The Iraq thread 3

[Balschoiw 0]

But obviously not that different...

Latest news:

Bradley blown up

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A U.S. soldier has been killed and six wounded after a roadside bomb destroyed

their Bradley fighting vehicle during a patrol in Iraq, a U.S. military spokesman says.

The spokesman from the 1st Infantry Division said the attack occurred at Duluiya, a town about 40

miles north of Baghdad, on Wednesday.

Reuters

U.S. Military Death Toll in Iraq Hits 900

Quote[/b] ]A count by The Associated Press put the number of American soldiers killed since the war began at 900. Counts of the number of U.S. service members killed in Iraq vary, with some already exceeding the 900 figure.

The Pentagon's latest casualty update, released Tuesday, put the death toll at 893 service members, plus two civilian Defense Department employees. There have been five military personnel reported killed since the last Pentagon update.

while Russia still doesn´t seem to be on the "Coaltion of the willing":

Russia Dismisses Talk of Deploying Troops to Iraq

Quote[/b] ]Moscow (CNSNews.com) - Russia has dismissed reports that it could send tens of thousands of Russian troops to join the multinational rebuilding effort in Iraq, saying the information was "not based in reality."

"Russia's position remains unchanged," Defense Ministry spokesman Vyacheslav Sedov announced on Tuesday. "We are not going to send Russian military personnel to conflict zones in Afghanistan or Iraq, either for free or in exchange for economic benefits."

Sedov emphasized that "not a single Russian soldier" would be sent.

The Texas-based private consultancy Strategic Forecasting (Stratfor) published an analysis this week, saying Moscow and Washington were allegedly discussing a Bush administration request to send troops to Iraq or Afghanistan this fall.

Quoting anonymous Russian government sources, Stratfor claimed that President Vladimir Putin had agreed to the request "in principle" and had directed the Russian General Staff to work up a plan by the end of the month.

It said the deployment could include three mechanized infantry divisions and one airborne brigade, or 40,000 troops.

Stratfor also said Moscow had prepared a "wish list" for Washington, seeking benefits in exchange including steps to return Russian oil companies to Iraq.

It speculated that the dispatch of Russian troops to Iraq could stifle the development of a Paris-Berlin-Moscow alliance against U.S. policy.

Sources at Russia's Security Council told Russia's ITAR-Tass news agency that the references to 40,000 Russian troops going to Iraq were "absurd and unbelievable."

The Izvestia daily described Stratfor's claims as "provocation instead of forecast."

The chairman of the Federation Council (upper house of parliament) international affairs committee, Mikhail Margelov, told the Interfax news agency sending troops would be ill-advised.

"Sending Russian troops to Iraq is undesirable because that would amount to giving a boost to the Republican Administration in the United States in the run up of a presidential election whose outcome is at the moment unpredictable," he said.

"Doing so while the allies of the United States withdraw their contingents would look like sending our soldiers to a certain death," Margelov added.

Russia, which strongly opposed to war to topple Saddam Hussein, last month welcomed the transfer of power from the U.S.-led coalition to an interim Iraqi government and pledged to develop relations with Baghdad, although not without reservations.

Russian oil firms signed contracts worth $4 billion with the previous regime to develop Iraq's oil reserves.

The country's top oil company, LUKoil, said in recent weeks it planned to be pumping crude in Iraq as early as next year.

How nice...G.W Bush trades for soldiers and his elections. Sure russian blood isn´t that worthy as US blood. Speak of economical interests...

While there are some new kidnapped ones:

Militant group claims to take six new hostages

Quote[/b] ]...

In a statement given to The Associated Press, the group, calling itself "The Holders of the Black Banners," said it had abducted the six truckers and would behead one of them every 72 hours starting at 8 p.m. (noon ET) Wednesday if their nations did not pull out of Iraq and the company they work for did not close its branch here.

"We have warned all the countries, companies, businessmen and truck drivers that those who deal with American cowboy occupiers will be targeted by the fires of the Mujahedeen," the statement said. "Here you are once again transporting, goods, weapons and military equipment that backs the U.S. Army."

...

New clashes between U.S. forces and insurgents in a residential area near the city of Ramadi killed five Iraqis and wounded 17 others, said Dr. Mohammed Ali of Ramadi emergency hospital. Some of the casualties occurred when a U.S. military helicopter attacked a building in the area near Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad.

...

A member of Baghdad's provincial council, Sabeeh al-Ka'abi, was injured in an assassination attempt, and was in a stable condition, according to an official at Ibn al-Nafis Hospital, where al-Ka'abi was taken.

A roadside bomb hit an Iraqi police patrol early Wednesday in the Gharnata district of Kirkuk in the country's north, killing one policeman and injuring another, said police official Salhat Kadr.

Also Wednesday, Lt. Col. Ahmed Mahmoud, the chief of the police force that guards the electricity infrastructure in Diyala Province, was wounded along with three other police in a roadside bomb attack on their car, said 1st Lt. Ahmed Sadiq of nearby Baqouba police.

Doesn´t sound especially peaceful atm, right ?

[badlymad 0]

Quote[/b] ]July 21, 2004

Presidential Determination

No. 2004-40

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

SUBJECT: Eligibility of Iraq to Receive Defense Articles

and Services Under the Foreign Assistance Act of

1961, as Amended, and the Arms Export Control Act,

as Amended

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 503(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and section 3(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, I hereby find that the furnishing of defense articles and services to Iraq will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace.

You are authorized and directed to report this finding to the Congress and to publish it in the Federal Register.

GEORGE W. BUSH

i'm guessing this would involve heavier armour for the iraqis:

white house greenlights arm sales to iraq

[Balschoiw 0]

I can remember that the Iraqis won´t be allowed to have heavy MBT´s at the startup as the USA said they have theirs in the countryx so the Iraqi´s don´t need some themselves.

[Balschoiw 0]

Iraqi senior Sunni cleric calls for holy war

Quote[/b] ]A senior Sunni cleric called on his followers to launch a holy war against the US forces in Iraq and threatened to turn the hotspot city of Ramadi into a "graveyard" for American troops.

"I ask US President (George W.) Bush to withdraw from Iraq or else Ramadi will become a graveyard for US soldiers," declared Sheikh Akram Ubayed Furaih at weekly prayers in the city, 100 kilometres (60 miles) west of Baghdad.

"I call upon my brothers the Shiites and on all other religious groups to embark on a Jihad (holy war) against the US military to force them out of Iraq," said the cleric, who spent three months in a prison after being arrested by the US military and whose home was also raided last week.

"I urge all the Iraqi people to fight a holy war against the Americans," said the cleric, among the most respected figures in this Sunni rebel bastion.

Using slightly more moderate tones, two other Sunni clerics from the Muslim Scholars' Association spoke out against conditions in military detention centres run by the US-led coalition.

"We have received messages from inmates at Um Qasr (detention centre on the border with Kuwait) describing their suffering during this hot weather," said Ahmed Abdel Gafur Samarrai, addressing a crowd at the Um al-Qura mosque in Baghdad.

He called on the United Nations to intervene on behalf of the detainees.

"The United Nations must do something because it granted a legitimacy to the occupation, but this legitimacy has been lost due to the actions that have taken place," said Samarrai, referring to the thousands of Iraqis locked up on suspicion of involvement in the persistent insurgency that has dogged the 14-month US-led occupation.

Among Iraq's majority Shiite community there also came condemnation of the interim Iraqi government and fresh demands for the death of jailed dictator Saddam Hussein.

"We refuse to submit to terrorists and the occupiers are the worst of all the terrorists ... We denounce anything that is named by the occupier," said Sheikh Jaber al-Kafaji, speaking in the name of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr, in reference to the new administration.

Kafaji said he suspected the United States of wanting to release Saddam Hussein.

Washington "has started to prepare this by saying that he had no weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with what took place in the United States," Kafaji said, referring to the terrorist attacks there on September 11, 2001.

In the holy city of Karbala, a representative of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani launched a harsh attack against Arab lawyers who have offered to represent the ex-president.

"It sickens us to see them rushing to defend this fallen man taking the dollars of his wife (Sajida Saddam Hussein). You have to cut off his head and this is the minimum that we want," he said.

That had to be expected.

While Iraqis claim nuclear weapons found near Tikrit

Quote[/b] ]Key points

• Iraqi newspaper claims 3 nuclear weapons found near Tikrit

• Report follows arrest of senior Ba’ath party member

• No additional details available from US investigation

Story in full AN IRAQI newspaper reported yesterday that nuclear weapons had been found near Saddam Hussein’s home town of Tikrit.

The reports, as yet unconfirmed, were attributed to anonymous political sources who were reported as saying that three nuclear warheads had been found when officials arrested a senior member of the Baath Party.

The United States military was last night investigating the reports made by the newspaper Al-Sabah.

"We did an initial check on the weapons question ... and we don’t have any additional information at this time," a senior military official said in Baghdad.

But Iraqi interior ministry officials dismissed the news as unfounded.

Al-Sabah, a daily paper, opened last year with backing from the former US-led administration in Iraq.

The US and Britain had argued their case for war against Iraq largely on the basis that intelligence showed Saddam had amassed weapons of mass destruction. No such weapons have been found.

I couldn´t confirm the story, other agencies now report that the US military claims that the reports are not true. We´ll see.

While back in the UK, the investigation goes to round 2:

Iraq intelligence inquiry to be reopened

Quote[/b] ]The inquiry into the flawed intelligence which led Britain to war in Iraq on false claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction is to be reopened by a Labour-led select committee.

The Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs (FAC) agreed at a meeting behind closed doors to write to Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, with a series of questions, including whether he told the Prime Minister that the intelligence had been withdrawn in July, last year, because it was no longer judged to be credible.

The Independent also learnt that the Prime Minister's special Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) at a separate private meeting yesterday agreed to probe the revelations in the Butler report that MI6 had withdrawn the intelligence underpinning the claims about WMD.

The decision by the two committees to pursue the unravelling of the evidence surrounding the Government dossiers on Iraq was a fresh blow to Mr Blair after surviving Tuesday's Commons debate on Iraq.

He was hoping to draw a line under the row for the summer, but it is now certain to continue rumbling until the party conference season in the Autumn.

The Government also will be alarmed to discover that Donald Anderson, the Labour chairman of the FAC, may also have lost the Labour majority on the committee after two Labour MPs who have been highly critical of the Government - Eric Illsley and Andrew Mackinlay - refused to vote with the Labour majority.

The Labour MPs on the committee tried to stop it pursuing the inquiry beyond writing the letter to Mr Straw. However, in a split vote, it was agreed to use a professional expert to investigate the disparities in the evidence to the Hutton inquiry and the evidence taken by the committee in private session from Mr Straw.

Mr Illsley and Mr Mackinlay abstained in the vote.

The Labour MPs on the committee were defeated by four votes to three by the Opposition MPs on the committee, including David Chidgey, the Liberal Democrat MP, and Andrew Mackay, a former Tory whip.

The Opposition MPs will seek the support of Mr Illsley and Mr Mackinlay to recall Mr Straw if disparities are found in the evidence.

The MPs want to know why neither they nor the Hutton inquiry were told about the withdrawal by MI6 of the crucial evidence in July, 2003. Mr Straw on Tuesday revealed he was told in September, last year.

Mr Blair last night refused to give details about when he was told, but insisted it was "as a result of the Butler inquiry" into the intelligence mistakes.

Last night, Bob Marshall-Andrews, QC, a Labour MP opposed to the war, tabled a further question to Mr Blair demanding the date on which Mr Blair was told.

Mr Marshall-Andrews said: "This is the silver bullet. Someone is going to come out of the shadows and say, 'I did tell the Prime Minister before he went before the Hutton inquiry'. That would be fatal for Tony Blair. Politically, he would be dead."

The ISC inquiry is part of its rolling programme of intelligence scrutiny.

Sources close to the committee said they had agreed yesterday to continue investigating the withdrawal of the evidence. They have more power than the FAC to demand to see intelligence briefings which go to ministers.

They were told orally by Richard Dearlove, the head of MI6, in July, last year, that the intelligence on chemical and biological weapons had been withdrawn as unreliable. They kept it secret until the Butler report was delivered.

"It was given to us in more than usual confidence," said the source.

Lord King of Bridgwater, a former chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) said both the ISC and the Foreign Affairs Committee were right to launch new investigations into the withdrawn intelligence to restore confidence in their scrutiny role.

"If there is going to be some recovery of the reputation of Parliament for conducting proper investigations, I think they need to demand to reopen those inquiries and look at them in the light on all the fresh information that has come," he said.

Lord King, a former Tory Defence Secretary, said it was "extraordinary" that Mr Blair was not told that the discredited intelligence was withdrawn even though Mr Straw was informed last September.

He said that either the civil service was falling down on the job or the Prime Minister was told and did not remember it because under his informal style of governing there were not proper minutes.

MPs were sceptical that Mr Blair was not told, saying it "beggared belief" that backbenchers on the ISC were aware of the withdrawal of the intelligence while the Prime Minister was not.

They pointed to a memorandum sent by Mr Straw to the Foreign Affairs Committee last July which said: "The Prime Minister and other ministers who are members of the Committee on Security and Intelligence see all Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) papers."

The JIC was told that the evidence was discredited and withdrawn. There was speculation at Westminster that officials had decided not to tell Mr Blair in order to create "a firewall" to protect him from allegations that he misled Parliament over the threat posed by Iraq.

Asked if that was the case, Mr Blair's official spokesman said Downing Street would not be drawn into 'processology'.

He added: "The important thing is that this was one element but not the only element."

Michael Mates, a member of the ISC, confirmed the committee was told the evidence had been withdrawn.

He said: "We did look into it...the intelligence was flawed and faulty. The ISC was told in confidence because at that stage it was very much a moving scene and we couldn't report it for sensitive security reasons."

Mr Mates said it was "foolish" of Mr Blair to promote John Scarlett, the JIC chairman, as head of MI6 in May while the Butler inquiry was taking place.

Meanwhile, Lord Butler has been summoned to the Commons Public Administration Select Committee on Thursday October 21 to give more evidence on his finding that Mr Blair had operated a "sofa-style" clique, instead of proper Cabinet committees with minutes.

And a wordlwide respected man speaks fact about Bush´s claim that the world is safer now:

Annan Rejects Bush Claim That World Is Safer Now

Quote[/b] ]UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The world is no safer than it was three years ago, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) said on Wednesday, countering President Bush (news - web sites)'s claims he had made the world a safer place.

Annan, at a news conference, also criticized a Bush administration decision to withhold $34 million from the U.N. Population Fund, saying the agency was saving women's lives.

Annan's remarks could renew strains on ties between the United States and United Nations (news - web sites), which -- while devastated by Bush's inability to win U.N. backing for the U.S.-led war on Iraq (news - web sites) -- had improved following U.N. help in setting up a new government in Baghdad in time for the U.S. occupation to end.

"No, I cannot say the world is safer today than it was two, three years ago," the U.N. leader said.

He was responding to a reporter who asked for comment on the Bush funding move and also whether Annan felt the world had become safer in the last two or three years.

Bush, who has launched two wars since moving into the White House in January 2001, repeatedly asserts in campaign swings ahead of the Nov. 2 presidential election that his policies are making the world safer.

"America is a safer place. Four more years and America will be safer and the world will be more peaceful," he said on Tuesday in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

"The world is a safer and better place as a result of (Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) not being in power," he told NBC Television in February.

The U.S. administration has withheld funding from the U.N. Population Fund, known as UNFPA, for three years, accusing it of supporting China's policy of coercive abortion.

The fund has denied this and a State Department investigation in 2002 also cleared the agency of such charges.

Family planning activists and some members of Congress have seen the U.S. move as a bid for conservative votes in November.

Annan said the U.N. agency was doing "very essential work on reproductive health" and particularly in confronting the AIDS (news - web sites) epidemic, which strikes so many women it "today has a woman's face and is producing so many orphans."

"I hope governments will support UNFPA and not extend the decision not to fund its activities to other agencies," he said.

[Rishon 0]

Vietnam and Iraq are two completely different things. Many of you who compare the two weren't around when this happened.

Vietnam was COMPLETELY unjust, we went in because we wanted to stop the spread of communism, prepared to bomb and beat a Conventional Army. We got hit with our first guerilla war. over 100,000 maybe 200,000 died in that war. 900 Isn't anything compared to that. (Not To desrespect my Comrades who died)

Iraq was for International Security, AT THE TIME (Note that.) the intelligence lead us to believe Saddam Hussein had nukes. Our intel was wrong, but, as they say, Hind sight is 20/20. We could have gotten UN approval, if Russia and France, Who sold weapons to Iraq, Vetoed it.. Hmm, I wonder why. Iraq had stockpiles of French missles and weapons there, and Russia, well AK's? T-60's? T-70's? Yeah. Also, the war is not going bad: The Insurgency is loosing leaders and men. Have we lost a single general yet? No. This is a chump war. Nothing compared to Vietnam, nothing compared to Korea. It is more than the COMPLETE One-sided victory of Desert Storm, However.

This is also interesting: After Vietnam, Americans became INCREASINGLY uneasy about force projection. In World War Two, do you know how much stuff America produced? A CRAP LOAD, infact it was the American Industry that kept us, the Russians (Somewhat.) and the Brits up. After Vietnam, the American Public made America weaker. We never support Wars. We never use Force Projection to help countries. Many actions in other countries never last more than a month. Why? Because they are scared of loosing soldiers. Why? Because Vietnam left a huge scar on that. When we get into wars, we never rile up behind our leaders and support them, NO, we challenge it and the Wars. Why don't we just disband our Army? I mean, It's not like we ever use it, or when we do we get bitten in the ass by the public.

We aren't being beaten by the Insurgency, we are being beaten by ourselves.

[bucket man 2]

I could bet my life that pretty much everone had that opinion in the second year of Vietnam war. And it doestn really matter how many generals they have lost. Insurgency will replace them. Their line of command is different than conventional armies. Cell of about 50 fighers dont need their HQ to tell them what to do.

They have their own intelligense networks and in fact the ex army people who apparently run the more professional insurgency are not dead. They are still there.

Men are also not a broblem for these people. They wont run out of men until you nuke the whole country and I sure hope that will never happen.

Besides 40% of the accused rebel casualties are civilians and other people who happened to be in a wrong place in a wrong time. Its easy to say they were infact "terrorists" and "baathists". Also part of the casualty figures is home front morale boosting so they think their soldiers aint dieing for nothing which they are.

[Rishon 0]

Wait, are you saying We are dieing for nothing? Or the Insurgents?

My brother tells me most of the Iraqi's he talks to say they want us there. only about 5% of the population are shooting at us. thats not a mojority, and makes for not Endless figures.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Vietnam was COMPLETELY unjust, we went in because we wanted to stop the spread of communism, prepared to bomb and beat a Conventional Army. We got hit with our first guerilla war. over 100,000 maybe 200,000 died in that war. 900 Isn't anything compared to that. (Not To desrespect my Comrades who died)

Closer to fifty something thousand dead Americans compared to more than 1.2 million NVA and vietcong who died.

Anyway,

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....cid=716

Quote[/b] ]

Marines Kill 25 Iraqis in Ramadi Clashes

1 hour, 3 minutes ago  

By PAUL GARWOOD, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. Marines killed 25 insurgents and captured 25 others during several hours of fierce fighting in Ramadi, a hotbed of insurgents battling U.S. and Iraqi forces, the American military said Thursday.

The fighting Wednesday in Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad, wounded 14 U.S. servicemen, but none sustained life threatening injuries and 10 have returned to duty, according to a Marine statement.

In Baghdad, insurgents battled with U.S. soldiers on Haifa Street, the scene of another gunbattle earlier this month, according to an unidentified hospital official interviewed by Associated Press Television News. Two Iraqis were reported wounded.

Interior Ministry official Sabah Khadum said Iraqi police and intelligence forces arrested 200 people, including several "non-Iraqi Arabs," during the Haifa Street operation and discovered a huge cache of weapons. U.S. and Iraqi officials have long complained of fighters entering Iraq (news - web sites) from neighboring countries to battle coalition forces.

Meanwhile Thursday, Indian officials in Baghdad were working with Egypt and Kenya to free seven of their nationals whose kidnapping was announced Wednesday, an Indian official said from New Delhi on condition of anonymity.

The group that captured the seven said it would behead a captive every 72 hours beginning Saturday night if their countries do not announce their intentions to withdraw troops and citizens from Iraq and warned that every Kuwaiti company dealing with Americans "will be dealt with as an American."

The threat came two days after the Philippines withdrew its 51-troop contingent from Iraq, giving in to the demands of militants holding a Filipino truck driver. The driver, Angelo dela Cruz, returned to the Philippines on Thursday, two days after his release.

Iraqi and U.S. officials had warned of a potential surge in threats and hostage-taking when the Philippines withdrew its troops. Egypt, Kenya and India are not part of the 160,000-member U.S.-led coalition; however, interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi appealed last week to India and Egypt to send in troops.

The daylong clashes in Ramadi began after insurgents detonated a roadside bomb near a Marine convoy at about 3 p.m. on Wednesday in an ambush attempt. Between eight and 10 Iraqi fighters then attacked the Marines with small arms and rocket propelled grenades.

"This initial skirmish led to ensuing engagements that pitted elements of the (U.S. Marines) 1st Brigade Combat team ... against what is being estimated as at least 75-100 AIF," the statement said.

Backed U.S. warplanes, the American ground forces clashed with the insurgents for hours, during which the Marines also safely detonated two homemade bombs, including one placed in a car.

The statement said 25 insurgents died in the fighting and another 17 were wounded.

Ramadi is located in Anbar Province, a Sunni-dominated area west of the Iraqi capital which has been a hotbed of anti-coalition insurgency.

Marines spokesman Lt. Col. T.V. Johnson said the situation in Ramadi was "relatively quiet" Thursday and that "Marines continue to operate from bases within the city, as they have since arriving early this year."

Ramadi shopkeepers were seen shuttering their stores Thursday, apparently in fear of more clashes.

"We were told by the opposition (insurgents) to close our shops and leave the area because there would be fighting in the market," said Mohammed Medhat, the owner of a grocery store in Ramadi's central market area. "I'm a father. I need to earn money to feed my children. We can't keep living with this fighting."

There were no immediate reports of U.S. deaths Thursday. On Wednesday, the death toll of American troops in Iraq since the start of the war rose to 900 after a roadside bomb north of Baghdad killed one U.S. 1st Infantry Division soldier.

Oliver North, who reports for Fox News, reported a two days ago that twenty-something insurgents killed and fifty taken prisoner. (a different clash)

[Apollo 0]

There are a number of reasons why the US lost Vietnam ,among them the Ho-che-Ming trail ,the flanking trough Cambodja and the consequenting extension of war there.

But in the end ,i think eventually DETERMINATION won that war for Vietnam.The lost millions of men in war but were preparred to get every man ,woman and sometimes child to fight.Even Vietnames people with disabilety's still fought.

Compared to that ,the US lacked determination and eventually subdued to the carnage.

Note that atleast in vietnam the US had still the South as an allie and safe haven ,now they have no friends at all in iraq.At most the Kurds are neutral.The rest is against you and US has to rely on strongpoints right into enemy territory. (wich is everywhere and nowwhere)

But these Iraqi's are determined though ,determined to kick the US out and it's puppet goverment.

[Rishon 0]

Ok, my brother has BEEN to Iraq, as a soldier, so I think he knows a BIT more than you about this. The Iraqi's (Your run of the mill one.) Wants america to help keep the country a Democracy, and so that someone as evil or more evil than Saddam Hussein will gain power. Then theres your Fundamentalist Iraqi, who believes America is evil and does not need to be there. Thats the guy who grabs an AK-47 and shoots at him.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ok, my brother has BEEN to Iraq, as a soldier, so I think he knows a BIT more than you about this.

My grandma is a soldier in Iraq to (fedayin) ,but that doesn't mean that she knows more about the political situation ,she got dementia anyway.And making such statements is rediculous and illogical ,true he could know some things more ,but the reverse is equally true.

Quote[/b] ] The Iraqi's (Your run of the mill one.) Wants america to help keep the country a Democracy

Nope ,the majority of iraqi wants Americans out and a goverment they chose ,it's proven in poll's.

Quote[/b] ]Then theres your Fundamentalist Iraqi, who believes America is evil and does not need to be there. Thats the guy who grabs an AK-47 and shoots at him.

Wrong ,their is the fundamentalist Iraqi ,the fundamentalist foreigner ,the nationalistic insurgent or patriotic insurgent (who could as well be an atheist) ,their are religious leader with political ambitions ,millitary ex rankers with ambitions ,educated people with ambitions ,you got the suicidal man that lost his whole family and wants revenge ,you got the pro saddam faction ,etcetera etcetera.

People In iraq are against the US for various reasons.Some want a religious goverment ,some want Iraq to be non secular but just not a puppet of the US (like most sunni insurgents),some iraqi's are interrested in the oil wells and want to get it in their hands rather than US company hands.Some like the Kurds would rather have indepandance.

Youre not dealing with exlusivly terrorists ,youre mainly dealing with insurgents and Guerilla's many of whom fight for Iraq not Allah.

[Rishon 0]

Dur, Insurgents is what I'm talking about.

Well, If they want a religious government, they can vote for it huh? Elections will be held soon, and hopefully the iraqi's will ask us to leave, then, they can start a religious government, I personally don't give a rats-@$$ what happens to them, I consider the culture barbaric, but thats just my personal opinion. All I care about is misdirected opinions and Idiots saying all my fellow soldiers are dying because of a politician, or because of a hopeless war. No, They died for their country.

[Apollo 0]

You don't understand ,as long as they are under the US appointed goverment they are effectivly a sattelite of the US ,,even if the Iraqi's vote an Shia goverment (and i think such ellections are unlikely) it won't mean that the concession that the US made in the Iraqi oil industry will be given back ,afterall in a democratic country the US is legal owner and as long as they can boost some millitary pressence the Iraqi goverment will be to scared to change that situation ,compare it to Saudi Arabia as example.

Their international relations will be severely limmited by this in the sense that they will have to follow the US almost always in their foreign policy's.

They would also be very dependant on the money they get from Oil wich it's revenue's for a large part whould go to Americans ,the millitary equipment they get and etc.

That gives the US more than enough influence to get certain party's out of the ellections and others in for ex. ,so more than enough local influence.

[Rishon 0]

You don't understand ,as long as they are under the US appointed goverment they are effectivly a sattelite of the US ,,even if the Iraqi's vote an Shia goverment (and i think such ellections are unlikely) it won't mean that the concession that the US made in the Iraqi oil industry will be given back ,afterall in a democratic country the US is legal owner and as long as they can boost some millitary pressence the Iraqi goverment will be to scared to change that situation ,compare it to Saudi Arabia as example.

Their international relations will be severely limmited by this in the sense that they will have to follow the US almost always in their foreign policy's.

They would also be very dependant on the money they get from Oil wich it's revenue's for a large part whould go to Americans ,the millitary equipment they get and etc.

Seems like a fair trade, Oil for Weapons and Training. They won't have to, Iraq is one of the potentially richest Nations in the world. If they get an Oil Industry up, they could be a larger supplier than Saudi Arabia. Making them a BIG world player. IF they want us to leave, we have to, or face a UN retaliation.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Seems like a fair trade, Oil for Weapons and Training. They won't have to, Iraq is one of the potentially richest Nations in the world. If they get an Oil Industry up, they could be a larger supplier than Saudi Arabia. Making them a BIG world player.

No it isn't because they didn't ask for it.They could get a lot more out of the oil if they could appoint their own contracters and keep a part nationalized ,now the US is going to make sure that the Iraqi oil is sucked out as fast as possible against a price as cheap as possible ,hardly befits the long term bneeds of Iraq.Besides a lot of the oil revenue will flow to America trough dividents etc. ,even a lot of the workers working there will be Americans. And America will be able to break Iraq anytime politicly if Iraq doesn't agree with something the US wants.

Iraq won't get a fair deal for it's oil ,by far not.And there is a reson why a country like Venezuala nationalized it's oil industry to effectivly LOWER the production ,afterall there won't be oil forever and it's smarter to trade the counted barrels in short amount's at higher prices than in a very short amount at lower prices.

And this is just the oil industry ,The US goverment practicly gave most of Iraq's economy to US contracters.So in the end a hughe amount of Iraqi money l flow out to America.

And think a moment about this: One of the First thing's tht Saddam did when he came to power was making a fight with the Brits to nationalize the oil industry ,apparently even in 1960 the Iraqi's want forigners to run their oil.

[Rishon 0]

Well, thats not exactly what I ment, I mean they Legitimately sell us oil, and we train them and sell them weapons. I don't agree with the other way.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, thats not exactly what I ment, I mean they Legitimately sell us oil, and we train them and sell them weapons. I don't agree with the other way.

First of all they don't sell all to you ,the US company's sell oil to you and pay some taxes in Iraq. (and that tax is the Iraqi's oil income)

in wich i want to note that Iraqi's would receive much more per barrel sold if they could run their own oil industry.And you can wonder what the price will be for the weapons ,probably rediculously expensive but it's not like the Iraqi goverment will be able to disagree.

Thats what i ment with the Sattelite status.As long as the US apointed goverment is there their influence on that goverment will be big and that goverment won't dare to do anything against America as the Americans will sell em their obsolete material and keep some armored troops there to manifestate their power presence.

But afcourse ,for the US it's a win win situation.They have an over production of weapons and a shortage of oil ,so afcourse weapons for oil is great for them.Heck my country does it to in the Congo ,there it is weapons for diamonds ,really a lucrative trade ,especially if you consider that most weapon producing country's have fair pproblems with getting rid of the exces production. (though a war once and awhile helps to ,especially if you bomb "US style")

[walker 0]

Hi all

Seriously it just goes to show Donald Rumsfeld and Cluck Cluck Wolfowitz can't count. Believe it or not the US Army has run out of bullets. I kid you not.

Quote[/b] ]Running Low on Ammo

Military Turns to Overseas Suppliers to Cover Shortages

By Renae Merle

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, July 22, 2004; Page E01

The U.S. military has assembled the most sophisticated fighting arsenal in the world with satellite-guided weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles that shoot Hellfire missiles. But as billions of dollars have poured into the technology for futuristic warfare, the government has fallen behind on more mundane needs -- such as bullets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4044-2004Jul21.html

What with The Budget Crunch leaving the US scrambling to find $12.3 billion for the millitary budget, now there is a logistics chrisis and the US economy is lurching from one failure to another I am amazed the US millitary manages to survive under such innept management.

Wow! Walker

[bucket man 2]

If thats true all I can say is LOL!

General: Muahaaaa! Now we have our überkabaam 10 missiles ready.

Soldier: Umm... sir what about bullets?

General: Bullets, what bullets? We dont need bullets we have our überkabaam 10 missiles"

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Seriously it just goes to show Donald Rumsfeld and Cluck Cluck Wolfowitz can't count. Believe it or not the US Army has run out of bullets. I kid you not.

( A month or so ago)

Israeli company: We sell you bullets to help you...

USA guy: We cannot accept your offer.

Israeli company: Why?

USA guy: It seems the Iraqis can sense a bullet is from Israel...

Israeli company: WTF

USA guy: I kid you not...

(my attempt at a corny ass joke that some congressmen did not want Israeli companies sell ammo to the US military)

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Seriously it just goes to show Donald Rumsfeld and Cluck Cluck Wolfowitz can't count. Believe it or not the US Army has run out of bullets. I kid you not.

Walker,

You forgot something....(from you link)

Quote[/b] ]

The Army estimates that it consumes about 5.5 million rounds of ammunition in Iraq and Afghanistan each month. About 72 million rounds have been used in Iraq. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the military began requiring that soldiers conduct live-fire training twice a year, instead of once, consuming about a 100 million rounds a month. The other services, Navy and Air Force, use about 200 million to 250 million rounds a year.

Alliant Techsystems, based in Edina, Minn., has tripled the workforce at the Lake City bullet plant in the past four years to 1,950 workers, from about 650, and is still hiring. The company pulled machines out of storage and spent millions updating the technology to reach production of 1.2 billion rounds a year, up from 350 million in 2000, company spokesman D. Bryce Hallowell said.

Alliant's 10-year contract to run the facility was expected to generate $100 million a year but has leapt to more than $300 million, Hallowell said.

The Army's use of an Israeli company for ammunition supplies has raised concerns among some in Congress. Insurgents in Iraq could use the Israeli purchases as a recruiting tool, said Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), a member of the House Armed Services Committee. "It would be utilized by those who wish us ill," Abercrombie said. "To me it seems a very serious issue."

Abercrombie said he was also concerned that the military should not depend on foreign suppliers to address critical war needs. "We need to keep the manufacturing base here and if that costs a little more money, so what?" he said. "If defense is worth having, it's worth paying for."

The Army said it has complied with "Buy America" regulations and that Israeli Military Industries was one of only two providers available. Industry officials acknowledge that the military's options are limited.

Israeli Military Industries said the ammunition will be manufactured in Israel but the raw materials, including propellants, projectiles and primers, come from U.S. sources. "We're there to help as long as we can," said Michael Davison Jr., president of the company's U.S. operations. "It's obviously something very important that the U.S. get the assistance it needs from its friends and allies, and this is a situation in which IMI can do that."

Other U.S. commercial ammunition makers could help fill the gap but cannot break existing contracts with private sector clients or foreign militaries, said Richard Palaschak, director of operations for the Munitions Industrial Base Task Force, a trade association. "There is not a lot of surge capability . . . within the U.S. industrial base," Palaschak said. "So when you get into a situation where [demand has increased] it was clear they had to do some extraordinary things to satisfy the requirements."

Some in Congress are concerned that the Army could be overpaying for the ammunition. The Army has refused to disclose the size of the contracts with Winchester or Israeli Military Industries but acknowledges they are paying a premium of 15 to 20 percent that it attributes to start-up costs, testing and the lower production rate.

The price is not killing them but the demand is....

[Apollo 0]

Isn't shooting iraqi's now with Israeli bullets just an extra insult more?

[Balschoiw 0]

Hey Rishon , just for the record and so that people know. Not long ago you wrote this:

Quote[/b] ]Out of the Months I spent there, I only got shot at three times. If 70% of them hated us, we'd be screwed.

Now you write:

Quote[/b] ]Ok, my brother has BEEN to Iraq, as a soldier, so I think he knows a BIT more than you about this.

What is it now ? You have been to Iraq ? Your brother is in Iraq ? Noone of you is in Iraq ?

I also assume your job description in the military job thread is faked too, right ?

I just don´t think it´s ok to lie at us here at the forums. If you do, your reputation is down before it even evolves.

Think about it.

Please.  

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]What is it now ? You have been to Iraq ? Your brother is in Iraq ? Noone of you is in Iraq ?

I also assume your job description in the military job thread is faked too, right ?

I just don´t think it´s ok to lie at us here at the forums. If you do, your reputation is down before it even evolves.

Think about it.

I wonder what kind of rep. I got...

[Rishon 0]

Hey Rishon , just for the record and so that people know. Not long ago you wrote this:

Quote[/b] ]Out of the Months I spent there, I only got shot at three times. If 70% of them hated us, we'd be screwed.

Now you write:

Quote[/b] ]Ok, my brother has BEEN to Iraq, as a soldier, so I think he knows a BIT more than you about this.

What is it now ? You have been to Iraq ? Your brother is in Iraq ? Noone of you is in Iraq ?

I also assume your job description in the military job thread is faked too, right ?

I just don´t think it´s ok to lie at us here at the forums. If you do, your reputation is down before it even evolves.

Think about it.

Please.

Yes I have been to Iraq, but my main occupation at the time was not talking to Iraqi's and Training them, sure I patroled Baghdad, but I never wanted to talk to them.

Don't call me a faker. I consider that offensive, I've been shot at numerous times and to be called a faker by someone who's most probraby never even been shot at, is offensive. Do me a favor and shut up, I don't need to hear this from paranoic "OMG, He's a Poser!" People. Next time you ask me something don't expect an Answer. You disgust me.