>> ^tbone8ty:
thats to bad and all but maybe if u guys woke up and stop killing each other maybe we woulndt have to come in and babysit you.


Lol, where are the US forces in assisting with the human lives being lost in:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0904550.html

Algeria
Ivory Coast
Congo
Somalia
Sudan
Uganda

?

The only reason your troops are being sent to die in a foreign country is because of oil. How many barrels of oil do you buy with an exploded Humvee and five young dead US soldiers?

Evidence? Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, what does that say about Iraq? Rumour is, by the way, that Saddam Husssein killed Abu Nidal: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/22/iraq.israel.

Algeria
USSR
Thailand

Oh - I'm sorry. I didn't realize this was a US-bashing thread. My bad.

I love RAI.

My dad's family is actually from Morocco, and Algeria.

Morcae - What reports have you heard? From what sources? Lies like the ones that you are propogating spring up in every country where the residents feel threatened by immigrants. Don't spread ill-informed simplistic stereotypes about Muslim immigrants which are based on nothing more than prejudice and paranoia. Furthermore, when you say: "Plus there was the "Paris is burning" incident a year or two ago . . ." you reveal your own ignorance. The Paris riots were a direct result of the discrimination and social and economic deprivation which ethnic minority communities in France experience on a daily basis. Many of these people happen to be Muslims from former French colonies like Algeria and Morocco. Consequently right-wing politicians were quick to blame the riots on Islam - ignoring the true cause of the riots: socio-economic poverty and widespread racial-discrimination.

In response to your comment about there being no clear plan, the plan is for the additional troops to be a police force. This is right out of the counter-insurgency playbook. Look at successful counter-insurgencies throughout history and they all applied overwhelming force to police the populace, provide security, and prevent insurgent forces from operating freely. This may not be the dashing, clear mission objective such as "take Hill 317" or "defend this bridge until relieved" but again successful counter insurgencies have all used military forces in a police role.

To be honest I do not think 21,000 additional troops will be sufficient to establish the baseline of security necessary for an effective counter-insurgency. It is worth a try however because there is still a possibility it might slow down the escalation of sectarian violence, and if we cannot slow down said violence then nothing else we do will really matter. My key point here is that the additional troops for security purposes is straight out of the counter-insurgency playbook. Watch the movie Battle for Algiers sometime. Granted France eventually lost Algeria but they conducted a successful counter-insurgency against the FLN in Algiers several years prior to the mass uprisings that would eventually lead to independence. If you watch the movie, you will see that the French had a military presense on virtually every street corner. Attacks still got through, but the ability of the FLN to operate freely throughout the city was severely, severely limited.

"I agree that a force addition looks good on paper, but it looked good on paper back in Vietnam, the additional force elements there were just not enough to back out of what turned into a civil war. The same situation is being repeated here."

Except that Vietnam was a conflict between two sovereign nation-states. Granted both states were ethnically linked, but it was an external conflict between two states rather than an internal conflict in one state. In the event that the Soviet Union ever invaded Western Europe, US Special Forces teams would have been deployed throughout eastern Europe to make contact with dissident forces and train, equip and lead them on guerilla operations in the Soviet rear. In Vietnam, the North was doing the exact same thing to the South in preparation of a conventional invasion. The reason why we failed in Vietnam was because we treated the conflict as if the South had a domestic insurgency, rather a foreign infiltration by the North. Granted Iran is playing a part in supporting the Shiite militias, but such support pales in comparison to the guerilla combat operations that the PAVN was conducting in South Vietnam.

"If the 21,000 force commitment fails. What then?"

Then it fails and we try plan B, which I would hope would be a partitioning of the country.

"The US will have no maneuvering "

So are you saying we should hold said 21,000 troops in reserve for deployment in some later, alternative strategy? If not, then how does deploying the troops now limit our ability to maneuver? Look, the NIE makes it pretty clear that withdrawal in the next 12 to 18 months is not an option. In the face of that we either commit our available resources in one last push to make this thing work, or we can immediately turn to other options such as partitioning the country. Either way we will be in this for the long haul. With that in mind, giving the surge a try for 5-6 to months is worth a shot. If the security situation improves then we follow up on such success, if we see no improvement then we pursue the other less favorable options (i.e. partition). In the event it doesn't work, having additional forces on the ground gives us additional flexibility to pursue an alternate strategy. If said troops are not needed for an alternate strategy they can be redeployed, if they are then they are already in country availible for use.

"there will be another crushing morale plummet as US forces will pull out like they did in South Vietnam."

In the likely event that Iraq completely falls apart then such a moral plummet will occur regardless of whether or not the troop surge occurred.

Look, I am very pessimistic about our chances for success in Iraq. I think success would still be entirely possible were there still support for the War. I think the troop surge could possibly work, but probably won't. And I think if the surge fails we should look into a soft partition of the country, which is far less than ideal but will serve our interest of regional stability for better than a failed Iraqi state. In all likelihood I think the failed state is the outcome we're going to get however. The last three years in Iraq have basically been wasted, and I blame the bush administration entirely for that. If we are to succeed we basically need to start from square one. There simply isn't patience among the American people any more for such a long term commitment to Iraq however. I suspect that if the troop surge does not succeed, which is highly probably, patience for the war will be entirely over and a rapid withdrawal will follow leading to the collapse of the Iraqi government and a destabilization of the region. With that in mind what I think we should do is entirely a moot point because there will never be an opportunity to do any of it.

Few films can claim a change in government policy among their achievements. But Indigènes (Days Of Glory) by Rachid Bouchareb has made an impact at the highest level. The 128-minute film focuses on the actions of Moroccan and Algerian men who fought alongside French soldiers to liberate France from the Nazis in World War II. As well as inspiring French President Jacques Chirac to reintroduce pensions for France's North African war veterans, and recognise their vital contribution to victory, the lead actors gave such a strong performance that they were jointly honoured with the Best Actor award at Cannes this year.

The story:

1944-1945 - The liberation of Italy, Provence, the Alps, the Rhone Valley, Vosges, and Alsace was essential if the allies were to achieve victory. The assault was led by the First French Army, recruited in Africa in order to avoid the control of the German commissioners and the Vichy authorities. It was made up of around 200,000 men, including 130,000 “indigenes” (natives) - 110,000 North Africans and 20,000 Africans. The rest of the men were two thirds “pieds- noirs” (French colonials) and one third young frenchmen who had fled the occupation. Days of Glory focuses on the African/Arab volunteers who were subject to much racism and bigotry within the French army ranks even though they were willing to fight for a country they had never before stepped foot on. Victory, and the subsequent advance on Germany, was only achieved after much bloodshed and great losses.

The film relates the forgotten story of the soldiers known as “Indigènes” following the epic adventures of four of them: Abdelkader, Saïd, Messaoud and Yassir (le goumier) a mobile corps, reputed for their endurance, ground sense , and courage in close combat. They are sent to the front line. Each one is in pursuit of a different objective throughout the passage across France which they liberate, arms in hand.

Yassir joined for the booty he expected to collect.

Messaoud was surprised by the welcome from the French. He hopes to marry and live in France, to escape the arpatheid in Algeria.

Saïd wishes to escape poverty in Morocco, and hopes to find a family in the French army.

And Abdelkader who is fighting for liberty and equality, in joining the French army he hopes for France’s recognition, and more justice towards the colonised Algerians once the war is over.

http://www.indigenes-lefilm.com/

Just thought I should add this from Wikipedia:

"She is also one of the most celebrated supporters of Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the right-wing Front National political party, with which her husband is associated. With the publication of her 2003 book, A Scream in the Silence, the reclusive Bardot has come under considerable fire for anti-Muslim, and anti-gay comments. In May 2003, The MRAP announced that it would sue Bardot for her published views. Another organisation, The "Ligue des Droits de l'Homme" (League of Human Rights), announced that it was considering similar legal proceedings.

Bardot, in a letter to a French gay magazine, wrote in her defense, "Apart from my husband—who maybe will cross over one day as well—I am entirely surrounded by homos. For years they have been my support, my friends, my adopted children, my confidants".

On June 10, 2004 Bardot was convicted by a French court of "inciting racial hatred" and fined 5,000 €, which was the fourth such conviction/fine she has faced from French courts. Bardot's previous comments that led to convictions included ones encouraging civilian massacres in Algeria. The courts cited passages where Bardot referred to the "Islamization of France" and the "underground and dangerous infiltration of Islam", her descriptions of France's Muslim community, the largest in Europe. In the book she also referred to homosexuals as "fairground freaks" and she condemns the presence of women in government."

The Battle of Algiers (in Italian, La Battaglia di Algeri) is a 1966 black-and-white film by Gillo Pontecorvo based on the Algerian War of Independence from 1954 until 1962 against the French occupation. The film has been critically acclaimed for it's realistic and evenhanded portrayal of both sides of the conflict. It remains as one of the best cinematic discourses on struggles for independence.

In 2003, the film again made the news after the US Directorate for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict at The Pentagon offered a screening of the film on August 27, regarding it as a useful illustration of the problems faced in Iraq. A flyer for the screening read:

"How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at point-blank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to a mad fervor. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film."

According to the Defense Department official in charge of the screening, "Showing the film offers historical insight into the conduct of French operations in Algeria, and was intended to prompt informative discussion of the challenges faced by the French." The 2003 screening lent new currency to the film, coming only months after U.S. President George W. Bush's May 1, 2003 "Mission Accomplished" speech proclaiming the end of "major hostilities" in Iraq. Opponents of President Bush cited the Pentagon screening as proof of a growing concern within the Defense Department about the growth of an Iraqi insurgency belying Bush's triumphalism. One year later, the media's revelations regarding the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal lead critics of the war to compare French torture in the film and "aggressive interrogation" of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison.

Journalist: M. Ben M'Hidi, don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people?

Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets.

Journalist: The law's often inconvenient, Colonel.

Col. Mathieu: And those who explode bombs in public places, do they respect the law perhaps? When you put that question to Ben M'Hidi, remember what he said? We aren't madmen or sadists, gentlemen. Those who call us Fascists today, forget the contribution that many of us made to the Resistance. Those who call us Nazis, don't know that among us there are survivors of Dachau and Buchenwald. We are soldiers and our only duty is to win. Should we remain in Algeria? If you answer "yes," then you must accept all the necessary consequences.

I live in France, and did when on 9/11, it was a real tragedy not only for America, but for the whole world as well. I believe what westy was trying to say is that an attack from the world the US is trying to "free" was just a matter of time, and even though at the time of 9/11 you might not have thought so because we were all living in a idealistic bubble, retrospectively it all has some sick logic.

There are a lot of immigrants in France, many of them coming from north Africa ( Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) which are Muslim nations. I hear them talking and there is this growing dislike of America, they believe ( now i'm generalizing i hope you get that ) that the US are not waging a war on terror but on Islam. I recently read a poll saying that something around 60% of Americans still thought the US represents freedom and justice in the world... well wake up, i live in the rest of the world, and the Us is starting to look a hell of a lot live the Evil empire it supposedly fights. ( i know it's the government but the government represents the people, whether they like it or not.)

If I was from Algeria, where the French are already snotty towards me anyway despite me being a premier football player, I would do more than a simple head charge at Signore M. if he called me the son of a terrorist whore.