The Iraq Thread

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (toadeater @ 14 May 2003,14:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's undoubtedly an Iraqi iLoo prototype.

<span id='postcolor'>

Related leak - er - link.

[Acecombat 0]

Yeah Sodium is the most reactive metal so a contatc with water and KABOOM

But i wanna see some serious stuff uneartheed like radioactive stuff .. havent seen any of it

[Badgerboy 0]

Sodium?

Cesium is the king of alkali metals. (Well Frankium is actually but its radioactive. No handling that for jollies).

Ever seen a tiny little peice of cesium thrown into a glass bowl of water? Kerblammo! My old school used to have some stored, but it was banned a long time ago (?In school experiments). So it just sat there, as no bugger wanted to get rid of it. Infact, most the schools stock of chemicals were illegal, they just never got round to getting rid of them.

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ 14 May 2003,11:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So it just sat there, as no bugger wanted to get rid of it. Infact, most the schools stock of chemicals were illegal, they just never got round to getting rid of them.<span id='postcolor'>

Just flush it down the toilet.

-=Die Alive=-

[PitViper 0]

Iraqis Mourn Lost Family Members at Mass Grave

[Jinef 2]

Ahh yes it's all coming back to me now, but how, if it's allowed in high schools, does the US think that they are going to persuade us it's a WMD?

Mass graves eh, a guy i knew was in Bosnia dealing with that stuff, not very nice.

[Leveler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ 14 May 2003,17:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sodium?

Cesium is the king of alkali metals. (Well Frankium is actually but its radioactive. No handling that for jollies).

Ever seen a tiny little peice of cesium thrown into a glass bowl of water? Kerblammo! My old school used to have some stored, but it was banned a long time ago (?In school experiments). So it just sat there, as no bugger wanted to get rid of it. Infact, most the schools stock of chemicals were illegal, they just never got round to getting rid of them.<span id='postcolor'>

I is not the metal that explodes, it is the hydrogen produced when it reacts with water..

[Die Alive 0]

I went through the first 100 pages of the Dogs of War topic. Here's some fun things some people had to say:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Denior @ 23 Mar. 2003,14:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that the mindless optimism that some are displaying (if i can charecterise it as that) is perhaps a little misplaced. I suppose that lack of military education is to blame for that. They are pushing through Iraq yes, but they are not taking any ground. And they can't do shit once they reach Baghdad. It's the same mistake that the Soviets did in 1979 in Afghanistan. Both the American and British politicians are aware of the situation. The signs are all there, just listen to what they really say instead of hearing what you wish to hear.

Page 61 Dogs of War<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Denior @ 24 Mar. 2003,04:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Second problem is Baghdad, who nobody has a solution for right now. Colition forces are very limited by their strategy to avoid civilian casualties. It allows Iraq to move it's troops into civilian urban areas, protecting them. The Iraqi command and control structure seems to be very intact and there are really no signs of any break-up in the lines. The resistance in the smaller town is indicative of what is to come in Baghdad, and things are not looking too bright right now.

Page 70 Dogs of War<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ 24 Mar. 2003,05:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> The problem is that the coalition has not enough manpower to defeat any resistance in Iraq. They couldn`t do it in many years. Supressed people fight rather hard, e.g. Ireland, Palestina,... So there will ever be some hotspots and terror and so on.

Rushing north and letting the enemy close in behind you is pretty dangerous. Tank rushs only work in C&C

Page 71 Dogs of War<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bn880 @ 24 Mar. 2003,10:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Winters @ Mar. 24 2003,10:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

The coalition will prevail just not as quickly and easily as many first believed. <span id='postcolor'>

I doubt that.  

I'm in total agreement with Denoir on this issue, and Bals... this is not going well, and will go worse.  The Coalition turned out NOT to be liberators, this is their demise.  I belive.

Page 75 Dogs of War<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 24 Mar. 2003,19:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fight for Baghdad will not be decided in the city itself, but rather how well we execute in the next few days. If we can maul and then roll up the RG divisions south of Baghdad, that will substantially weaken what will ultimately be the Baghdad garrison. If we can do that, the absolute best case scenario is we role into Baghdad with no greater opposition than irregulars in small groups. That isn't going to happen though. More likely, we'll hit the RG divisions hard, but we simply don't have the strength or position right now to cut their remnants off from Baghdad, and that is the key to taking Baghdad.

Page 81 Dogs of War<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ 24 Mar. 2003,20:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe your intentions are good - but the result is (I think) going to be a surprise.

Just to keep this reply in the right thread: I'm stunned that so many of you believe the war will be over when Baghdad and the butcher falls! If anything I predict there will be bombings and other terrorattacks and generally instability. The war will perhaps be over as a campaign - but I bet the fighting will continue - perhaps like in Chechny, Afghanistan etc.

Page 82 Dogs of War<span id='postcolor'>

-=Die Alive=-

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's some fun things some people had to say:

<span id='postcolor'>

Well where is the fun ?

I go a step further:

Shia´s main leader has returned from iran exile. Shia´s form the majority of Iraq´s population and the leader already stated that US presence won´t be tolerated. On a contrary they want to make Iraq an islamic country. One thing Saddam was able to cope with. I doubt coalition troops - companies- civil workers, will be able to keep them down without using the same measures as Saddam did. A long term presence of Us troops ? No way.

By now it looks like the coalition forces make the Iraqi people dependant on their decisions. In my opinion this will not be tolerated very long. And with the terrorist attacks in neighbour countries the mood within the silent supporters of a violent non-US solution will gather new strength.

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ 14 May 2003,14:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Here's some fun things some people had to say:

<span id='postcolor'>

Well where is the fun ?<span id='postcolor'>

Want me to post a pic of that boy with no arms or legs?

I'll do it for "fun"

-=Die Alive=-

[bn880 5]

Yeah I admit completely I was wrong about the resistance of the Iraqis. Anyway, the colition are liberators in some parts maybe, but not in Baghdad.

I'm not trying to hide anything, I was really surprized that they were not prepared for the invasion properly.

EDIT: I like making predictions like that, and in this case I could have never predicted this kind of defeat in Baghdad...

[PitViper 0]

Die Alive:

Thanks for the recap.

[bn880 5]

Yes thank you very much for rubbing it in.

FYI I did predict how and when Baghdad would be attacked pretty well, but I didn't post here.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ 14 May 2003,19:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I went through the first 100 pages of the Dogs of War topic. Here's some fun things some people had to say:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Denior @ 23 Mar. 2003,14:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that the mindless optimism that some are displaying (if i can charecterise it as that) is perhaps a little misplaced. I suppose that lack of military education is to blame for that. They are pushing through Iraq yes, but they are not taking any ground. And they can't do shit once they reach Baghdad. It's the same mistake that the Soviets did in 1979 in Afghanistan. Both the American and British politicians are aware of the situation. The signs are all there, just listen to what they really say instead of hearing what you wish to hear.

Page 61 Dogs of War<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Denior @ 24 Mar. 2003,04:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Second problem is Baghdad, who nobody has a solution for right now. Colition forces are very limited by their strategy to avoid civilian casualties. It allows Iraq to move it's troops into civilian urban areas, protecting them. The Iraqi command and control structure seems to be very intact and there are really no signs of any break-up in the lines. The resistance in the smaller town is indicative of what is to come in Baghdad, and things are not looking too bright right now.

Page 70 Dogs of War<span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'>

Hehe. Well, I stand by that since I was operating under the assumption that the Iraqis would actually fight and not just surrender

You must admit though that the first two weeks of combat were entirely inconsistent with what happened afterwards. If you look at the fighting that took place at Umm Qasr, population 1,000 a reasonable interpolation that Baghdad, populatiom 6,000,000 would not fall that easy.

I'm of course bloody happy that it did give up without a fight because you can imagine the enormous civilian death toll that a siege or urban ops would have meant.

One thing that us anti-war people were right about though was the post-war situation in Iraq which is just about as unstable as we predicted. There is still lot of unfinished business though that will be interesting to see how it develops (i.e Kurdish question etc).

[Acecombat 0]

Its gonna shape up the way US is gonna mould it

US has its own plan in the region and the american foreign policy has always shown how unconsiderable it is to others when its own interests are in the way so you all getthe picture .....its gonna be a 'american are friends' sort a govt which pussy foots around doing nothing except whats it told to do initially from the americans especially when it comes to oil reserves

Already Powell and Bush have said a Islamic govt in Iraq isnt good for 'them ' (care to explain how?) its the peoples choice damnit not yours.Wonder what type of puppet govt they want

[Guest]

Bah! You are all too pessimistic. All they said that they won't allow is an Islamic party, a communist party, the Baath party, any party that does not support US national secuity interest ... besides that the Iraqis will be free to choose.. um..hmmm...

[Acecombat 0]

Yeah welcome to Afghanist.. oops Iraq in.. 1979 oops 2003 ....

And they say Soviet's were the bad guys when they invaded Afghanistan in 1979 the similarities between both these conflicts are very identical except the ultimate ending

[Schoeler 0]

Well, it makes sense not to allow a party in there that is going to increase problems for us. But I will say one thing, I dont care if its the pink spandex jumsuit wearing limpwrist happy go lucky party that gets installed. Whichever it is, it will be the one that is going to be ready and willing to sell us all that oil and make old Uncle Dick Cheney a rich man. I really lost a lot of faith in the Bush Administration with that Haliburton move, and I didn't have much to start with.

[Guest]

War crimes charges filed against Gen. Tommy Franks

Hihihi Hohoho This truly made my day

You just have to adore the Belgians and their silly little law

Of course this has very little consequence but I think it will be at least a minor practical inconvenience since Franks can't show himself in Belgium now or he will be arrested. NATO HQ is in Brussels so it means no more NATO meetings for Tommy boy

Edit: On closer inspection of the article, this is not entirely settled yet. A Belgian prosecutor must first review the case and within a month decide if it is valid under Belgian law.

Although there is probably going to be a lot of political pressure from the Belgian government to drop the case it's quite possible that it will go through as it has in other cases (like Sharon and Arafat). If the suspect then fails to appear before the court an arrest warrent will be issued. It's very unlikely that Franks would actually go to Belgium and face the charges.

I wonder how it works with the extradition laws within the EU   I can't imagine that this will prevent Franks to visit any EU country.

[Acecombat 0]

Yay i wanna sue the American govt next for illegally trespassing , bribery , theivery and fraud and killing people (collteral damage ..is this what is it called these days?)

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 14 May 2003,23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bah! You are all too pessimistic. All they said that they won't allow is an Islamic party, a communist party, the Baath party, any party that does not support US national secuity interest ... besides that the Iraqis will be free to choose.. um..hmmm...  <span id='postcolor'>

I like that! Voting the US way is so easy!

[Jinef 2]

Die Alive did what i couldn't be arsed to do, well done!

I'm slightly dissapointed you didn't dig out any of my colourful predictions though

But as i have previously said i thought there would be a bit more resistance. Someone compared the Iraqis to the Irish, the Irish freedom groups have killed 4000 people, AQ are a bunch of sissies to these Celtic warriors! And 4000 are the people who have been registered and claimed for, there are many, many many more that have gone missing and dissapeared without a trace, these aren't included. In the worst years of the early 70's 100's of civvies were dying a year, and there were daily riots.

True if AQ had managed to get all the planes into intended targets etc the would just about reach this figure without the 70 years of constant hatred, very clean and efficient, then it would be hard not to say well done you Islamic freedom guys!

Oh right yeah - bad terrorists!

[Die Alive 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ 15 May 2003,13:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Die Alive did what i couldn't be arsed to do, well done!

I'm slightly dissapointed you didn't dig out any of my colourful predictions though  <span id='postcolor'>

Ya sorry, I went through the first 100 or so Dogs of War thread and basically was looking for key words like Baghdad or anything that has some opinions with it. Maybe you posted yours in this thread, that I'll check up maybe later today.

-=Die Alive=-

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Um Qasr gets civic rule and the US may accept sanction 'suspension' rather than  scrapping as a possible work around.

+

"One of the top U.S. generals in Baghdad said U.S. forces had begun a new initiative on Thursday to create a sense of order in the capital, boosting security patrols and collecting refuse."

I presume it is not US forces themselves collecting refuse!

 

Yes citizens! Help us win The War On Litter! Forwards to Victory!

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ 14 May 2003,08:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">War crimes charges filed against Gen. Tommy Franks

Hihihi Hohoho This truly made my day

You just have to adore the Belgians and their silly little law

Of course this has very little consequence but I think it will be at least a minor practical inconvenience since Franks can't show himself in Belgium now or he will be arrested. NATO HQ is in Brussels so it means no more NATO meetings for Tommy boy

Edit: On closer inspection of the article, this is not entirely settled yet. A Belgian prosecutor must first review the case and within a month decide if it is valid under Belgian law.

Although there is probably going to be a lot of political pressure from the Belgian government to drop the case it's quite possible that it will go through as it has in other cases (like Sharon and Arafat). If the suspect then fails to appear before the court an arrest warrent will be issued. It's very unlikely that Franks would actually go to Belgium and face the charges.

I wonder how it works with the extradition laws within the EU   I can't imagine that this will prevent Franks to visit any EU country.<span id='postcolor'>

Gotta love us Belgians