/2006 6:43:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

Our relative, the army Colonal is on leave from Iraq, here for two weeks. We had a wonderful party for him ... everyone who is anyone in our family was there.

Late in the evening, when all the wives, etc ... were off talking about whatever they talk about, I sat with the men and listened as they discussed the war. They let me stay ... I was wearing a tight top. [;)]

Some casual observations, directly from a man at the front (and certainly not a Republican man, rest assured). All these points are what was presented by the Colonal.

The men on the ground still have a lot of faith in the mission, don't think we are losing the war, and want to stay.

You never see any media outside the green zone. The troops laugh at the stories we are being given by the press, because they are so obviously bullshit, so as to be laughable.

There are two types of IED's. One is the home made type and is really not a threat. It might blow of a tire or mess up a transmission, but isn't a real danger to men inside armored hummers. As a side note, the Colonal insisted that unarmored hummers are not allowed outside the green zone. The second type of IED is imported from Iran and is very dangerous. Most of the cobat casualties are from these types.

The troops are glad that Rummy is gone, and believe it or not, are pretty much glad that the Democrats are in control of Congres, because they believe this will lead to more troops. These troops would be used to secure the Iran/Iraq border and drastically cut down on the very dangerous imported IED's.

This part baffled me, and to be honest, I'm having a hard time buying it ... but this post is about raw data, not anyone's opinion (other than the Colonal's, of course). Only about half of the American casualties are from combat operations. About 20% are training accidents that would happen even if these troops were not in Iraq. 10% are just stupidity, like driving around in a hummer with the windows down (this seems like a combatl casualty to me, but again, this is just presentation of information). 15% are troops engaging in things they shouldn't be doing ... the Colonal mentioned there were a lot of "Kelly's Hero's" in Iraq. 5% were suicides, which I find most distressing.

There is no civil war in Iraq, according to the Colonal, and if the press would get out in harms way, they would know this. He says what is going on is strictly urban gang warfare, much like the Crips and Bloods. Again, I'm not sure I buy this, but the information is, what it is.

Iraqi troops torture just about any prisoner they capture. American troops try to stop it, but all that does is make the Iraqi troops not bring them in. I'm making the assumption that the same applies to British troops, but that was never mentioned in the discussion.

American civilians are making mad jack in Iraq, and that is really pissing off our troops. The Colonal mentioned that many of his support staff was being used as combat troops and that civilians were taking their place.

He said that there have been no instances of Iraqi's using children as terrorist bombers. Iraqi's have a lot of love for their children and he doubts that children will ever be used to attack soldiers. Not so for women. He said that women very rarely know they are going to be bombers. They are told to take the car to the market and end up being in an explosive vehicle.

A long topic of discussion was corruption within the Iraqi forces. He categorized them as very brave, but very porly trained and very corrupt. He is dead set against pushing them towards quick self governing, and he insists that they are not even close to ready.

He said the lack of body armor is complete bullshit and always has been ... period. He said that most of the letters home bitching about body armor, were guys trying to get out and finding almost anything to gripe about. He said that the press keeps counting guys inside tanks, not wearing body armor when they make their calculations, and that nobody wears body armor in a tank.

That's about all that I can remember before the Crown took hold. It was an interesting night.

As a disclaimer, I'm sure some will flame away ... but to repeat, this is a presentation of information taken from a conversation from someone that is actually there, and in no way a presentation of anyone's opinion on any of this ... especially mine.

I'm sure I'll get flamed anyway. [;)]


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/helicopters-on-rooftops_b_34855.html

I don't cite this link as the most autoritative thing I've seen, but the problem with US soldiers is they don't speak Arabic, haven't gone native, live in enclaves, and don't otherwise know how things might be for regular folks. His disparagement of the press seems to miss the problem, which is that IRAQ is too unsafe for journalists to do their jobs.

In sum, I am not mollified by his observations.




LotusSong -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/30/2006 7:31:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stef

quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

Live on your feet or die on your knees, I say

Why do I get the feeling that saying it is all you'll do?  When you actually put that master plan into practice, be sure and let us know.  By the way, who is the Rhodes Scholar who told you this was the "best way" to combat gang graffiti?

~stef


What do you recommend then "Die on your feet or live on your knees"? 
 


 
 




LaTigresse -> RE: Evening With a Colonal (11/30/2006 8:29:09 AM)

While I absolutely do not doubt the validity of this post at all I am going to suggest that every person that has/is/will serve/d in Iraq has a vastly different point of view on these realities.

Their reality will be varied based upon their rank, job, and where in Iraq they have been, and when. Also coloured by the branch of the service they are in.  In addition, it will vary HUGELY based upon their aspirations for promotion within the military.

I only say this because I am surrounded by family and friends that are in various branches of the military/government service and have been, or continue to, serve in Iraq. The conversations at gatherings at very enlightening.




stef -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/30/2006 8:43:58 AM)

I recommend not pretending that you live your life following such aphorisms. 

~stef




philosophy -> RE: Evening With a Colonel (11/30/2006 9:19:32 AM)

..interesting and valid stuff Caitlyn......it is always useful to have first hand experience reported.
A general point that applies to all people in a foreign country. Unless we have trained in some form of cultural studies, we will always tend to view a new culture in terms of our own and even if we have trained in this we still make mistakes. i am in Canada right now, and i am still making such perception errors. In describing what is happening in Iraq as gang warfare i have no doubt that this is an honest view from your relative. However, it may (not definitely) be simply the closest he can come to understanding it. If we then treat the situation there as if it were the sort of gang warfare that we all know and love, then we may make a map/territory error.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625