The Iraq Thread 2

[Crazysheep 1]

I'm not underestimating Saddam.  I just don't think he's a brave man.  I also don't think he's sitting behind a desk somewhere giving out orders to his troops.  I think he's hiding, sleeping in a new bed every night, and looking over his shoulder all the time.

Saddam is too old for fighting, and he is a leader; surely you can agree that if George Bush decided to join the US troops in the field that would be a stupid move? But looking at Saddams early life, with attempted coups and so on, he did take a lot of risks. It would suggest bravery; I think that because he is so, well, evil, you aren't allowing him any positive attributes. No offense, but that isn't the most mature attitude.

[Jinef 2]

I think you overestimate the intelligence services, people can dissapear quite easily, I doubt Saddam the old scallywag will ever be seen alive against his will again.

heya FSPilot, umm, the US is entering a Guerilla conflict against the people of Iraq, NOT these major radical groups and ex Saddam supporters etc. How can you possibly be thinking the US has been successful is beyond me.

Is it me or has the American public lost the plot?

[FSPilot 0]

crazysheep

Quote[/b] ]Saddam is too old for fighting, and he is a leader; surely you can agree that if George Bush decided to join the US troops in the field that would be a stupid move? But looking at Saddams early life, with attempted coups and so on, he did take a lot of risks. It would suggest bravery; I think that because he is so, well, evil, you aren't allowing him any positive attributes. No offense, but that isn't the most mature attitude.

Well, you haven't been reading what I'm saying.  I'm not saying what Saddam did was cowardly, I'm not saying Saddam should join his troops in combat, I'm not saying he has absolutely no positive attributes.  I'm saying he's acting like a coward because he is hiding from what he's got coming.  Even generals have to meet face-to-face to surrender.

Jinef

Quote[/b] ]heya FSPilot, umm, the US is entering a Guerilla conflict against the people of Iraq, NOT these major radical groups and ex Saddam supporters etc. How can you possibly be thinking the US has been successful is beyond me.

Is it me or has the American public lost the plot?  

What does that have to do with anything!?  I never said the US is sucessful, I never said anything about ex-Saddam supporters fighting!

Is it me or have you lost the current topic?

[walker 0]

You must own the ground by soldiers on each street corner

You loose face with civilians in an occupied country when you fail to achieve your aims.

I disagree there; I think winning public support is a better way of weakening resistance. If you have soldiers on every street corner, it leads to three problems:

1) Iraqis will feel their security is being invaded and begin to resent troops

Yes that is true in short term but they will also feel safer as there will be less crime and see my reply to point 3

2) It would be quite easy for Iraqis to take shots at random troops from inside a building then run away

Actualy no because there is a soldier on every corner you can close down streets meaning it is easier to catch the sniper. There is a secondary affect in that the resitance are prevented from moving weapons. There are going to be soldiers killed it is inevitable you just have to suck it up.

3) Mistakes happen in war; more troops present would mean more civilians killed in the crossfire.

Properly handled the soldiers can act as a conduit for inteligence and building a better relationship between the coalition and the civil population. This is the process the 101 Airborne and the UK Army are using. The main cause of civilian casulaties is wrong tactics and over reliance on technological weapons. Technology is great for intel or big wars but it just does not have the granularity to deal with a Guerilla war. The proper process is to swiftly form a cordon of the area of the attack. Invite all people to leave the area through a checkpoint with body search and chemical check for gunpowder residue. Conduct a house to house search in the area of the attack.

So while temporarily making it harder for the resistance, it will give the resistance more supporters; then there might be relatively large scale attacks on a few more isolated guardposts, and some carnage on the streets. This will only cause problems.

You are advocating giving up the land, that is when they own you. You sit in your secure bunker and have zero effect. To win you have to own the ground.

That means getting out, learning the language; how else do you know the intel? Learning the customs understanding the people round you. Then you will win over the people cause you are no longer the Alien invader. You are the guy down the street who's family photos they have seen and who helped you get a Job fixing the new power station or in the new factory making concrete.

This is after all the NEW purpose of the invasion after failing to find the WMD.

Kind Regards Walker

[bn880 5]

denoir

Quote[/b] ]So tell me, are you voting for him next year?

Only if the democrats come up with a -very- good candidate. Preferrably pro-life and military friendly.

You just reminded me to add something to that ancient quote list.

[FSPilot 0]

Kind of an oxymoron eh?

[Scorpio 0]

You'd make a good lawyer, FSPilot.

[Crazysheep 1]

IRT Walker:

I concede.

[Crazysheep 1]

Well, you haven't been reading what I'm saying.  I'm not saying what Saddam did was cowardly, I'm not saying Saddam should join his troops in combat, I'm not saying he has absolutely no positive attributes.  I'm saying he's acting like a coward because he is hiding from what he's got coming.  Even generals have to meet face-to-face to surrender.

Saddam has not disapeared into the wilderness never to be heard from again; he's still commanding the resistance to fight against a superpower.

And letting himself be arrested would weaken the resistance; people don't support a loser. It is not necassarily fear for his personal safety, but fear for his (rather twisted) legacy.

[FSPilot 0]

Saddam has not disapeared into the wilderness never to be heard from again; he's still commanding the resistance to fight against a superpower.

And letting himself be arrested would weaken the resistance; people don't support a loser. It is not necassarily fear for his personal safety, but fear for his (rather twisted) legacy.

How do you know? Do you know where he is right now? What he's thinking and what he's doing? What makes you think he's ordering soldiers around?

[denoir 0]

Kind of an oxymoron eh?  

He wasn't refering to the pro-life, pro-military democrat.

He was refering to you saying that you would only vote for Bush if the democrats came up with such a candidate

[FSPilot 0]

How hilarious, I misread what you said.

[bn880 5]

Nah I was referring to both.

[Tovarish 0]

Read this aticle in yesterday's paper:

Hearts and Minds

Quote[/b] ] I asked my escort, Army Spec. Jack Craig, a military police officer from Minnesota, how he correlated the "strike first" directive with the U.S. military's current policy of attempting to win the "hearts and minds" of the local population.

"Actually, I see 'hearts and minds' as a tactical doctrine. To me, it means that's where we should aim first," said Craig. "Shoot them in the body or in the head, but just make sure you shoot them first."

.

.

.

"One problem is that a lot of our soldiers are s--t-scared and want to get out of here alive, no matter what that entails. The second and much less widespread issue is that of misplaced patriotism," said Calis.

He cited as an example one of the soldiers stationed at the Kirkuk airfield who will soon be rotated back to America, and who feels that he has yet to fulfil his national duty.

"Every day he complains that he has not yet had the opportunity to kill an Iraqi, and do his bit for the war," explained Calis. "On several recent occasions he has initiated provocation deliberately with local drivers at the gate, and I only hope that (this soldier) will be sent home before he fulfils his quest at the cost of an innocent life."

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Bit of a tangle in Iraq

Quote[/b] ]The US military has reported killing 46 militants and wounding 18 in clashes in the central Iraqi city of Samarra.

Five US soldiers and a civilian were wounded in the fighting which raged as militants made a series of attacks on convoys in the city on Sunday.

But witnesses said a US tank had fired indiscriminately during the fighting, killing at least two factory-workers.

News of the fighting comes after a weekend of bloody ambushes across Iraq, largely targeting American allies.

US spokesman Lieutenant Colonel William MacDonald said that the US forces had fought back with tank fire when they were attacked three times by militants wearing uniforms of the pro-Saddam Fedayeen fighters.

Bradley fighting vehicles responded with 120mm tank rounds and 25mm cannon fire, destroying three buildings in the city, he said.

"We're sending a clear message that anyone who attempts to attack our convoys will pay the price," the spokesman said.

Samarra is within the so-called "Sunni triangle" north of Baghdad - the heartland of Saddam Hussein loyalists.

'Rooftops and alleys'

Two logistical convoys were moving into Samarra when they came under attack from roadside bombs, small arms, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, he said.

The attacks - one on the east side of the city, the other on the west - were simultaneous and appeared to be coordinated.

In one of the ambushes, militants had barricaded off the road and opened fire from rooftop positions and out of alleyways.

About an hour after the initial ambushes, four militants in a car attacked another US convoy in Samarra.

All four were wounded and captured in the clash and Kalashnikov rifles recovered from the black BMW.

None of the US soldiers was seriously hurt, the US spokesman said

"This is the largest [ambush] for our task force since we've been in the area," Colonel MacDonald added.

Frightened witnesses in Samarra told a correspondent for the French news agency AFP who managed to enter the city that US forces had repeatedly come under attack on Sunday.

However, they added that, in the aftermath of one attack at about 1255 (0955 GMT), an American tank had opened fire on workers leaving a factory at the end of their shift, killing two and wounding "many".

Bloody weekend

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and his Japanese counterpart, Junichiro Koizumi, have both vowed not to surrender to "terrorism" after weekend attacks on their citizens in Iraq.

Seven Spanish intelligence agents were killed in an ambush on Saturday and two Japanese diplomats died in a separate attack.

The attack on the Spanish agents caused particular revulsion in Spain where images of Iraqis celebrating at the site of the killings were shown widely.

Two South Korean workers and a Colombian contractor were also killed in separate attacks and two US soldiers died in an attack near the Syrian border.

'Bradley fighting vehicles responded with 120mm tank rounds and 25mm cannon fire'

[Tex -USMC- 0]

'Bradley fighting vehicles responded with 120mm tank rounds and 25mm cannon fire'  

Standard journalistic ignorance, I wouldn't stress over it.

[turms 0]

The uniform (fedayeen) ting is quite interesting actually. I think they were sending a message of who they are and what are theyr goals.

Also it seems like US has gotten its humint in a better shape, they had to know the ambush was taking place...

[theavonlady 2]

@ Dec. 01 2003,07:47)]

'Bradley fighting vehicles responded with 120mm tank rounds and 25mm cannon fire'  

Standard journalistic ignorance, I wouldn't stress over it.  

From this AP report:

Quote[/b] ]U.S. troops responded with rifles, 120mm tank rounds and 25mm cannon fire from Bradley fighting vehicles.

Just as the rifles are not from Bradleys, so too the tank rounds.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Quote[/b] ]U.S. troops responded with rifles

Wouldn't it make more sense to SHOOT the rifles, rather than throw them at the attackers

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]U.S. troops responded with rifles

Wouldn't it make more sense to SHOOT the rifles, rather than throw them at the attackers

In the same sense, why shoot the rifles? What did they do to you?!

[Baron von Beer 0]

Jammed apparently. Why else would they be throwing their rifles at their enemy?

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]How do you know? Do you know where he is right now? What he's thinking and what he's doing? What makes you think he's ordering soldiers around?

Good question FS. But then again, how do you know that he isn't actively leading the resistance?

[Leveler 0]

Does anyone know the total casualties up to know for both british and americans?

[bn880 5]

Jammed apparently. Why else would they be throwing their rifles at their enemy?

LMAO

Just be careful on the stories you read far behind "enemy lines", there is no guarantee it is accurate (especially why someone is killed)... it's difficult without a neutral witness on the ground, or a solid un-interrupted recording.

[denoir 0]

Rumsfeld winds "Foot in mouth" award

Quote[/b] ]

LONDON, England (Reuters) -- A comment last year by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was awarded the "Foot in Mouth" prize Monday by Britain's Plain English Campaign.

Rumsfeld, renowned for his uncompromising tough talking, received the prize for the most baffling comment by a public figure.

"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know," Rumsfeld told a news briefing.

"We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

John Lister, spokesman for the campaign, which strives to have public information delivered in clear, straightforward English, said: "We think we know what he means. But we don't know if we really know."

Although Rumsfeld's comments were made at a news briefing in February 2002, they were nominated for this year's award.

Rumsfeld, whose boss, President Bush, is often singled out by language critics for his sometimes unusual use of English, defeated actor-turned-politician Arnold Schwarzenegger for the booby prize.

"I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman," the new California governor said.

Previous holders of the award include U.S. actress Alicia Silverstone and British Chancellor Gordon Brown. Last year's winner was actor Richard Ger