Is the Iraqi War rehearsal for the Boyz in da Hood?"

SURVEY SAYS......YES! (I think it might be if this gentrificatoin thing that's goin on in cities doesn't pan out.)

Urban warfare: Is Iraq a rehearsal for US hoods?
by Mike Davis

The young American Marine is exultant. �It�s a sniper�s dream,� he tells a Los Angeles Times reporter on the outskirts of Fallujah. �You can go anywhere, and there so many ways to fire at the enemy without him knowing where you are.�

�Sometimes a guy will go down, and I�ll let him scream a bit to destroy the morale of his buddies. Then I�ll use a second shot.�

�To take a bad guy out,� he explains, �is an incomparable adrenaline rush.� He brags of having �24 confirmed kills� in the initial phase of the brutal U.S. onslaught against the rebel city of 300,000 people....

The battle of Fallujah, together with the conflicts unfolding in Shiia cities and Baghdad slums, are high-stakes tests, not just of U.S. policy in Iraq, but of Washington�s ability to dominate what Pentagon planners consider the �key battlespace of the future� - the Third World city.

www.sfbayview.com...

Care to point me to the quote where somebody, besides the author of the article, says that Iraq is specifically a rehearsal to invade the ghetto?

Your survey of one doesn't convince me, sorry

[Edited on 4-28-2004 by Esoterica]

Read the article. See what RAND is trying to do. Stop witht he knee jerk reactions.

Originally posted by Colonel
Read the article. See what RAND is trying to do. Stop witht he knee jerk reactions.

I did read the article.

To help develop a geopolitical framework for urban war-fighting, military planners turned in the 1990s to the RAND Corp.: Dr. Strangelove�s old alma mater. RAND, a nonprofit think tank established by the Air Force in 1948, was notorious for war-gaming nuclear Armageddon in the 1950s and for helping plan the Vietnam War in the 1960s.

These days RAND does cities - big time. Its researchers ponder urban crime statistics, inner-city public health and the privatization of public education. They also run the Army�s Arroyo Center, which has published a small library of recent studies on the context and mechanics of urban warfare.

One of the most important RAND projects, initiated in the early 1990s, has been a major study of �how demographic changes will affect future conflict.� The bottom line, RAND finds, is that the urbanization of world poverty has produced �the urbanization of insurgency� - the title, in fact, of their report.

�Insurgents are following their followers into the cities,� RAND warns, �setting up �liberated zones� in urban shantytowns. Neither U.S. doctrine, nor training, nor equipment is designed for urban counterinsurgency.� As a result, the slum has become the weakest link in the American empire.

The RAND researchers reflect on the example of El Salvador, where the local military, despite massive U.S. support, was unable to stop FMLN guerrillas from opening an urban front. Indeed, �had the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front rebels effectively operated within the cities earlier in the insurgency, it is questionable how much the United States could have done to help maintain even the stalemate between the government and the insurgents.�
...
However, Capt. Thomas - whose article is provocatively entitled �Slumlords: Aerospace Power in Urban Fights� - like RAND, is brazenly confident that the Pentagon�s massive new investments in MOUT technology and training will surmount all the fractal complexities of slum warfare.

One of the RAND cookbooks, �Aerospace Operations in Urban Environments,� even provides a helpful table to calculate the acceptable threshold of �collateral damage� - aka dead babies - under different operational and political constraints.

Nowhere does RAND say "We invaded Iraq to practice for urban warfare." Now, the battles in Iraq may be good practice and a good test of MOUT, but that is far from the reason we invaded Iraq being specifically for that practice and testing.

I asked a simple question, provide the quote. You failed to do so. Instead you told me to "read the article."

The first line of your post- "SURVEY SAYS......YES!"

That is stating the idea that we invaded Iraq to practice urban operations as fact, not speculation. If you want to speculate, go ahead. But it is dishonest to link to an article which does not prove that speculation with the intention of trying to make people believe that it in fact does prove your speculation. Were you not counting on people to read the article, or were you counting on all of us taking the author's opinion as gospel truth?

I don't care if you're a mod, I don't care if you see yourself as the brotha's hero fighting the man, I don't care if we're in the crotch rot zone of ATS. What you posted is dishonest, and not becoming of someone who would want a rational discussion of the issue.

You're the one with a knee-jerk reaction, not me.

This seems to go directly hand in hand with the "Civilian Relocation Program". I'm actually starting to get a bit scared over this.

My prediction: We get slammed by another "terrorist" attack right around October; Marshall Law is invoked, and these tactics are deployed; elections are called off- Bush is given official title as "King of the World" and everyone else loses.

I'm not siding with you on political parties (I think we are screwed either way, personally... just not all the war with Kerry), but I really wouldn't doubt that Iraq was/is being used as a training ground... especially after reading all the crap about the "Citizen Relocation Program" and the hundreds of prisoner transport vans sitting in Texas. I think we are gonna be totally screwed by next summer. In all my psychic "foresights" I cannot see past 2005 it scares the hell out of me.

*EDIT: Es, stop taking every little word or phrase literally. I didn't come to the conclusion that this was definite based off the "survey says" remark. Actually, I took it more as "Colonial Says"... acting like you cannot think for yourself does not make you look smarter. Actually, I'd say you are lookin for a fight... only reason I can think of to point out something like that. Eh?

[Edited on 28-4-2004 by Earthscum]

A loaded title, begging the speculative answer, backed by a sketchy article, comming from a blatently biased "moderator"....Hmm,
However,

Of course the millitary is "learning" from actual combat use of snipers and troops in the urban environment.

But,

In order to utilize this tactic on our own people, the millitary would have to REALLY be mentally ready to SHOOT THEIR OWN PEOPLE EN-MASS, I would see millitary command and control breaking down before them being able to snipe citizens and round us up for relocation....Why? simple...this year in philly alone almost 300 murders occured (year not over yet, this is just one city), let alone shootings that werent fatal....there are a lot of guns in the hands or crooks and criminals now, if the "man" (millitary) tried to do either sniping/urban warfare or relocation activities here, there would be a lot of shooting going on, and this is just from the already anti-estasblishment, gang culture...not counting all of us that would also resist such tactics used here...
Could we utilize lessones learned elsewhere? most definatly.

It's very dificult to get past the "Colonel's" racism and political myopia, but the King of Hypocrits could have a point that could be twisted around to a practical theory. The military is getting great urban warfare training on a non-NWO cooperating country.

The rest of the theory goes to pot, as the U.S. military will not be used in the U.S.

Where are you people from!?!?! THomas? Hello?
It's called POSSE COMITATUS.
That act has been repeatedly violated by the Bush Administration. Simply stated, it prohibits any DOD apperatus from Law Enforcement work against the US populace.

As to the article & post: it's a reasonable conclusion to say that the environment we live in now WILL have some outcome along the lines of that scenario. If you have trouble with that concept, postulate the outcome of the LA Riots in today's context.
Additionally, the World is a GHETTO. Most all urban 3rd world cities fit that definition. You people don't really think that it all comes from Middle Eastern Mt. Caves or Back Jungles in South America, do you?
No, it's cities - that's where the war game scenarios come from & that's the primary theater of conflict for the 21st Century.

Thanks, Bout Time. I swear. I bring in an article sans race and even then I get accused of racism! And repugnants spoiling for a fight. 0h, for the repugnants that don't know, "Survey says..." is just the Colonel's rhetoric. There is no real survey unless I link to it. There are no adjoining statistics.



Sheesh.

The boys in the hood are always hard, come talking that Shi.t and well pull your card.



I can see it happening. If they are going to be as soft as the are in Iraq, now. The will have no chance in the hood.

[Edited on 29-4-2004 by SpittinCobra]

I always thought Easy said "Card."

Originally posted by Colonel
I always thought Easy said "Card."

LOL, it is card. his hoe card.

IF what you assert is truth how can you still support a party that aims to disarm all law abiding American citizens? Do you honestly believe that if Kerry is elected that the military industrial complex will just "go away"? I don't.
I also doubt very much that American troops would be used against citizens on any kind of large scale. UN troops are a completely different story. I think I'll hold on to my guns just in case we need to find out who the better snipers are. The locals who know the terrain with a Remington 700 or the "troops" with an M24 and feeling a bit lost.

We aren't against gun ownership. Just to put a few regulations makes it that we are taking your guns away? That doesn't make sense. Stop buying into the propoganda.

What "regulations" would you like to see? There are thousands already. I want to be able to buy an AR-15 for long range target competition but I can't because of your buddy Bill Clinton. What about your mistress Feinstien? "Mr. and Mrs. America, Turn them all in." Does not sound like "regulation" to me. It sounds like theft both of property and rights.

What is an AR-15 for but to kill people? If you don't have a record or anything like that, you just hav eto wait 2 weeks for a background check and thenyou can have your weapon. What's the big deal?

If the liberals had taken full control during the Clinton years you bet your ass they would have taken our guns. They were ready to label deer rifles as sniper weapons and ban hand guns all together. They were ready to ban private sales of all weapons without a federal check. They called it a "gun show" loop hole but, it didn't have to be a "gun show" to be illegal. All private sales would have to be regulated by the government. They also wanted a photo id and fingerprint of people who bought guns to register the people with ATF. Pretty scary stuff. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

www.totse.com...

Variable

The AR-15 is(was) one of the most widely used guns for long range (300 Meter) target competition.
No I can't "just wait 2 weeks" for an AR-15 I can't legally own one because of a stupid law that has ZERO affect on violent crime.
BTW I don't have to "wait" at all for any firearm purchase as I have a concealed handgun permit and the FBI has scoured every orafice of my life already .

Why are the Dems such the boogey moster to you? We aren't trying to take your guns but you beleive all the repugnant propoganda. You can have your guns. N(ot my problem.

Here is a bit of education for you Colonel:
www.clintongunban.com...

It has nothing to do with the Republicans or the Democrats. It has everything to do with the record of the people who are running for office. Kerry has an awful record regarding the 2nd amend.. He is Ted Kennedy lite or more likely a puppet of Ted's like Bush is a puppet of Cheney.
I hate them all but I have to decide who I hate less...