The Iraq Thread 2

[ralphwiggum 6]

“Plz elaborate on this how much do you know aboutme and my personal life to make such a blatantly arrogant and pathetically ignorant comment?â€

<snip>

Is that enough ignorance for you?

how about both of you knock it off? flaming is not welcome here.

[denoir 0]

Our government took the initiative to act while many sat idle.

You mean the same way Saddam took initiative to act when he invaded Kuwait?

Make no mistake about it, the UN did not approve of this war and the world did not want it. So please, take all the credit for it, but please don't act like you did it for the rest of us. We were against the war in the first place and still firmly believe that it was wrong.

Quote[/b] ]My statement meant to put forward a general sense of our accomplishments and how we have achieved this independently for the most part.

What exactly are your accomplishments? Getting your boys killed? Killing a lot of civilians? Not being able to restore even the basic functions as water and electricity - even after seven months of occupation? Not being able to provide the most elementary security?

If these are the things you are proud of, I don't want to know the things you are ashamed of.

Quote[/b] ]I am referring to a group of people, a collective of those who think that the collation forces are failing in their mission to rebuilt Iraq.

Well, I suppose you know better than Bremer who know went to Plan C because the rebuilding of Iraq is failing so miserably. Stop living in a fantasy world and look around at what's happening. Right now the Iraqis are in most ways worse off than they were under Saddam. Their euphoria about Saddam being overthrown is gone a long time ago, replaced with the harsh reality of the occupation: very limited water and electricity, no security and things are only getting worse.

From US point of view things are only getting worse as well. Terrorist density in Iraq has sky-rocketed. It's become the new Mecca for terrorists that can operate freely due to the inadequate number of US troops, plus they get to kill Americans. Your casualties are rising exponentially. You are going to pay the entire reconstruction bill all by yourself since you so tactfully pissed the rest of the world off before the war.

Yay! Things are indeed going great!    

Edit: ps. good to see a true "patriot" in this thread - I was getting very bored with more or less agreeing with everybody. It almost reminds me of the FSPilot days *sniff*  

[bn880 5]

Our government took the initiative to act while many sat idle.

You mean the same way Saddam took initiative to act when he invaded Kuwait?

Just wanted to say, thanks for a good laugh Denoir, that was kind of priceless.

[RedLion 0]

“ps. good to see a true "patriot" in this threadâ€

**Talk about a good laugh!

“Make no mistake about it, the UN did not approve of this war and the world did not want it.â€

I don’t know what you consider to be the “real†world but it is not called a collation for no reason. And you know what; as far as Iraq is concerned, we and those other countries will gladly take the credit for our efforts in dethroning a tyrant who challenged all these UN resolutions for so many years. http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

“What exactly are your accomplishments? Getting your boys killed? Killing a lot of civilians? Not being able to restore even the basic functions as water and electricity - even after seven months of occupation? Not being able to provide the most elementary security?

If these are the things you are proud of, I don't want to know the things you are ashamed of.â€

**You obviously did not bother to read my post. I suggest you read before posting unsubstantiated and speculative data. The same could be said about many wars that have been fought in the past.

“Well, I suppose you know better than Bremer who know went to Plan C because the rebuilding of Iraq is failing so miserably. Stop living in a fantasy world and look around at what's happening.â€

**If you are going to quote and article or for that matter use it for constructing and argument at least make it relevant to your statements. The “Plan C†is about the possible transfer of power and the difficulties it represents therein. It does not however, mention or care to imply the “failing of the coalition forces in their efforts to re-build Iraqâ€. Who is living in the fantasy world now? On a different note, this article is very interesting. It highlights the many concerns regarding security and the complexities of ethnic and tribal power and how they are being forged to create a stable representation of a governmental power.

“Their euphoria about Saddam being overthrown is gone a long time ago, replaced with the harsh reality of the occupation: very limited water and electricity, no security and things are only getting worse.â€

**Yes for those who still want to see Saddam in power I could not agree more! Yet on the other side of the same coin, there is a clear majority who are more than pleased that the **hole tyrant is gone! Again, please read the links that I provided. The situation in Iraq is by no means a walk in the park. But, it is not as bleak as you care to so aggressively define.

“From US point of view things are only getting worse as well. Terrorist density in Iraq has sky-rocketedâ€

**Could you care to elaborate on this?

“It's become the new Mecca for terrorists that can operate freely due to the inadequate number of US troops, plus they get to kill Americans. Your casualties are rising exponentially.â€

Even better! Let them all concentrate and bring their totalitarian and jihadist efforts to Iraq they will all perish there. It makes good sense strategically. We were bound to face all these idiots sooner or later.

“You are going to pay the entire reconstruction bill all by yourself since you so tactfully pissed the rest of the world off before the war.â€

So you do agree in the re-construction efforts after all. Saddam is no longer in power and we are re-building and updating Iraq’s infrastructure like or not.

Regards,

RedLion

[EiZei 0]

?It's become the new Mecca for terrorists that can operate freely due to the inadequate number of US troops, plus they get to kill Americans. Your casualties are rising exponentially.?

Even better!  Let them all concentrate and bring their totalitarian and jihadist efforts to Iraq they will all perish there.  It makes good sense strategically.  We were bound to face all these idiots sooner or later.

How come this sounds reasonable as sending your troops towards the enemy until they run out of bullets?

[Tamme 0]

Even better!  Let them all concentrate and bring their totalitarian and jihadist efforts to Iraq they will all perish there.  It makes good sense strategically.  We were bound to face all these idiots sooner or later.

Are you serious? Tell me, are you in the military? It's easy to say something like that when it's not you who has to risk his life. You just watch it live on CNN yelling: "Bring it on!"

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]I don’t know what you consider to be the “real†world but it is not called a collation for no reason. And you know what; as far as Iraq is concerned, we and those other countries will gladly take the credit for our efforts in dethroning a tyrant who challenged all these UN resolutions for so many years. http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

coalition of, US, UK, Poland, Italy, and someother countries that sent non-conbatant troops.that hardly means anything in terms of scale. there are more than a handful of nations in this world, and only a few decided to send in their troops. Japan recently pulled out, and Turkey was let go of.

i guess Israel defying UN resolutions is good enough to make Uncle Sam's next target?

Quote[/b] ]**If you are going to quote and article or for that matter use it for constructing and argument at least make it relevant to your statements. The “Plan C†is about the possible transfer of power and the difficulties it represents therein. It does not however, mention or care to imply the “failing of the coalition forces in their efforts to re-build Iraqâ€. Who is living in the fantasy world now? On a different note, this article is very interesting. It highlights the many concerns regarding security and the complexities of ethnic and tribal power and how they are being forged to create a stable representation of a governmental power.

in other words, previous two plans are not going to work, representing that TBA's projection of Iraq reconstruction is now under questionable terms. TBA already failed to make sound decisions and projections, and furthermore, UN's thoughts on the issue was correct. When UN recently passed resolution regarding reconstruction, they got compromise, which meant that the hand over to Iraqi congress was going ot be earlier than TBA projected, which TBA opposed.

Quote[/b] ]Yes for those who still want to see Saddam in power I could not agree more! Yet on the other side of the same coin, there is a clear majority who are more than pleased that the **hole tyrant is gone! Again, please read the links that I provided. The situation in Iraq is by no means a walk in the park. But, it is not as bleak as you care to so aggressively define.

and that same majority want US to get out and let themselves be ruled by their own people. basically, they are saying, "Thank you for kicking saddam out, now you get out."

check a few pages back where I posted some evaluations done by ABC news. most of the areas showed that they were no better off than pre-war era.

Quote[/b] ]Even better! Let them all concentrate and bring their totalitarian and jihadist efforts to Iraq they will all perish there. It makes good sense strategically. We were bound to face all these idiots sooner or later.

or US will be kicked out like how Romans did in Germany. I guess AQ blowing up compunds in Saudi Arabia can be counted as attack within Iraq?

[Gollum1 0]

Even better!  Let them all concentrate and bring their totalitarian and jihadist efforts to Iraq they will all perish there.  It makes good sense strategically.  We were bound to face all these idiots sooner or later.

Are you serious? Tell me, are you in the military? It's easy to say something like that when it's not you who has to risk his life. You just watch it live on CNN yelling: "Bring it on!"

I agree. What a brave soldier, fighting the war all the way from his computer.

Quote[/b] ]Edit: ps. good to see a true "patriot" in this thread - I was getting very bored with more or less agreeing with everybody. It almost reminds me of the FSPilot days *sniff*  

Yes, this thread has been pretty stale for quite some time.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]coalition of, US, UK, Poland, Italy, and someother countries that sent non-conbatant troops.that hardly means anything in terms of scale. there are more than a handful of nations in this world, and only a few decided to send in their troops. Japan recently pulled out, and Turkey was let go of.

Dont forget Denmark. They actually sent a boat! Or was it sub... And a couple of grunts

[denoir 0]

I don?t know what you consider to be the ?real? world but it is not called a collation for no reason.  

Hahaaha!   Good one.

Troop numbers:

USA        132,000

UK            11,200

Italy           2,400

Poland         2,000

Australia      2,000

Spain          1,000

And these are 30 out of 192 countries in the world that "supported" the war. Not even florida-style counting would help you on this one.

Quote[/b] ]Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.

Yepp. It's true what they say - nothing can be done in the world without the approval of Albania, Ethiopia and Eritrea.

It's called the 'coalition of the willing' because of Bushite propaganda. USA is paying more or less the entire bill and it's almost exclusivly your soldiers that are dying and bleeding. There is no coalition. There's just USA with the UK following.

Quote[/b] ]

And you know what; as far as Iraq is concerned, we and those other countries will gladly take the credit for our efforts in dethroning a tyrant who challenged all these UN resolutions for so many years.  http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm

So the reasonable thing to resolve it is to violate the UN charter by starting an unprovoked and illegal war? Yeah, that makes perfect sense. By attacking Iraq without the permission of the security council you are no better than Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. Those sanctions against Iraq came into place because of their invasion of Kuwait. Had the international community been fair and consistent, USA would be facing the same sanctions as Iraq faced.

Not to mention that the main reason you invaded Iraq namely WMD was complete and utter bullshit. And don't give me the "we're doing this for the Iraqi people" crap. If you wish, I'll show you some Wolfowitz quotes where he's saying that helping the Iraqis was by no means a goal of the war, but just a nice side-effect.

Not to mention how utterly irresponsible it was to attack Iraq under those conditions. You have set a horrible precedent for the world, weakened the international community and made the world a more dangerous place through your justification of the "pre-emptive war" policy. There is much more at stake here than the happyness of the Iraqi people.

Quote[/b] ]If you are going to quote and article or for that matter use it for constructing and argument at least make it relevant to your statements.  The ?Plan C? is about the possible transfer of power and the difficulties it represents therein.  It does not however, mention or care to imply the ?failing of the coalition forces in their efforts to re-build Iraq?.

You mean to say that they're making drastic changes in the post-war plan because things are going so well. Yeah right. The changes are being made because the occupation is not working out quite as they expected to put it mildly.

Quote[/b] ]Yes for those who still want to see Saddam in power I could not agree more! Yet on the other side of the same coin, there is a clear majority who are more than pleased that the **hole tyrant is gone!

That clear majority is not so clear anymore. The Shi'as are still slightly more positive than negative, but they want you to get the hell out of the country. They were the ones being most oppressed, but they're also the ones that ideologically most disagree with you (they want an Iran-style theocracy). The Sunni are mostly against the occupation. Overall can be said that the Iraqis are pleased to see Saddam gone but they are not at all pleased with the post war development. And right now, your support is running out very fast as evidenced by the growing resistance and the growning number of dead US soldiers. Do you think that's because you're doing such a good job?

Quote[/b] ]The situation in Iraq is by no means a walk in the park. But, it is not as bleak as you care to so aggressively define.

I think that if you're lucky you can salvage the situation by yourself if you make some drastic changes. The fact remains however that there are not nearly enough troops in place and that neither USA nor Britain has the capacity to send the necessary numbers of troops to keep law and order which in turn is required for the rebuilding effort to succeed. The current situation could scarcely be worse. When the Red Cross is leaving the country because it is too unsafe then you know that you're in trouble.

Quote[/b] ]

**I am really astonished as to how you decipher and interpret progress.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030603-084008-6883r.htm  

LMAO You're giving us an editorial by a republican published over six months ago in a right-wing paper?

Well, with those kinds of requirements for "truth" and objective analysis, then I'm not at all surprised that you supported the war

The really good part of it is the dotted list in the end of the editorial because exactly those things that he lists are "progress" are failing miserably.

[*]Electricity - after seven months Baghdad is nowhere near the pre-war level. They have a couple of hours of power per day at most.

[*]Clean Water - same problem there.

[*]Security - do I even need to comment on this one?

[*]Health care - WHO has warned that the deteriorating health of the Iraqis and the cholera epidemics will ruin the health of several generations of Iraqis.

[*]Free elections - I don't need to comment on that one either, do I?

The only thing that has improved is the availability of goods as the sanctions have been lifted. The problem is however that the prices have gone up by a factor of ten and with the huge lack of jobs people can't buy the goods anyway.

Quote[/b] ]?From US point of view things are only getting worse as well. Terrorist density in Iraq has sky-rocketed?

**Could you care to elaborate on this?

Before the war you could not even show hints of terrorist activity in Iraq. Now you have AQ operatives and suicide bombers roaming the country at will.

Quote[/b] ]Even better!  Let them all concentrate and bring their totalitarian and jihadist efforts to Iraq they will all perish there.  It makes good sense strategically.  We were bound to face all these idiots sooner or later.

You seem to have misunderstood the whole thing with how terrorism works. It's not like:

------------------------------

USA X soldiers, Terrorists Y soldiers

------------------------------

Terrorism grows from popular support for a cause. They're a dynamic force constantly growing in numbers. Those that are blowing themselves up all over Iraq would most likely not have been terrorists at all had you not invaded Iraq. What you have achieved is pissing people off and drawing many across the line. The terrorist situation (as evidnet by the constant acts of terror around the world these days) has become much worse. Through your actions you have given them a solid recruitement base.

I mean if your friends like us Europeans are angry with you over your actions, then you can imagine how those that didn't like you in the first place are feeling. They positively hate you.

And as evident by the exponentially growing US casuatlies, your military isn't capable of handling it either.

Quote[/b] ]?You are going to pay the entire reconstruction bill all by yourself since you so tactfully pissed the rest of the world off before the war.?

So you do agree in the re-construction efforts after all.  Saddam is no longer in power and we are re-building and updating Iraq?s infrastructure like or not.

You break it, you pay.

Yes, you did not have to read much of this thread (I think I'm saying it at least three or four times in the last two pages) to know that my position is that USA not only should, but must rebuild Iraq. A failure to do so would be very bad both for the region and the world. Now that you've bombed the place and thrown it into anarchy, it's your responsibility to rebuild it. The key to stopping attacks on US troops is to get the people to stop supporting the rebels. And this can only be done through the restoration of quality of life for the Iraqi citizens.

[ralphwiggum 6]

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

Quote[/b] ]Iraq commitments

Rumsfeld arrived in the South Korean capital Sunday amid protests over plans to send more South Korean troops to Iraq.

Nearly 700 South Korean soldiers, mostly medics and engineers are already in Iraq, and Washington was seeking several thousand more, including combat troops.

Professor Koh Byung-chul, of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies told CNN Monday the U.S. had asked for 5,000 troops, including combat forces, but South Korea wanted to limit the numbers to 3,000 in mainly non-combat roles.

He said polls showed opinion in South Korea to be evenly divided on the troops issue, adding that it would be politically difficult for South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun to agree to the U.S. request.

first Japan, now South Korea. guess how many others will jump in?

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]The key to stopping attacks on US troops is to get the people to stop supporting the rebels. And this can only be done through the restoration of quality of life for the Iraqi citizens.

I think you are wrong there Denoir. Your thesis: "only bread and love can weaken resistance" is very romantic indeed but far off the hook!

Right now the resistance is by 95% composed of Baathist supporters. Neither religous fundamentalists (Al Quaida) nor anti-american expatriots are involved.

Baathists are not dependant on new recruits. There are more than 100'000 loyal supporters that can easily be reactivated. Also, they dont need protection from civillians cause they act mostly from deserted areas rather than populated ones. Their intention is not to be seen, not even from fellow iraqis. But in case a civillian knows about the hideout of a Baathist, he still wouldnt tell it to the US-forces, not because he supports Saddam but because he is afraid of a Baathist revenge. And in this disorder and lack of US-supervision many US-colaborators have lost their tongue or their family.

Electricity and water wont change anything.

The americans have to remain civilised in their way to bring peace to the country. Those western values, and as a consequence the perceived lack of charisma and authority makes the americans appear as ridiculous whimps. Iraqis never supported leaders because of the sympathy factor but simply because of the fear factor.

It disgusts me to say the following but I believe that right now only a 1945 SS division would be able to reduce disorder in the Capital. Luckily enough these divisions dont exist anymore but sad enough that it means noone can bring peace to the country except Saddam himself.

That was the message from before the war: This war is an irevertable step with tremendous unforseeable consequences. If Iraq is fucked up...it will stay fucked up. Simple as that! No matter who is president, how many soldiers patrol the streets and how few iraqis support terrorism! Sometimes u ruin things when u try to fix them!

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]The key to stopping attacks on US troops is to get the people to stop supporting the rebels. And this can only be done through the restoration of quality of life for the Iraqi citizens.

I think you are wrong there Denoir. Your thesis: "only bread and love can weaken resistance" is very romantic indeed but far off the hook!

I don't think so. In Kosovo back in '99 the situation was while not the same, fairly similar. You had the KLA separatists that felt utterly betrayed by NATO & Co since they could not get Kosovo to join Albania. They were armed to the teeth through both various weapons caches left by the Yugoslav army and by the weapons that NATO had supplied before the war.

When I was down there in 2001, the situation had already been resolved. How? It was a simple matter of logistics. As soon as the living conditions started improving and the security was beefed up people lost interest in helping the rebels. The guerilla movement more or less died out. This was very well arranged to by giving rewards for turning in weapons etc. Furthermore you let the Russians deal with the Serbs while you let the EU deal with the Albanians. Worked out perfectly.

The thesis is not that "only bread and love can weaken resistance". The thesis is that by appeasing the general population you cut the supply line to the resistance. In combination with a soldier on every street corner it's unbeatable. Take the raw advantage in numbers and flood the country with soldiers.

Quote[/b] ]Right now the resistance is by 95% composed of Baathist supporters. Neither religous fundamentalists (Al Quaida) nor anti-american expatriots are involved.

I think you are very wrong there. Suicide bombings are not Baathist style. It would seem that all forms of people are working together on this.

Quote[/b] ]Baathists are not dependant on new recruits. There are more than 100'000 loyal supporters that can easily be reactivated.

Not loyal enough to defend their country when the Yank tanks came. Don't overestimate them.

Quote[/b] ]Also, they dont need protection from civillians cause they act mostly from deserted areas rather than populated ones. Their intention is not to be seen, not even from fellow iraqis.

Everybody needs logistics. And from what I've heard it's exactly the opposite - they act from urban areas, blending with the general population.

Quote[/b] ]

It disgusts me to say the following but I believe that right now only a 1945 SS division would be able to reduce disorder in the Capital.

Well, somebody in the US command seems to agree with you.

Quote[/b] ]A military source said the offensive is designed "to let the Iraqis know that the attacks on the coalition will not be tolerated.

I think it should also be pointed out that Germany lost the war, so I'm not sure that SS tactics is a good example of a successful military policy. The brutality of the SS gave fuel to the various resistance units.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Like Denoir said you cant do peace keeping on the cheap.

It needs a soldier on every corner and doctors and engineers employed to fix things.

If every Iraqi is employed doing something from fixing power lines, bridges, roads and oil lines to working in hospitals and the police there will be no Iraqis to be in Sadam's Baath party.

Four times as many troops, full political control for Iraqis at grass root street council level and full employment would solve the problems. If you have had one hour in the morning deciding what you had to do and full day working your ass off to fix your country; you are too tired to go out and play insurgent but this should have been the exit strategy and after battle plan from day one. Instead we have dodgy deals with pro republican contractors and not enough troops to ensure security as the plan.

Kind Regards walker

[Acecombat 0]

Somebody has to be in control of those financial assets. Due to the internal divisions and tribal nature of Iraq there has to be a strong government. Saddam filled this role.

There is no Iraq per se as it is an artificially imposed union. To make the different factions work together there has to be a strong central power.

Hmm it seems i dont have to bother to reply too Mr.Red Denoir and Ralph have already filled his plate so

Denoir when you speak of tribal factions and stuff dont you think theyre better off deciding among them what to do and what not to instead of having a mediator among them from half wayacross the globe which practically is ill-tuned to the mentality and thinking of th people involved in Iraq. Since the trivilialites (sp) involved with these factions are mainly religious dont you thnik the US will fail in this matter too?

Frankly i dont see that the decisions if any that the US will make in any deadlock faced later in the political situation if it developed over the ruling will be appreciated by other's in the region and even in Iraq itself ?

[Tamme 0]

Somebody has to be in control of those financial assets. Due to the internal divisions and tribal nature of Iraq there has to be a strong government. Saddam filled this role.

There is no Iraq per se as it is an artificially imposed union. To make the different factions work together there has to be a strong central power.

Hmm it seems i dont have to bother to reply too Mr.Red Denoir and Ralph have already filled his plate so  

Denoir when you speak of tribal factions and stuff dont you think theyre better off deciding among them what to do and what not to instead of having a mediator among them from half wayacross the globe which practically is ill-tuned to the mentality and thinking of th people involved in Iraq. Since the trivilialites (sp) involved with these factions are mainly religious dont you thnik the US will fail in this matter too?

Frankly i dont see that the decisions if any that the US will make in any deadlock faced later in the political situation if it developed over the ruling will be appreciated by other's in the region and even in Iraq itself ?

I find it hard to believe that the tribes would just sit down and talk about it. The situation is bad and unstable as it is, without the US presence it would be a total chaos. As you said, It's about religion. And religion is kinda hot subject.

[Jinef 2]

Oh dear - it seems the Euros have won the argument.

The only resistance we have is clinging hopelessly to ideals formulated to keep the US public pumping resources into the big green fighting machine.

I am still thoroughly ashamed of my goverement's actions and the UK public is shaky at least, mainly because although our soldier's have the experience and casualites have been minimal up until now we still are facing a lot of very angry people with easy access to weaponry.

*puts doomsday hat on*

If the situation continues, i think that a very large number of Iraqis will take up arms to kick out this occupational force, and with the history looking us in the face i would not want to be a soldier there. I am getting images of the retreat from Saigon - helicopters landing on carriers then being pushed off the side to make room for more as they literally sprint away. Now i'm sure Dubya is very commited to the cause and will fight on from the oval office, but is the US ans UK military in Iraq going to let itself be ripped apart without the support of the public?

Those are the most extreme instances i can think of, if the violence escalates and the military cannot adapt. Adapting to the situation is not something the US military has been shown to do in Iraq yet.

With the current mentality of the occupiers, the situation can only get worse.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]It disgusts me to say the following but I believe that right now only a 1945 SS division would be able to reduce disorder in the Capital.

But I think 1945 SS division would be more useful in 1945 European city. Americans are facing fanatics with willingness to blow themselves up anytime, anywhere which is much harder to deal with than more organized resistance/uprising/freedom fighters.

I'm beginning to think that biggest mistake in occupation was that the US dissolved the entire Baathist regime at a stroke which brought the lawlessness and lack of dicipline. With no-one in firm control some elements of the society certainly saw the oppoturnity take arms with little fear of reprisals for their actions. Unemployment of goverment workers and pre-war criminal amnesty by Saddam only added to the problem the Americans are now facing.

And maybe, Gulf War 1 style deployment like 500,000 troops and heavy divisions in the first phase would have been more overwhelming, then gradual decrease in troop numbers as things settle could have saved blood in the long run. One gigantic knockout blow could maybe be a better choice than Rumsfeld doctrine of 'light mobile attack'...

[Acecombat 0]

You mean you still think that the illegal attack was necessary?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Quote[/b] ]It disgusts me to say the following but I believe that right now only a 1945 SS division would be able to reduce disorder in the Capital.

But I think 1945 SS division would be more useful in 1945 European city. Americans are facing fanatics with willingness to blow themselves up anytime, anywhere which is much harder to deal with than more organized resistance/uprising/freedom fighters.

I'm beginning to think that biggest mistake in occupation was that the US dissolved the entire Baathist regime at a stroke which brought the lawlessness and lack of dicipline. With no-one in firm control some elements of the society certainly saw the oppoturnity take arms with little fear of reprisals for their actions. Unemployment of goverment workers and pre-war criminal amnesty by Saddam only added to the problem the Americans are now facing.

And maybe, Gulf War 1 style deployment like 500,000 troops and heavy divisions in the first phase would have been more overwhelming, then gradual decrease in troop numbers as things settle could have saved blood in the long run. One gigantic knockout blow could maybe be a better choice than Rumsfeld doctrine of 'light mobile attack'...

I thought the Rumsfeld doctrine failed, hence the 2 day "break" from the infantry war, hence the sudden increase in cruise missile and bomber attacks during those 2 days?

[ralphwiggum 6]

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

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A review is under way of protective measures on all 620 U.S. Army helicopters deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a memo dated November 7, acting Army Secretary R.L. Brownlee suggested that cost was no object to get the "most effective defensive systems" on all helicopters, and in a handwritten postscript he wrote: "This is URGENT!"

Thirty-nine U.S. troops have been killed in five helicopter crashes in Iraq since October 25.

Brownlee's memo immediately resulted in stepped-up installation of a new anti-missile system on half of the 90 CH-47 Chinook transport helicopters in Iraq that carried an older system, like the one shot down November 2 near Fallujah, killing 16 soldiers.

The Army's action was prompted, at least in part, by concerns expressed by Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois in the days after the Chinook crash.

The helicopter and its pilot were from the Illinois National Guard.

Durbin's office said messages had come in after the downing from people suggesting Chinooks -- an older model of helicopter that saw action during the Vietnam War -- had sometimes been sent out without up-to-date, or even functioning, protection.

The review also includes protective measures on the UH-60 Black Hawk, AH-64 Apache and OH-58 Kiowa helicopters.

[bn880 5]

Another funny development that I guess everyone knows about is Bush is in London today to meet over some Iraq stuff I guess with Blair. You can imagine hundreds of thousands of people will be protesting, especially after 40% of Britons think Bush is stupid.

He is due to stay in the Royal Palace and demanded structural changes to the building. Queen rejected that idea immediately and firmly. There will be what, 7000 police and something like 1000 secret agents in the crowd, Bush also brings 250 secret service or spec ops as they were. LMAO. He is scared shitless. Actually I hope he gets one in the head, that would probably be a gift to mankind.

Besides that media are reporting they expect 100,000 protesters, I would say that's a little low estimation, but we shall see (maybe). Right now this is the only fun part of my day, to watch Bush squirm.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Another funny development that I guess everyone knows about is Bush is in London today to meet over some Iraq stuff I guess with Blair. You can imagine hundreds of thousands of people will be protesting, especially after 40% of Britons think Bush is stupid.

He is due to stay in the Royal Palace and demanded structural changes to the building. Queen rejected that idea immediately and firmly. There will be what, 7000 police and something like 1000 secret agents in the crowd, Bush also brings 250 secret service or spec ops as they were. LMAO. He is scared shitless. Actually I hope he gets one in the head, that would probably be a gift to mankind.

Besides that media are reporting they expect 100,000 protesters, I would say that's a little low estimation, but we shall see (maybe). Right now this is the only fun part of my day, to watch Bush squirm.

In relation to this, you can also read about the whole thing at the beeb:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3279179.stm

5 million quid Tbqfh, the US should pay for that. Not the UK's fault that Bush is a top target.

[EiZei 0]

Think I also read somewhere that US secret service agents requested immunity if they happen to shoot a protester/protesters.. , too bad I cant find the link.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

They've been denied that luxury. If they shoot someone, they are open to being tried under the British judicial system. Just watched that on the BBC, so you'll probably be able to find info about it on their site shortly.