The Iraq Thread 2

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]i gave him 2 warnings to prevent any flame war developing, yet he decided to defy both warnings. worthy of PR.

and for discussion of this matter please send me a PM.

I still can´t see where he tried to start a flamewar. Must be my monitor that doesn´t display the malicous content

Will take it to head moderator. I have seen people coming through with flamatory posts here and I see no flaming from ace. Anything on that from now via PM.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Will take it to head moderator.

<snip>

Anything on that from now via PM.

[Longinius 1]

http://www.rku.nu/rebell/Filer/kill-iraqi.wmv

This was a bit scary... A newsclip of US soldiers killing a wounded Iraqi. Note, no blood or gore and it has been broadcasted on TV / web TV so I think its OK to link (I hope).

That clip feels fishy though...some wierd cuts in it.

[denoir 0]

Very fishy. I would bet money on that it's a fake.

[Longinius 1]

Yeah, sound is odd in some places and the text skips as well. I reckon its the host site that has doctored it a bit.

Anyone know how to pull up old files on CNN? I looked around but found no suitable way to access old news clips like this.

[ozanzac 0]

The clip is edited a fair bit. Why was the man wounded, why was he shot, and why are the soldiers/or the man, behind barbed wire.

Also, IMHO, very bad conduct by the soldiers. Cheering after shooting someone. Hardly humane at all, and bad shots.  

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Very fishy. I would bet money on that it's a fake.

So would I. Even if US soldiers did stuff like that, they wouldn't do it where they could be easily filmed.

[Jinef 2]

You would be suprised at the stupidity of people actually...

You would think that the Serbs and Germans would do it where they couldn't be filmed... why think US soldiers are any different.

I also think the video is fake, however those US soldiers are definitely discharging weapons, shouldn't they require authorisation when in such an unstable region.

Rule no.1 - If you want to win hearts and minds don't pierce the hearts and blast away the minds.

Honestly the US military is handling this in a moronic fashion, although we aren't suprised are we....

[toadlife 3]

Quote[/b] ]Recent polls are showing that the majority of Iraqi citizens do not want us to leave.

Which polls are these and whos conducting them , the US army?

it's up to interpretation.

Iraqis: "Don't you dare leave us like this, leaving behind what you broke."

TBA: "Iraqis don't want us to leave."

I wasn't saying that Iraqi people are happy their country is being occupied, but I stand by my point that the vast majority of them don't support the attacks agianst the U.S. troops and they don't want the US troops to leave.

I wish I could post a link to the source of these phantom polls I mentioned. Believe me I looked, but I can't. My source is numerous mentions of them by multiple news corrospondents during their reports.

Call me an optimist, but I see things getting better in Iraq, as the basic infrastructure is slowly reparied, and people are able to live normally again.

One of the best signs I see that things are getting better is all of the pitures of Iraqi citizens out protesting on the streets - in plain view of their occupiers. It shows me that Iraqi's are realizing the newfound freedom they have an exercising them.

[ozanzac 0]

The clip is fishy and the end part of the clip is doctored, no doubt. But I have a distinct feeling that the actual shooting and cheering is real.

[bn880 5]

Very fishy. I would bet money on that it's a fake.

If I know which clip you are talking about, I don't think how they shot him is fake, the commentary afterwards may be from something else though... as you know, they are free to be shot until they surrender and are non-combatants.

So don't bet too much. I have seen other stuff in the media here where it was clear the Iraqi's were no longer of any danger, but were capped anyway...

[toadlife 3]

Honestly the US military is handling this in a moronic fashion, although we aren't suprised are we....

Because we are all morons over here right?

I wouldn't be too quick to assume that these few discouraging clips we see represent the norm.

[Jinef 2]

No, however i wouldn't expect what we see on CNN to be the norm.

The people i know that have come back from Basra don't have too many nice things to say about the US military either. Although they are biased, so honestly the norm is really the holy grail of media i suppose, as they are never going to find it.

Also the US military isn't Americans, it's the US military. Now they may have advertised it as being a pathway to college etc. However it is still an organisation which depends on an influx of thick people, same with the British and literally almost every developed country's ground forces.

[toadlife 3]

Well I would be more inclined to blame the Bush Administration for rushing in without any post war plan, than to blame the U.S. soldiers on the ground who are not trained to be civilian administrators/engineers.

I saw a news story on one of the networks here (in the U.S.), about a particular part of an Iraqi city, in which a lone U.S. officer was put in charge of managing that part of the city. His duties included keeping the peace, enforcing the law, and organizing the rebuilding and restoring of the infrasturture. He was basically the 'Mayor' of his area. He had no training or experience in civil engineering or administration, yet he was in charge of getting the plumbimg, electricity, and other various neccesities restored. The officer noted that besides his lack of training for what he was tasked with doing, language was a huge barrier, as they had a shortage of translators.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Because we are all morons over here right?

Can´t remember you being there.

The experiences I have made with US military abroad in Somalia and former Jugoslavia showed me how capable US forces are to waste the job.

[toadlife 3]

Quote[/b] ]Because we are all morons over here right?

Can´t remember you being there.

The experiences I have made with US military abroad in Somalia and former Jugoslavia showed me how capable US forces are to waste the job.

So is it your conclusion that Americans soldiers are Morons, or could it be that they are not trained properly for peacekeping?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]or could it be that they are not trained properly for peacekeping?

Exactly that is the case. Besides that their current mission in Iraq is far from beeing a peacekeeping one.

US forces more than once raised hostility in countries they "worked" because of their bad behaviour, disrespect for locals , their beliefs, traditions, habit of life , etc.

That´s no news. It´s a known fact and noone in the US forces tried to change that status in the last 10 years.

So there are 3 possiblities:

1. US govt does not want to change that status

2. US govt is not able to change that status

3. US govt intentionally keeps up that status for a policy of threat.

You choose.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.rku.nu/rebell/Filer/kill-iraqi.wmv

This was a bit scary... A newsclip of US soldiers killing a wounded Iraqi. Note, no blood or gore and it has been broadcasted on TV / web TV so I think its OK to link (I hope).

That clip feels fishy though...some wierd cuts in it.

note that on first few moments of the clip that the wounded person might have what appears to be a rifle on his left hand side. this clip has been making its round on internet, and i have to say that jumpy text scroll shows a bit of manipulation. it also does not show dates of this incident. only thing i could make out was comments about Mel Gibson's 'passion' and Jimmel Kimmel live.

[walker 0]

Hi All

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Here are some acronymns; to make things clear since Avon pointed out the ways they could be misinterpreted; earlier in this thread.

TBA = The Bush Administration, current US one

TBA2 = The Blair Administration, current UK one

GW2 or GWII = Gulf War Two

I have made my position clear in many posts

TBA and TBA2 are trying to do the GW2 on the cheap. Both in economics and in casulties they are willing to take. War is never cheap.

Should they rebuild Iraq as they have not found the WMD? Yes. They should anyway.

Should they be putting at least 4 times as many troops on the ground as now? Yes.

Should those troops be reserves and drafted from first responder units (police,fire and ambulance services)? Yes.

Should they be trained in arabic and Iraqi culture? Yes.

Should the draft also include a large number of mature proffesionals including archetects, engineers and business people? Yes.

Should the first port of call for the finances for the rebuilding Iraq be the personal fortunes of TBA and TBA2? Well where does the buck stop? So Yes.

Why the extra soldiers?

The country is not secure mainly in the Sunni triangle and little bit in the south.

You can not build power stations if they get blown up and the parts get stolen. Which is what happens now and not just to power stations to all aspects of civil society and its infrastructure. There just are not enough bods on the street to stop the crime or the the continued bathist and Al Queda type attacks.

Will it be better to use Iraqis? Yes but look at the problems they are having recruiting them even now. Plus there is a need to de bathify it first. It is going to take two years.

Why first responders and mature reservists?

Well young 18 to 25 year olds are great for violence, capturing ground and coming home in bodybags. Their reactions are fast and they are physicly fit and they are out of their heads on hormones so they are like good little attack dogs. I dont know about you but that described me at that age. I had my last fight when in 1984 which would make me 25 (born in 59).

As you get older your skills at avoiding fights improve heck nowadays I stop them. I do climb so that could be part of it but I dont know many people over 25 who get into bar room brawls. Even my biker friends calmed down after 25.

My point is the more mature soldiers will be less confrontational. First responders are already trained and experienced.

I have been listening to soldiers there now and who have returned they are all saying the same thing.

What is working is large numbers of foot patrols and light vehicle patrols. With lots of contact to break down the barriers. That takes lots more troops to conduct that type of security and peacekeeping mission. It does not suit hi tech armoured attack units of the type doing the job there in the sunni triangle.

There are those who argue that it places soldiers lives at risk. Yes it does but soldiers are there to risk their lives tidying up the s**t. They could stop in their bunkers and behind armor but when you do that you have given up the ground. It takes far more soldiers to hold ground you have won but you either hold the ground you have won or you are a looser.

The troops need to be involved in grass roots rebuilding projects. They have to stop being aliens in body armour and be the guy on the street corner who's family photos you have seen and who got you a job in the concrete making plant or the hospital or the new airport or got their kids a place in the reopened university. It is not body armour that protects those troops it is the whispered message and the shouted warning to look out.

The toops need to be able to understand the people who's nation they are occupying.

These are the tactics that are working in the north with US 101st Airborne and in the south with the UK forces. That is why despite being the most damaged areas of the country they are being rebuilt quicker. Is it harder in Sadams heartland hell yes but it still has to be done.

Will there be casulties? Yes. So suck it up and get on with the job.

Will the US and UK tax payers be paying for it. Yes in the UK its going to cost us an extra 10 billion in taxes our chancellor just told us. Now we have the conservative press moaning about borrowing and future taxes. I hear the US made provisions of 80 billion loan to pay for the war; with an expected tax increase for every US tax payer of 70% for the next 20 years. That is almost double what there tax rate is now. The interest is also borrowed till after the US Presedential election. Hmm.

Is it gross that Iraq was destroyed for this when simple continuous coup plots would have got rid of Sadam for peanuts. Yes.

Is it gross that the US and UK tax payers have to pay for TBA and TBA2 failure at a time of war? Yes.

Is it gross that some people in TBA and Dick Cheyneys mates in Halliburton are making 6 to 8 billion off this and are then caught overcharging? Do I need to answere? Ok YES!

Is it gross that members of TBA were Sadam's friends and shook his still bloody hand after Halabjah and many other atrocities; and then have the afrontery to say their excuse for war is that he was suddenly a diabolical dictator after they gave him money and WMD. Hell yes.

Kind Regards Walker

[toadlife 3]

1. US govt does not want to change that status

2. US govt is not able to change that status

3. US govt intentionally keeps up that status for a policy of threat.

You forgot one...

4. The U.S. military top brass, and the Bush Administration's collective egos are too big to admit that U.S. forces suck at peacekeeping, and therefore they refuse to....

A) Improve or expand training

B) Delegate the job to other countries who's soldiers are better trained to handle the job

I see the problem you are pointing out full and clear - I just detest describing the problem by namecalling (morons). This is an oversimplification, and an insult to Americans like me.

[ralphwiggum 6]

I've been hearing about this on other gun forums, and thought was very hilarious in light of Halliburton contract award.

Although i'm not a big fan of Glocks, it's matter of preference, and when it comes to measuring different needs, Glock is an usable item. fairly simple, durable, and decently accurate. so i have no problem with new Iraq police using one.

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/today.html

Quote[/b] ]It's not quite gunfire - yet, but U.S. gun companies and their representatives are firing hard questions over a unilateral decision to arm Iraqi police and defense forces exclusively with European-made handguns.

The gun manufacturers are asking the Pentagon and State Department why 50,000 handguns were ordered from Glock, an Austrian gunmaker, without U.S. manufacturers getting an opportunity to bid for the contract, reportedly worth $19 million.

According to Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-NH), the Coalition Provisional Authority ordered the handguns unilaterally, giving no opportunity to U.S. companies to bid. One of those companies, SigArms, Inc., of Exeter, N.H., in Bradley's district, employs 130 workers and would have welcomed the opportunity to bid, according to Paul Erhardt, company spokesman. SigArms already supplies weapons to the U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Air Marshals, Navy SEALs, and local law enforcement departments that include the Texas Rangers.

Bradley blasted the unilateral contract in a November 25 letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "There are a number of U.S. companies that could easily provide these weapons," Bradley wrote. "Why were other firearm companies, namely American companies, passed over?"

The Glock buy was also blasted by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "...the U.S. taxpayer is paying the largest burden for the reconstruction efforts in Iraq, U.S. companies and the U.S. taxpayers they employ should benefit from these dollars," said Hunter's blast, which was directed to Ruben Jeffery, the Coalition Provisional Authority representative in the Pentagon.

Rep. J.D. Hayworth, (R-Ariz) mailed his complaints to Secretary of State Colin Powell. Powell then referred him to Ambassador Patrick Kennedy, chief of staff for the Coalition Provisional Authority. Hayworth aides say Kennedy explained the Glocks were bought with captured Iraqi money. Hayworth's district is home to Smith & Wesson Holding Corp., owners of Smith & Wesson gun makers.

According to Hayworth aides, Kennedy assured the congressman that all future weapon contracts would be open to American bidders. But not everyone's confident that will happen. "Given the record," Larry VanHoofe, Representative Hayworth's press secretary told Bruce Mathews of Defense News, "so far, companies and Congress have only learned of no-bid contracts after the fact. We need to find a way to be proactive rather than reactive."

"To single source any product without competitive bidding is an affront to the very freedoms for which we are fighting in Iraq," said Bob Morrison, heading the Taurus firearms efforts in North America. "It really doesn't make any difference where the guns are made or who owns the company that made them. Note the Berettas hanging at the side of the American fighting forces over there, who we continue to admire and applaud for their fine displays of courage and valor."

Morrison continued, "What matters in this case is that we, as the firearms industry based in the United States, be allowed to compete bids for firearms required by our government. That some official can make a unilateral decision to single source a product that should rightly and justifiably be put out to bid is utterly outrageous! The response that he gave in this case is equally outrageous!

"All we ask for is parity and the chance to compete," said Morrison.

This report was written from material originally appearing December 22, 2003 on http://www.defensenews.com by reporter Bruce Matthews. Additional reporting was done by The Outdoor Wire, but we thank Bruce and Defense News for their work.

[Jinef 2]

Oh yeah that's the yank's way, let's give them guns! That will make the place safer for sure.

I agree fully with Walker's post and think that trying to create a police force will create further tensions within the country.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]Oh yeah that's the yank's way, let's give them guns! That will make the place safer for sure.

Idiot. How are the police supposed to enforce the law if they don't have weapons?

[Longinius 1]

"Idiot. How are the police supposed to enforce the law if they don't have weapons?"

Ask the Bobbys in Britain. I think they have some experience in the field.

[EiZei 0]

Didnt most Iraqis have assault rifles at home and so forth?