The Iraq Thread 2

[EiZei 0]

Bushie would probably be the first executed US president if he had organized 9/11, way too risky.

[Longinius 1]

"Bushie would probably be the first executed US president if he had organized 9/11, way too risky"

Thats why Bushie himself wouldnt have done it, but one of his many underlings. Bush wouldnt even have to be aware of such a thing.

Note I am not saying TBA did this, I am saying that IF they would have done such a thing, Bush would have been kept in the dark. Plausible denial and all that.

[-TU--33ker 0]

The UN and Frenchmen ruling the world!?

Oh well...all I can say is that here's one grateful Iraqi. And denoir - I was in Iraq a few weeks ago, and didn't see any problems with supplies...the electricity was cut off only 1 hour every few days, and about the water supply...you can't give enough since the heatwaves this time of year go up to 55*C.

where exactly have you been? and what were you doing there, if I may ask?

[Scorpio 0]

I went there to see some of my relatives. I stayed in Baghdad most of the time but I went to Duhok for a few days.

[-TU--33ker 0]

wow, I wouldn't have done this trip, still too dangerous there IMHO. Maybe the Baghdad area doesn't have the supply problems, but who knows how it looks like in the rest of the country?

[Scorpio 0]

Well I've heard from pretty much the rest of the cities that its the same situation in Baghdad. In Duhok though, it's really no danger there...the Shimahl we call it, meaning "safe haven".

[Cloney 0]

Wouldnt surprise me in the slightest if this attack was organized by the CIA or US govt.

That's about as likely as you getting your head out of your ass.

[Warin 0]

Cloney, I would suggest being more civil. Another outburst like that will result in a PR. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. If you think it's wrong, refute it rationally, dont flame.

[Schoeler 0]

"Bushie would probably be the first executed US president if he had organized 9/11, way too risky"

Thats why Bushie himself wouldnt have done it, but one of his many underlings. Bush wouldnt even have to be aware of such a thing.

Note I am not saying TBA did this, I am saying that IF they would have done such a thing, Bush would have been kept in the dark. Plausible denial and all that.

Longinius, how do you suppose they could have kept something like this a secret? In our society, which I feel is at times, too open, things like this couldn't be kept quiet. Too many people would have to be in the loop for an operation of that scale and the only way you could keep it under wraps is to kill them all afterwards. Our last President couldn't even keep a blowjob a secret. I swear, you guys blast the CIA and our incompetent government in one thread, and then give them way too much credit in another. Stay consistent for God's sake!

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

What the hell are American media telling your people I just had a chat with someone in North Carolina, apparently the US invaded Iraq because Iraq(!!) attacked the US on 9/11

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]ter·ror·ism

n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I'm taking the word "people" in that definition to mean ordinary disinterested third parties, i.e., your average citizen.  It's an important distinction to make.  Which leads me to this:

Quote[/b] ]Like the Boston Tea Party? Or your niffty little pirates (privateers) that continued to terrorize commercial vessles well after the revolution (that would be state-sponsored terrorism)? Not to mention the assasination of local British representatives. What makes you think it is any different between what your revolutionaries did to what ETA does today when they strap a bomb under the hood of a car of some local politician?

Those "commercial" vessels you referred to were supplying the enemy.  Cutting off the enemy's lines of communication and supply in the forms of naval blockades and interdiction is an acceptable and intelligent way to run a war.  As are attacking key supply points and munitions sites.  Besides the Boston Tea Party was a protest against unfiar taxation by ordinary citizens fed up with their government.  Thats like labeling the Alabama Civil Rights marchers terrorists.  Sure, the difference is the destruction of property, and while unlawful and capricious, it hardly amounts to terrorism.  As far as assasinations of British politicians and tories, its part of war.  If the British government didn't withdraw their diplomats once the war broke out, then thats their affair.  Spies and loylaists are not disinterested third parties.  They were lines of support, communication and offensive assets to the enemy, and thus made themselves legitimate military targets.  Executing spies summarily is a traditional aspect of warfare.

Quote[/b] ]Those that collaborated with the British were. And the British stationed in the colonies were targeted as well - customs officials were very popular targets if my memory serves me well. Just because there were few non-separatist civilians to harass does not mean you did not harass those that were there. British civilian commercial interests were the first ones to be hit, followed by British civilian political interests.

Again, the operative word here is "collaborated".  This implies they weren't disinterested or innocent third parties, which distinguishes targeting them from terrorism.  In World War II, the allies bombed German and Axis commerical interests, was that terrorism?  No, its an ordinary and important part of warfare.  George Washington didn't have the luxury of high altitude bombers, he resorted to simple scorched earth tactics when it came to destroying enemy commerce and infrastructure.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]We are talking about a bunch of farmers with muskets fighting an army with artillery and naval power, they were hardly like Al-Qaeda or any modern terrorist group.

Yeah, as opposed to those Al-Qaeda types that grew up in terrorist families. Their parents taught them the art of suicide bombing as soon as they could walk. Then they went to terrorist elementary school, terrorist high school and finally graduated from the famous Terrorist Academy. Only the top percentage of each class got to be international terrorists!

Those Al-Qaeda types aren't fighting on their own land, or to preserve their own families, way of life, or to establish their own government.  There is nothing wrong with national self-determination.  Being European, you of all people should understand this, considering your continent fought a lot of wars to earn that right.  Fighting for your ideology against a military opponent is a moral act, fighting for you ideology by infiltrating a foreign land and targeting its innocent civilians is a criminal and despicable act.  There is a huge difference between them.

Quote[/b] ]War is nasty. Guerilla war is nastier. It's a fact. When you are fighting a superior enemy, you must play dirty. In practice this means hitting soft targets. That was true in 1775 and that is true in 2003. Is it good? Is it justifiable? Impossible to answer.

Again, there is distinction which you yourself have made between the American revolution and Iraq.  Guerilla war and terrorism are not quite the same thing.  One can be moral, the other never can be.

[Warin 0]

What the hell are American media telling your people I just had a chat with someone in North Carolina, apparently the US invaded Iraq because Iraq(!!) attacked the US on 9/11        

Must be the gas fumes from all the stock cars, coupled with too much Budweiser!

I cant believe how easily some people (and this is not just an American phenomenon. I had to explain to a group of people during a BS session at my college about exactly how unlikely it was that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11) are led and manipulated by the media.

It makes me very sad for the future.

[Schoeler 0]

What the hell are American media telling your people I just had a chat with someone in North Carolina, apparently the US invaded Iraq because Iraq(!!) attacked the US on 9/11        

Must be the gas fumes from all the stock cars, coupled with too much Budweiser!

I cant believe how easily some people (and this is not just an American phenomenon.  I had to explain to a group of people during a BS session at my college about exactly how unlikely it was that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11) are led and manipulated by the media.

It makes me very sad for the future.  

North Carolina is the giveaway in that sentence. When people see nothing wrong with having carnal realtions with immediate family members, its not too difficult to convince them of other things.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Any chance it was a terrorist group that just doesn't like the UN or something along those lines?

MAybe it was mostly revenge against the United Nations for the sanctions imposed on them.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]ter·ror·ism

n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I'm taking the word "people" in that definition to mean ordinary disinterested third parties, i.e., your average citizen.  It's an important distinction to make.  Which leads me to this:

It does not, but even if it would, it would make no difference. When AQ is attacking US citizens they're not a disinterested thid party. The American political leadership is chosen by the people (well, more or less). From that point of view it make politically perfect sense to attack them.

Quote[/b] ]Those "commercial" vessels you referred to were supplying the enemy.  Cutting off the enemy's lines of communication and supply in the forms of naval blockades and interdiction is an acceptable and intelligent way to run a war.  

No, no, no. The state funded privateers raided everybody, friend as well as foe. They attacked ships that had nothing to do with your conflict and that continued well after the war.

Quote[/b] ]Besides the Boston Tea Party was a protest against unfiar taxation by ordinary citizens fed up with their government.

Yeah, just like the Unabomber was fed up with his governement. Or those that bomb abortion clinics are fed up with the laws and regulations of theirs. Terrorism includes any act of violence that serves the propagation of a political message. The word has been very over-hyped in recent years, but you have the definition that I posted.

Quote[/b] ]As far as assasinations of British politicians and tories, its part of war.  If the British government didn't withdraw their diplomats once the war broke out, then thats their affair.  Spies and loylaists are not disinterested third parties.  They were lines of support, communication and offensive assets to the enemy, and thus made themselves legitimate military targets.  Executing spies summarily is a traditional aspect of warfare.

You're missing one big point. There was no war. There was an uprising by the colonists. British citizens that through crimial acts of violence tried to get rid of their legitimate government. The rules of war do not apply to that. Go and try to shoot some of your local politicians and claim that it was a-ok, as you had declared war on them, and see what happens. The American revolution was no war. You were not a country. You were just a bunch of unhappy British citizens that decided to take the law into their own hands and betray their country. Had their rebellion not succeeded your "founding fathers" would have been executed and remembered as traitors and terrorists.

And this is the hallmark for terrorism: the terrorists do not represent a country of their own. And that's the separation between war and terrorism.

Quote[/b] ]Those Al-Qaeda types aren't fighting on their own land, or to preserve their own families, way of life, or to establish their own government.  There is nothing wrong with national self-determination.

What national self-determination? There was no such thing as an American nation. You were just a bunch of rebelling British colonists that betrayed their country.

When Washington and his merry men attacked government customs offices it's no different from when McVeigh blew up a federal building. The only difference is that Washington managed to get his revolution to succeed, while McVeigh did not. Had he succeeded future American children would be learning about the brave new founding fathers that faught an oppressive government.

So trying to put a moral criteria on terrorism is just as ludicrous as debating the morallity of war.

Quote[/b] ]Fighting for your ideology against a military opponent is a moral act, fighting for you ideology by infiltrating a foreign land and targeting its innocent civilians is a criminal and despicable act.  There is a huge difference between them.

So you think that what IRA, ETA etc do are moral acts? I know quite a few people who would disagree with that.

Btw, let me ask you this: Was the suicide bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 a terrorist attack?

If not, you are pretty much alone in having that opinion. Both in the Arlington Cemetary, where those marines are buried and the USMC officially declare the event as "terrorism".

If you do agree that it was terrorism, in what way is it different from what your founding fathers did to the British?

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2003....ex.html

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The number of U.S. service members who have died in Iraq since the end of the major phase of the war now surpasses the toll in the first phase of the conflict.

U.S. Central Command said a 3rd Corps Support Command soldier was killed Tuesday and two were wounded in an improvised explosive device attack on a military convoy near the town of Hamariyah.

The town is between Fallujah and Ar Ramadi.

The number of war dead after the major conflict was declared over May 1 by President George W. Bush is now at 139, surpassing the 138 U.S. service members to die during the first phase of warfare.

Between March 20, when the war began, and May 1, 138 U.S. service members died, according to the U.S. military.

[Tydium 0]

Here is an interesting article:

U.S. Troops running out of rifles

[ralphwiggum 6]

Here is an interesting article:

U.S. Troops running out of rifles

i already posted it at page 128.

basically, somewhat unprepared.

[Schoeler 0]

I'm taking the word "people" in that definition to mean ordinary disinterested third parties, i.e., your average citizen.  It's an important distinction to make.  Which leads me to this:

It does not, but even if it would, it would make no difference. When AQ is attacking US citizens they're not a disinterested thid party. The American political leadership is chosen by the people (well, more or less). From that point of view it make politically perfect sense to attack them.

Thats really a stretch there Denoir.  People elected the American government, the American Government placed troops in Saudi Arabia, so its ok for a Saudi millionaire to send trained killers to America and fly planes into buildings to kill American citizens and unlucky foreigners who may or may not have voted for the administration?  The victims of 9-11 were guilty of nothing other than doing what responsible citizens do every day, going to work to support their families.  They were very much disinterested third parties to the political fight between Osama and Uncle Sam.

And by the way, where the hell are the rest of the Americans on this argument?  Am I the only one with the balls to argue here?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Those "commercial" vessels you referred to were supplying the enemy.  Cutting off the enemy's lines of communication and supply in the forms of naval blockades and interdiction is an acceptable and intelligent way to run a war.  

No, no, no. The state funded privateers raided everybody, friend as well as foe. They attacked ships that had nothing to do with your conflict and that continued well after the war.

First of all you can't say the State sponsored the privateers in one paragraph and then declare they weren't a government and it wasn't a war in another.  Second, the "State" had no navy, so privateers to interdict shipping was the only route available to them.  I spent a lot of time reading Naval history, guys like Mahan and a few others.  I don't recall any accounts of us raiding or interdicting friendly ships during the Revolution.  I'd like to see an article or something.  In the meantime, I'll look this up.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Besides the Boston Tea Party was a protest against unfiar taxation by ordinary citizens fed up with their government.

Yeah, just like the Unabomber was fed up with his governement. Or those that bomb abortion clinics are fed up with the laws and regulations of theirs. Terrorism includes any act of violence that serves the propagation of a political message. The word has been very over-hyped in recent years, but you have the definition that I posted.

There is a big difference between dumping tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxation, and mailing semtex to University Professors because you have an anti-technology agenda and grave sociopathic tendencies.  The unabomber and abortion clinic bombers are terrorists.  The Boston Tea Party participants were protesters.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]As far as assasinations of British politicians and tories, its part of war.  If the British government didn't withdraw their diplomats once the war broke out, then thats their affair.  Spies and loylaists are not disinterested third parties.  They were lines of support, communication and offensive assets to the enemy, and thus made themselves legitimate military targets.  Executing spies summarily is a traditional aspect of warfare.

You're missing one big point. There was no war. There was an uprising by the colonists. British citizens that through crimial acts of violence tried to get rid of their legitimate government. The rules of war do not apply to that. Go and try to shoot some of your local politicians and claim that it was a-ok, as you had declared war on them, and see what happens. The American revolution was no war. You were not a country. You were just a bunch of unhappy British citizens that decided to take the law into their own hands and betray their country. Had their rebellion not succeeded your "founding fathers" would have been executed and remembered as traitors and terrorists.

And this is the hallmark for terrorism: the terrorists do not represent a country of their own. And that's the separation between war and terrorism.

No, I think you are missing one big point.  When a majority of a people decide to shake off the shackles of oppression, and they are unified by an ideology, and a territory, then its national self-determination and therefore a rebellion.  War usually follows a rebellion.  Are you denying the existence of rebellions or revolutionary wars?  I think history would easily refute such a claim.  A few citizens committing acts of violence against there government does not a rebellion make.  A vast majority of the citizens with the power to overwhelm a government violating the social contract does.  Small scale violence = criminal activity or treason.  Large scale violence in response to governmental negligence or violence = rebellion.  #1 is immoral and unrecommended.  #2 is a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and the Declaration of Independence.  And according to many highly respected philosophers, quite moral.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Those Al-Qaeda types aren't fighting on their own land, or to preserve their own families, way of life, or to establish their own government.  There is nothing wrong with national self-determination.

What national self-determination? There was no such thing as an American nation. You were just a bunch of rebelling British colonists that betrayed their country.

When Washington and his merry men attacked government customs offices it's no different from when McVeigh blew up a federal building. The only difference is that Washington managed to get his revolution to succeed, while McVeigh did not. Had he succeeded future American children would be learning about the brave new founding fathers that faught an oppressive government.

So trying to put a moral criteria on terrorism is just as ludicrous as debating the morallity of war.

25 years ago, ther was no such thing as a Bosnia either, now there is.  When a group of people united by ethnicity, ideology or geography determine they are and of right ought to be a nation, and they aren't guaranteed the rights they deserve by their current government, then they have the right to try and form their own nation.  Of course there will be a war, as nations don't like ceding any power or territory, so they should be prepared for a fight as well.  European history is filled with examples of this.  Hell, the First World War was really about realigning Europe's borders to make the citizenry happier than they were under falsely drawn borders laid out by the arbitrary decisions of a non-elected and archaic monarchic system.  McVeigh did not have the support of the people, he was an extremist.  Washington was a rebel, and an honorable man.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Fighting for your ideology against a military opponent is a moral act, fighting for you ideology by infiltrating a foreign land and targeting its innocent civilians is a criminal and despicable act.  There is a huge difference between them.

So you think that what IRA, ETA etc do are moral acts? I know quite a few people who would disagree with that.

Btw, let me ask you this: Was the suicide bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 a terrorist attack?

If not, you are pretty much alone in having that opinion. Both in the Arlington Cemetary, where those marines are buried and the USMC officially declare the event as "terrorism".

If you do agree that it was terrorism, in what way is it different from what your founding fathers did to the British?

I'd have to say that the IRA cause, that of having a free and independent Ireland is just.  If the goal can be achieved peacefully, then that is the route that should be taken, if not, then a rebellion should occur and the British miltary should be targeted in a war, and assuming victory, tossed out.  If the general population does not support a rebellion, and it has no chance of succeeding, then any smaller isolated violent acts not supported by the majority of the people consititute terrorism, especially if they target the innocent.  If all or most of Ireland wanted the British out, the British would have left long ago.  Since there has been no rebellion or revolutionary war, the IRA are terrorists.

The suicide bombing was a terrorist attack.  Why?  The U.S. didn't control the Lebanese government, they didn't invade to assume control or to occupy lebanon, they came to assist and to stop violence that was already occuring.  Basically, it was a misguided humanitarian mission.  Therefore, attacking them was terrorism.  The attackers were not engaging in a general uprising or throwing off the shackles of a government that had violated the social contract, they were committing an isolated act of violence in the midst of a chaotic and anarchic environment to prevent anyone from calming the region or interfering in the turmoil.  They weren't seeking stability, they wanted to make a political statement to support their isolated and extremist cause.  I will say however, that it was absolutely stupid to send the Marines there.  We had no business in Lebanon without a U.N. resolution.

[denoir 0]

Thats really a stretch there Denoir.  People elected the American government, the American Government placed troops in Saudi Arabia, so its ok for a Saudi millionaire to send trained killers to America and fly planes into buildings to kill American citizens and unlucky foreigners who may or may not have voted for the administration?  The victims of 9-11 were guilty of nothing other than doing what responsible citizens do every day, going to work to support their families.  They were very much disinterested third parties to the political fight between Osama and Uncle Sam.

Again, you go with your "right" and "wrong" which is pointless. Terrorism is as "right" or as "wrong" as war. It is a broad general term refering to the type of violence and the motivation for that violence used.

Quote[/b] ]And by the way, where the hell are the rest of the Americans on this argument?  Am I the only one with the balls to argue here?

Perhaps they realize that you are having a very illogical and biased position?

Quote[/b] ]First of all you can't say the State sponsored the privateers in one paragraph and then declare they weren't a government and it wasn't a war in another.  Second, the "State" had no navy, so privateers to interdict shipping was the only route available to them.  I spent a lot of time reading Naval history, guys like Mahan and a few others.  I don't recall any accounts of us raiding or interdicting friendly ships during the Revolution.  I'd like to see an article or something.  In the meantime, I'll look this up.

From the History News Network: Privateering, the American Revolution, and the Rules of War: The United States Was Born in "Terrorism" and Piracy

Quote[/b] ]There is a big difference between dumping tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxation, and mailing semtex to University Professors because you have an anti-technology agenda and grave sociopathic tendencies.  The unabomber and abortion clinic bombers are terrorists.  The Boston Tea Party participants were protesters.

There is no difference whatsoever between the Boston tea party and the bombing of abortion clinics. Both are a violent protest against the laws that result in the destruction of property.

Quote[/b] ]No, I think you are missing one big point.  When a majority of a people decide to shake off the shackles of oppression, and they are unified by an ideology, and a territory, then its national self-determination and therefore a rebellion.  War usually follows a rebellion.  Are you denying the existence of rebellions or revolutionary wars?  I think history would easily refute such a claim.  A few citizens committing acts of violence against there government does not a rebellion make.  A vast majority of the citizens with the power to overwhelm a government violating the social contract does.  Small scale violence = criminal activity or treason.  Large scale violence in response to governmental negligence or violence = rebellion.  #1 is immoral and unrecommended.  #2 is a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and the Declaration of Independence.  And according to many highly respected philosophers, quite moral.

What majority? You were British and the majority of the British people certainly did not support losing one of their colonies. And to top it all off, you're quoting the declaration of independance a doccument written by the rebels/sepearatists/terrorist/whatever to justify their action. It hardly qualifies as an unbiased reference. I'm not going to argue if it was right or wrong, becuase it is impossible to answer.

Quote[/b] ]25 years ago, ther was no such thing as a Bosnia either, now there is.  

Of course there was. The territory of their province and their separate identity goes back over 400 years. And you do have a real separation of ethnical and religious groups there. Bosnia existed centuries before America.

Quote[/b] ]When a group of people united by ethnicity, ideology or geography determine they are and of right ought to be a nation, and they aren't guaranteed the rights they deserve by their current government, then they have the right to try and form their own nation.

Only if they win. Look at your civil war. Where was the right of the confederation to leave the union? What would you think would happen today, if say Alaska decided to separate and join Russia. Would USA accept that. Not bloody likely.

USA became an independent entity once it broke free from Britain. They were not before that and they did not have any national identity. Talking about an "American nation" back then is like talking about an "Oklahoman nation" tody.

Quote[/b] ]Washington was a rebel, and an honorable man.

LOL. It's too bad you never got along with the Soviets. Your systems are so much alike. American dogma is nearly identical to Soviet dogma. Now, I can understand that people believed it 50 years ago, but today? And an educated intelligent man like yourself? Truly mindblowing.

Was Washington a honorable man? From British point of view, certainly not. From their point of view he was a criminal who betrayed his country.

My point being, you should be very careful by assigning moral values to things as war, rebellion and terrorism. The victor writes the history. When a terrorist succeeds he is a national hero. When he doesn't he's a criminal.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. Many in the Arab world see AQ as heroes fighting an evil superior enemy that has invaded their holy land.

Just like Acecombat expressed in this thread how he was pleased that the UN headquarters were blown up in Baghdad. I found the act contemptible, while he did obviously not.

Just like the British thought of Washington as a traitor and you think of him as a national hero.

So please separate your personal feelings and bias from the basic terminology. Terrorism is a general concept that has no intrinsic moral value (or lack of value).

Quote[/b] ]The suicide bombing was a terrorist attack.  Why?  The U.S. didn't control the Lebanese government, they didn't invade to assume control or to occupy lebanon, they came to assist and to stop violence that was already occuring.  Basically, it was a misguided humanitarian mission.  Therefore, attacking them was terrorism.  The attackers were not engaging in a general uprising or throwing off the shackles of a government that had violated the social contract, they were committing an isolated act of violence in the midst of a chaotic and anarchic environment to prevent anyone from calming the region or interfering in the turmoil.  They weren't seeking stability, they wanted to make a political statement to support their isolated and extremist cause.  I will say however, that it was absolutely stupid to send the Marines there.  We had no business in Lebanon without a U.N. resolution.

You were there as a controling military force. Your troops were a military target. They were there to enforce a political settlement favourable to American interests. For those Lebanese groups, they were the enemy ( a view shared by many in the region). Especially by your definitions and views, they were a legitimate target. So you're using double standards again: Blowing up the British that try to defend their soil is not terrorism while blowing up Americans that have invaded your country is terrorism. Right..  

[Gollum1 0]

I completely agree with Denoir. History is written by the winners, so one man´s terrorist is another man´s freedom fighter, just like today. In my opininon the American "founding fathers" were technically terrorists...but "terrorist" is not necessarily = "Evil."

[Cloney 0]

Here is an interesting article:

U.S. Troops running out of rifles

i already posted it at page 128.

basically, somewhat unprepared.

Well no. That story makes it sound worse than it actually is. I was having a conversation with Hellfish a few days ago and he says it that basically everyone there is being used as Infantry. That includes tank crew members and engineers.

By definition, tank crew members fight from INSIDE their tank and do not need small arms, infact they shouldn't have to use small arms in a conventional battle, they are simply there for defense if they need to abandon their tank.

Notice that the article doesn't say anything about infantry units? Thats because all 11Bs over there in the shit have the right stuff to get the job done. I guess you could call it being unprepared but that would be like me telling you to come over to my house and a fire breaks out while we are relaxing. Am I supposed to get mad at you when you forgot to bring a fire extinguisher? I mean EVERYONE brings a fire extinguisher with them EVERYWHERE they go.

These guys simply we're expecting to be performing the mission that they were assigned. That's all. I'm sure there are M16s on the way from the States.

[Badgerboy 0]

Here is an interesting article:

U.S. Troops running out of rifles

i already posted it at page 128.

basically, somewhat unprepared.

Well no. That story makes it sound worse than it actually is. I was having a conversation with Hellfish a few days ago and he says it that basically everyone there is being used as Infantry. That includes tank crew members and engineers.

By definition, tank crew members fight from INSIDE their tank and do not need small arms, infact they shouldn't have to use small arms in a conventional battle, they are simply there for defense if they need to abandon their tank.

Notice that the article doesn't say anything about infantry units? Thats because all 11Bs over there in the shit have the right stuff to get the job done. I guess you could call it being unprepared but that would be like me telling you to come over to my house and a fire breaks out while we are relaxing. Am I supposed to get mad at you when you forgot to bring a fire extinguisher? I mean EVERYONE brings a fire extinguisher with them EVERYWHERE they go.

These guys simply we're expecting to be performing the mission that they were assigned. That's all. I'm sure there are M16s on the way from the States.

Doesn't the fact that trained crewmen are being used as regular infantry slightly worrying? Despite this, it appears that the troops in Iraq are set to stay a while longer without being relieved.

[ran 0]

I guess you could call it being unprepared but that would be like me telling you to come over to my house and a fire breaks out while we are relaxing. Am I supposed to get mad at you when you forgot to bring a fire extinguisher? I mean EVERYONE brings a fire extinguisher with them EVERYWHERE they go.

well .. each house or building of ssome importance here HAS to have a working fire extinguisher ready , just in case if

[Cloney 0]

I guess you could call it being unprepared but that would be like me telling you to come over to my house and a fire breaks out while we are relaxing. Am I supposed to get mad at you when you forgot to bring a fire extinguisher? I mean EVERYONE brings a fire extinguisher with them EVERYWHERE they go.

well .. each house or building of ssome importance here HAS to have a working fire extinguisher ready , just in case if

Its an example, you don't have to over analyze it and write a thesis.