The Iraq thread 3

[theavonlady 2]

As far as I am informed the largest extent of the iraqi military had zero to no political ambitions or connections with the Baathist party.

That's true for conscripts in general but the Republican Guard were (and many still are) Saddam loyalists.

[quicksand 0]

The man in question.He is wearing the old army uniform and I`ll censor myself in saying who I think he resambles with

This a very big gamble done by the US. I guess they finally understood that disolving the Baath army was one of the bad moves that is partially responsable for the Resistance.

You can also bet,that this guy was on US payroll before the war started.I`ve read on nytimes.com that many generals were approached by US officials with money offer to desert and here comes the funny part,they spoke such a good arabic that most of the generals thought it was Saddam testing them(this is what I call efficiently spreading paranoia).

In any case US milltary isn`t that stupid to instalate a general to take control of Fallujah that at the first sign of his former comarades will retalliate.I am mostly sure he is loyall to US,the question is if his soldiers are also.

[theavonlady 2]

This a very big gamble done by the US. I guess they finally understood that disolving the Baath army was one of the bad moves that is partially responsable for the Resistance.

Just the opposite. Had they left the Baath party in place, you can be sure that the vast majority of Iraq's Shi'ites, who constitute about 70% of the population, would have gone on the warpath from day 1.

The question never was to retain the Baath party. The question was and still is whether certain Baath party officials should be allowed to be involved in Iraq's current military and political organization.

edit: I read your post incorrectly. I thought you said Baath "party". You referred to the Baath "army".

What is that?

You mean the Republican Guard and other special forces, known for their loyalty to Saddam?

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]You mean the Republican Guard and other special forces, known for their loyalty to Saddam?

Exactly,known for...

Rommel(probably not the best example) was known also to be extremly loyal Hitler,but when he realised that his poor leadership skills among other factors will bring the defeat of Germany,he took part in the plot to asassinate him.

History shows other betrayals among those who were belived could be trusted,it`s human nature.Sure the Republican Army was loyal to Saddam,but not all men are prepared to die for a fight they know is already lost and also knowing history will note them as a bunch of fanatical worshipers of a dicator that collapsed at the first encounters with US army.

In any case,do you belive US is capable of such madness of not having him on a payroll?That after a month covered with Iraqi police mutiny,don`t you think it`s unlikely they`ll send a man of who all they know about is that he was a Republican Guard general and has his promise of being helpful.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]You mean the Republican Guard and other special forces, known for their loyalty to Saddam?

Exactly,known for...

Rommel(probably not the best example) was known also to be extremly loyal Hitler,but when he realised that his poor leadership skills among other factors will bring the defeat of Germany,he took part in the plot to asassinate him.

The Plot to Assassinate Hitler, July 20, 1944:

Quote[/b] ]Implicated was Erwin Rommel, who had been approached by the plotters but did not join. Rommel was recovering from wounds at home. For his failure to inform Hitler, he was given a choice: take poison and get a state funeral, or refuse and see your family executed as well. Rommel took poison.

Quote[/b] ]In any case,do you belive US is capable of such madness of not having him on a payroll?That after a month covered with Iraqi police mutiny,don`t you think it`s unlikely they`ll send a man of who all they know about is that he was a Republican Guard general and has his promise of being helpful.

My personal opinion is that puting active Baathist in relevant military and political positions is counter-productive.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]In July 1944 his staff car was strafed by British aircraft, and Rommel had to be hospitalised with major head injuries. In the meantime, after the failed July 20 Plot against Adolf Hitler, Rommel's connections with the conspiracy were suspected. Bormann was sure of Rommel's involvement, Goebbels was not. The true extent of Rommel's knowledge of the plot is still unclear. Although after the war his wife maintained that Rommel was against the plot, despite the popularity of the opposite position. It has been stated that Rommel wanted to avoid giving future generations of Germans the perception that the war was lost because of a backstab, the infamous Dolchstoss theory, as it was commonly believed by some Germans following WWI. Instead, he favored a coup where Hitler would be made to stand trial before the public. Due to Rommel's popularity with the German people, Hitler gave him an option to commit suicide with cyanide or face dishonour and retaliation against his family and staff. Rommel ended his own life on October 14, 1944, and was buried with full military honours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Rommel

I know it`s off-topic but it looks like after I resarched a bit there are confliting reports and its still unclear how far was he involved.But belive my word when I tell you I have a history book in my biblioteque that clearly states Rommel as part of the asassination atempt.

Quote[/b] ]My personal opinion is that puting active Baathist in relevant military and political positions is counter-productive.

Of course it is.Do you remember how clear was US about this after the war ended.They clearly stated they will not be given another chance "to torture Iraqi again" or something close to that line.But the situation right now is extremly close to critical,after promising the resistance was close to crumbling after Saddam was captured and watching its ferocious rebirth this month.They don`t have unlimited time and the picture its starting to shape that changes need to be made for this to have a chance of working

Bush "bring it on" atittude is far from being productive for the Iraqis.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

see it as a intermediate step. This doesnt have to be the final decision, a transition-step. You cannot replace the entire line of authority at once without facing great problems. There is a risk, and there are of course moral concerns, but right now it is the best step to take.

But of course in a country like iraq giving a general back his power is a dangerous game. Unlike in western societies you cannot simply fire these people without them trying to retain power. Throughout their active duty they will gather people around them that are loyal and stay loyal. Even off active duty an iraqi general has probably more authority amongst his own people than a puppet implemented by the US forces!

[4-Eyes 0]

Anyone noticed this? Sorry if it's been posted allready

Warning, some disturbing images

link

[Balschoiw 0]

Those images are extremely disgusting. I had not seen them yet but I´m afraid that you are not allowed to post them here.

So in your own interest pls remove the link 4 - eyes. It violates several board rules.

[denoir 0]

Sickening. While they are partially censored and possibly not in direct violation of forum rules, I suggest you put up a big warning text before the link.

[bn880 5]

Of course this is sickening, but not at all surprizing. For one case of abuse that is publicized and where the parties responsible are brought to justice there will be hundreds you can't find out about. Well, what else can be said other than this sucks. "Thank you Bush for a great situation."

[Tovarish 0]

Of course, on that forum some are trying to justify this saying those are MP's who are not familiar with the Geneva convention . I bet if they were captured they'd know something like that being done to them would be against some kind of rule.

[billybob2002 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040430/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_25

Quote[/b] ]Members of the 1,100-member force moved into the former Marine positions in southeastern Fallujah and raised the Iraqi flag. But military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said the Marines were "repositioning" their forces and would continue to maintain a strong presence in and around Fallujah.

Quote[/b] ]Kimmitt told reporters that the new Iraqi force will be "completely integrated" with Marines. He insisted that the Marines were not "withdrawing" from the city.

Quote[/b] ]Marines will remain on or near the city's perimeter and plan at a later stage to conduct their own patrols inside the city, the official said on condition of anonymity.

They are not retreating.

[4-Eyes 0]

Of course, on that forum some are trying to justify this saying those are MP's who are not familiar with the Geneva convention . I bet if they were captured they'd know something like that being done to them would be against some kind of rule.

Yes, but if I recall, the US didn't ractify the Geneva convention this time round, so technically, they aren't breaking any internationall laws.

At least I think so.

Don't misunderstand me, I think it's absolouteley wrong.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]and you have not been able to pick up my answer which is jsut what i posted. your assumptions were

1)military head knows all info

2)there can be conflicting reports

1) is obviously not true for all cases.

2)is true that there can be conflicting points.

my example of Midaway was to prove above two points were not to be taken granted.

1. Japanese fleet had no reliable information

2.they got swamped with contradicting info.

thus in light of two points, your article is more likely to be

misquided, and instead of checking what exactly happend.

here's my question to you. waht makes your article better than others?

Tsk,tsk,tsk

Quote[/b] ]Diffrent point of views.There is no way we could determine who is right as they both represent the US army,now is it?

You were the one claiming your article is the accurate one.

so in other words, you don't lay claim that yours is accurate too right? you are only claming that my version is not as accurate. but it doesn't say how accurate yours is either.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]does getting the right source for integrity of article ring any bell? using a misleading source is a sign of bias. let's say i start posting news that is quoting some news favorable to US. do you think that is not biased?

by printing the 'statment' from CPJ, AJ said the same thing.

Again I ask you why did you claim Al-Jazeera stated that Iraq is the most dangerous WAR in all times when that is completly false.Why,why,why?After you answer me this I will continue discussing any further with you as I have tons of arguments prepared.

I answered it with my reply that i quote right now. the integrity of a media outlet is dependent upon the source it quotes. instead of asking same question(of denial) again and again, read my statement. you are basically asking same question repeatedly instead of actually discussing the issue.

here's the reason in shorter format if you cannot understand

1)AJ reports the news based on information

2)but the information was NOT a correct one.

3)that would mean that the AJ did not do enough to capture integrity of the article it publishes.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]you asked me about who should be blamed for current war, and i answered. but your comment is irrelevant. i see no reason why you reply like that.

"rest of the powerhouses for not taking things so seriously with Saddam before"

Quote[/b] ]noticed that the advisor to TBA was also an arab?

That`s just disgusting.So the fact that he is arab discredits him in any way?In any case where do you keep geting your flawed info?

the choice of words are quite dependent upon the person whether or not you like it. someone from a group will have tendency to use certain words or statement structure. are you denying that there is cultural influence on choice of words?

Quote[/b] ]You asked for it:

Quote[/b] ]Dr. Gardiner received his Ph.D. in British imperial history from Yale University in 1998, and received several academic awards, including the International Security Studies Smith Richardson Foundation Fellowship, the David Gimbel Fellowship and the Mellon Foundation Research Fellowship. In addition, Gardiner has two Masters degrees from Yale and a BA in Modern History from Oxford University. He has a broad range of international experience and has lived in four continents: Europe, Africa, Asia, and North America.

Dr. Gardiner has been widely quoted in major U.S. and international media (including The New York Times, Associated Press, Le Monde, The Boston Globe, and The London Sunday Times) and has written for a number of leading publications including The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, National Review, and Insight.

ARTICLE

And this

Quote[/b] ]According to Nile Gardiner, a British-born analyst  

ARTICLE2

Correction,after reading his bio I think I`ll trust him more then I do you on the "anglo-US alliance" term.

difference? i don't work for TBA

Quote[/b] ]After I asked him the question and explained what does a small majority means I`ve stated that 51% of US soldiers acting like that is extremly concerning

then why did YOU ask me to define 'small majority'? this should ring the alarm that your argument is getting a bit pedantic.

on top of that, your attitude is "is that true?" instead of searching for correct definition, your arguments are to just say things and not hold a position on any issues.

i think i'll pull a quicksand here:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/printon20040430.shtml

i won't pollute this forum by quoting some moron who made the comment in the above link, but since you think it is ok to claim that some news is NOT biased even if they putup articles with skewwed fact, i'll do so too

[bn880 5]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040430/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_25

Quote[/b] ]Members of the 1,100-member force moved into the former Marine positions in southeastern Fallujah and raised the Iraqi flag. But military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said the Marines were "repositioning" their forces and would continue to maintain a strong presence in and around Fallujah.

Quote[/b] ]Kimmitt told reporters that the new Iraqi force will be "completely integrated" with Marines. He insisted that the Marines were not "withdrawing" from the city.

Quote[/b] ]Marines will remain on or near the city's perimeter and plan at a later stage to conduct their own patrols inside the city, the official said on condition of anonymity.

They are not retreating.

Right they are not, they have already retreted. You really are open to this propaganda they spew aren't you. They will remain outside the city, meaning retreted again.

Do you need translation? They failed more than once to take and or hold the city. Unless there is somethig else going on that I don't know about.

[denoir 0]

They are not retreating.

Close your eyes, say it ten times and it might come true

Look, it's quite simple. They went there to do somthing about Fallujah (take the city, pacify it, remove the insurgents, hand out candy to the children or whatever you want). Since we're back at square one and nothing has happened (apart from a bunch of people getting killed), they did not succeed. And now they are letting Iraqi controlled forces try.

Call it what you wish, pull-out, retreat, backing off, stepping down, going elsewhere, running away, starting a reverse offensive... they all mean the same thing in practice.

[MLF 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040430/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_25

Quote[/b] ]Members of the 1,100-member force moved into the former Marine positions in southeastern Fallujah and raised the Iraqi flag. But military spokesman Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said the Marines were "repositioning" their forces and would continue to maintain a strong presence in and around Fallujah.

Quote[/b] ]Kimmitt told reporters that the new Iraqi force will be "completely integrated" with Marines. He insisted that the Marines were not "withdrawing" from the city.

Quote[/b] ]Marines will remain on or near the city's perimeter and plan at a later stage to conduct their own patrols inside the city, the official said on condition of anonymity.

They are not retreating.

Right they are not, they have already retreted.  You really are open to this propaganda they spew aren't you.  They will remain outside the city, meaning retreted  again.

Do you need translation?  They failed more than once to take and or hold the city.  Unless there is somethig else going on that I don't know about.

You still dont get it, the marines have never actually tried to full take the city, they have aggresively patrolled the city and done strikes on certain areas, if they were to take the city i assure you there would have been alot more casualties on both sides.

[bn880 5]

No that isn't true. They did try to take the city but were overwhelmed on the outskirts as a result.

Can you prove it either way? Nope, because statements from Coalition sources can not be trusted.

EDIT: I'll leave it at that.

[miles teg 1]

Not only that, but if you just simply look at the number of Marines they to take Fellujah, its just insane. It's less then 3,000 men...and who knows how many of those are support troops (yes yes I know every Marine's an infantryman).

It just would be extremely stupid to invade a city that side and that well defended with anything less then 10,000 soldiers.

Could it be done? Probably, but I doubt such a small force could completely flush out the resistance and it would likely take very heavy casualties which would hurt Bush in the polls immensely.

I think that the Marines were prepared to do exactly that.

But from the crazy stuff Paul Wolfowitz has been saying I don't even think the Bush administration has a firm grasp of what the hell is going on there.

It's really to tell who's calling the shots. The Marines? The Defense Department? Paul Bremer? The Bush administration? The Iraqi council???

Everyone's running their own show which is one of the reasons why you have such incidents like that horrific treatment of prisoners by US soldiers.

I'm ex US Army Reserve and even for me those photos were pretty shocking especially seeing a female soldier involved in that kind of stuff.

I think it was right that CBS aired that story although they didn't show those photographs. If they had shown those photographs all over the media it would have had a HUGE HUGE HUGE effect on the American public as it would have really caused Americans to seriously look at what we're doing over there and to question the morality of this whole war.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[MLF 0]

No that isn't true.  They did try to take the city but were overwhelmed on the outskirts as a result.

Can you prove it either way?  Nope, because statements from Coalition sources can not be trusted.

EDIT: I'll leave it at that.  

lol they have never actually tried a full offensive, i think we would have actually heard it about it, all they have recently done was secure a perimiter and do surgical strikes into the town, trying to pacify certain districts.

Ill leave it at that, lol.

[Scorpio 0]

In light of other discussion, and although it's quite old news, I'd just like to say that the new proposed Iraq flag is a masterpiece. Although it's simple, it does show the image peace, hope, and prosperity in the new Iraq. Whoever came up with it is a genius.

And compare it to the old one:

This one shows an ugly past. Totally crap choice of colours. And yes, I am dissing a century of arab theme colours. Just look it...blehh...red, black, and green...ain't particularly the prettiest of kind, is it.

Just my Å0.02. I'm waiting for t-shirts with the new flag on.

[miles teg 1]

Do you really think you would have heard about it?

The fact of the matter is that none of us know what really went down. Only the USMC leadership know this for certain.

However we do know how many Marines were in and around Fellujah and it wasn't a hell of a lot.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[bn880 5]

No that isn't true. They did try to take the city but were overwhelmed on the outskirts as a result.

Can you prove it either way? Nope, because statements from Coalition sources can not be trusted.

EDIT: I'll leave it at that.

lol they have never actually tried a full offensive, i think we would have actually heard it about it, all they have recently done was secure a perimiter and do surgical strikes into the town, trying to pacify certain districts.

Ill leave it at that, lol.

I think you should keep your derogatory laugh to yourself, I am entitled to making the statements I made in this thread, and the only thing I may consider being funny is your belief in the statements of the coalition.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51731-2004Apr28.html

Quote[/b] ]Selective Imagery In Iraq

By Jim Hoagland

Thursday, April 29, 2004; Page A25

VENICE -- It is not surprising that a Middle East television station would show film of three haggard Italian hostages provided by their captors. What is surprising is that one, the Qatar-based satellite network al-Jazeera, passed up the chance to air footage of the gory execution of a fourth Italian captive.

Quote[/b] ]

Al-Jazeera is noted for showing some of the most gruesome scenes in TV history in reports on U.S. or Israeli military action. But since a videotape of the shooting of Fabrizio Quattrochi came into its possession on April 14, the network has withheld it on grounds of taste.

Quote[/b] ]

The sudden squeamishness of al-Jazeera prevents the world from seeing a clear depiction of the Italian's bravery and defiance and the appalling cruelty and cowardice of his Arab abductors, whose voices are clearly heard on the tape.

no comment