The Iraq thread 3

[denoir 0]

do you honeslty think terrorist would just sit around thumbing their fingers if we hadn't have went into Iraq..

Absolutely not. And neither would they if you invaded Canada, but that is besides the point. Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror.

Sorry, I'll take that back. The Iraq war sabotaged the war on terror as alienated the Arabs even more, creating more support for terrorists and helping create new terrorists. Plus now if you want guns, bombs etc, you just go to Iraq to pick them up. Not to mention the WMD material that was under UN seal that got looted.

Take a look at the terrorism stats for the last two years, and tell me how the 'war on terror' is going and if the Iraq war helped.

Now you have muslim fundamentalist thriving in Iraq. With Saddam in power, they were oppressed and persecuted (along with more moderate people, of course).

[reconmercs 0]

Now you have muslim fundamentalist thriving in Iraq. With Saddam in power, they were oppressed and persecuted (along with more moderate people, of course).

so having Saddam in power was a good thing   Yeah, going in to Iraq may not have helped the war on terror but NO ONE is sure it hurt it either..terrorist are going to find places to hide no matter what...their are terrorist hiding in your country as there are terrorist hiding here the only difference is there isn't a war going on in our countries to conceal themselves in

[Veovis 0]

First, ran.

Quote[/b] ]What gives you the right to speak ? you're american ? so we should just drink your words ? sorry, but I got sick of this cheap booze something like a decade ago.

Bals has "been there" on many occasions while you and even your country weren't.

-edit-: and like a few members here, he has a certain expertise in the domain the United States have failed miserably in to this day, expertise he earned throughout the years, holding a gun in perfect shitholes while you were crying for your mommy, wearing diapers.

That's hardly any more mature than anything recon said. He has the same right to speak that everybody else does, including you. And don't make fun of our alcohol  

second

Quote[/b] ]I just believe if you gonna have a thread about Iraq it shouldn't be filled with "the Americans are wrong" as the sole idea

This is a European board, so you're going to see that attitude more than not. Not saying you have to like it, I certainly don't, but counter it with a mature argument, not emotional opinions.

[bn880 5]

do you honeslty think terrorist would just sit around thumbing their fingers if we hadn't have went into Iraq..

Absolutely not. And neither would they if you invaded Canada, but that is besides the point. Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror.

Hehe, good one.

[denoir 0]

Now you have muslim fundamentalist thriving in Iraq. With Saddam in power, they were oppressed and persecuted (along with more moderate people, of course).

so having Saddam in power was a good thing  

From the Iraqi point of view, probably not (although we can't be sure if and how fast the current ship is going to to sink). From the point of view on the war on terror, Saddam would have made an excellent ally. He was extremely ruthless and was a natural enemy of AQ and the likes of them.

The worst-case scenario (and unfortunately not at all unlikely as things are looking now) is that Iraq becomes like Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal. Ethnic and regional fights and a safehaven for terrorists. Iraq is already now looking very attractive for terrorists. Lousy border control, lots of weapons floating around, local support... etc

[shinRaiden 0]

Could anyone explain why dropping 500 pounders is not acceptable warfare practice? Yeah, it may break the windows of the neighbor's house, but the signifcant damage would be coming from poor construction quality.

That said, here is the scenario:

Information comes in that an alleged bad dude is in location x. To travel to location x involves time y and visibility z. If you notice on little domestic SWAT operations, there is a command post, tons of vehicles, and a pile of infrastructure for a single crazy guy with a pistol. Now scale that to a house with tiny windows suspected to be hiding anti-tank gear and heavy machine guns.

Remember back when Saddam's kids got waxed. They got a tip, sent in a squad, squad got pushed back by extremely heavy automatic weapons fire. So they laid seige and called for whoever was in the building to come out with their hands up. They said they'd rather die. Do you just walk away at that point and sing Kumbayah? No, you finish the job. So they pumped a couple TOW's (steerable from a distance) in each window to clear out each room.

For those of you who have not traveled in the middle east, many roads there are the size of some US sidewalks. There was a picture a couple days ago of an M1A1 stuck in a ditch because it had swerved to avoid traffic. The road was only twice the width of the tank. Many places that these raids take place, there is not sufficent egress to setup the equipment and safety perimeters required for successful operations against heavy weapons.

The perimeters of the US bases, as well as the main roads into the towns are already under surveillence. That much is a given. So any attempt to move in squads with sufficent equipment to safely knock on a door and ask "Um, excuse me, we were wondering if Mr. Zarqawi would like to make a donation to the Iraqi children's relief fund" would be spotted, and the targets evacuated long before the squad's arrival.

Dropping a bomb on the target solves all these problems. The blast range is small enough to minimize the amount of collateral damage and civilian casualties, obliterates the target, has little or no warning, and can respond much quicker that ground forces if the bomber is already in the air.

Of course you can argue that it was uncertain if the suspect was in the location, or if the suspect was even related to the charge. That information is called 'intelligence', and means and operations usually are not made public, nor should they be. If the suspects find out how the information is aquired, they will move to eliminate that leak.

Secondly, you could argue that this is summary execution with out a fair trial, and execution based on an allegation (charge), instead of tried facts (conviction). Yes, that is correct, but things are different on the battlefield. In war, you are in a hostile situation with ambushes and active campaigning. Operation expectations are to involve presumed fatal activities.

If you wait to obtain all the evidence,

Quote[/b] ]"Hmm, that person looks funny, now he is pulling out a gun, now he is pointing it at me, now he is pulling the trigger, okay - he emptying the clip towards me, I am being hit with lots of bullets, I'm bleeding here, I don't know if it will be fatal, can somebody do a ballistics check to verify that the bullets in my spine did indeed come from a weapon fired with premeditation by the alleged assailant aproximately 5 seconds ago? We need witnesses, documentation, a police report, and a body bag for me...

Or you can return fire and take offensive operations. Your choice.

[Veovis 0]

500 pounds is still very big. If we insist on air power, don't we have 200-300 pound bombs? Or is that not enough to take down a building?

With 140,000 troops, you'd think you could detatch 20-30 and clear out a building. Grenades don't cause near as much collateral damage as bombs.

[whisperFFW06 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sorry, I'll take that back. The Iraq war sabotaged the war on terror as alienated the Arabs even more, creating more support for terrorists and helping create new terrorists.

Just nickpicking there, IMHO, that's not really true.

The Iraq war sabotaged the war on terror as alienated the Arabs even more, creating more support for terrorists against USA and helping create new terrorists against USA.

Iraq under Saddam regime was a strong supporter of palestinian terrorists. War on terror is just redirecting terrorists wrath against USA and supporters.

[reconmercs 0]

500 pounds is still very big. If we insist on air power, don't we have 200-300 pound bombs? Or is that not enough to take down a building?

With 140,000 troops, you'd think you could detatch 20-30 and clear out a building. Grenades don't cause near as much collateral damage as bombs.

well, that may be the case but house to house fighting is HARD..we've been lucky so far with relativly "low" casualty rate..my army buds say 30-40%(might be off give or take a few percent) percent casualties is the unwritten exceptalbe loss to take an objective...I've always wondered exceptalbe to who but thas whole different thread...my chosen profession will probally include droppin 500lbs on some city to take out one or two terrorists..thas the way it has to be..its the safer and probally most effective as of right no unless the engineer dorks (I say that with affection ) come out with a smart, heat seeking bullet that hunts done an individual..until theres probally not an alternative...your not gonna find too many ground commanders who are will to send troops into harms way and push onto an objective if causualties do reach that 40% percent mark...

[hellfish6 7]

Chill out.

Reconmerc, you're getting two warning levels and a two week PR for flaming. Otherwise, I haven't seen a problem with what you've posted that is deserving of a ban - but you simply can't go around calling people pricks and flaming them for being non-American. I strongly suggest you use your time away from posting here to think of more mature ways to post in this thread. You seem hold a myopic view of the situation in Iraq and misunderstand what is being posted here.

[DracoPaladore 0]

Could anyone explain why dropping 500 pounders is not acceptable warfare practice?

For one, I don't think this can be considered a war anymore. Saddam is gone from power and your wartime objectives were acheived. Now this is a occupation. Its a matter of both eliminating the enemy and keeping good PR.

That 500 pounder can easily be misguided, a few centimeters too far left, too far right, and in an urban enviornment I'm guessing that those little variations can make a big difference between a house holding weapons and ammo and a house with a family.

[denoir 0]

Iraq under Saddam regime was a strong supporter of palestinian terrorists. War on terror is just redirecting terrorists wrath against USA and supporters.

Well, that can be debated. There are reports that Iraq was paying 'pensions' for the families of suicide bombers - like Saudi Arabia and a couple of others. First of all I'm not sure if it would constitute supporting terrorists. The second thing is that Saddam didn't give a rat's ass about the Palestinians, he was using it to gather Arab support and sympathy. Just like he on occasion when it suited him used Islam, although his regime was a secular stalinistic one and Saddam was known for his persecution of religious leaders.

In short, Saddam was a classcial Machiavellian dicatator. He used whatever means suited him at the moment. He would have had no problem joining in the "war on terror" as an ally of USA had the conditions been favourable and had he been given a chance.

[Pathy 0]

British forces show you don't have to drop bombs to clear out buildings.....

....just fix bayonettes (or send in the Ghurka's)

[ran 0]

(or send in the Ghurka's)

and get the walls re-painted ... kukris are damned efficient ... hehe

[bucket man 2]

They still have kukris?? They could have them as symbolic weapon as gurkhas used them atleast in WW2 where close combat was not uncommon thing and kukri is rather effective.

Any occasion where kukris were actually used as a weapon in Iraq?

[walker 0]

Hi all

More news on the Torture Prison at Abu Ghraib. After a prisoner was aparently tortured to death we find that the head of US intelligence in Iraq was involved.

Quote[/b] ]The company commander of the U.S. soldiers charged with abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib Torture Prison testified Thursday that the top military intelligence commander at the prison was present the night a detainee died during an interrogation and efforts were made to conceal the details of his death.

My use of bold

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2755-2004Jun24.html

Further we find the Col. Thomas M. Pappas head of intelligence at the Abu Ghraib torture prison tells his Boss he aint going to take the rap for the murder.

Quote[/b] ]Capt. Donald J. Reese, commander of the 372nd Military Police Company, said he was summoned one night in November to a shower room in a cellblock at the prison, where he discovered the body of a bloodied detainee on the floor. A group of intelligence personnel was standing around the body, discussing what to do, he said. Col. Thomas M. Pappas, commander of military intelligence at the prison, was among those present, said Reese.

Reese said an Army colonel named Jordan sent a soldier to the prison mess hall for ice to preserve the body overnight. Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan was head of the interrogation center at the prison, but it was unclear whether he was the officer to whom Reese referred.

No medics were called, Reese said, and the detainee's identification was never recorded.

Reese testified that he heard Pappas say at one point, "I'm not going down for this alone."

My use of bold

The Rot clearly reaches the top of the Intelligence Chain of Command in Iraq so the question then becomes "Who above him put the soldiers up to the job of torturing prisoners in occupied Iraq to death?"

Since we know the soldiers are being tried for their crimes at the Abu Ghraib Torture Prison. Who is going to prosecute those futher up the Chain of Command who clearly ordered it?

The other question remains did George Bush Jnr. and TBA give the Contractors a get out of Jail Free Card for acts up to and including alegedly pedophilia. I have seen neither hide nor hair of an investigation into the Civilian Contractors.

It leads me increasingly to speculate as to George Bush Jnr.s position on child molestors. Is he for them or against them? If it is the latter then let him prove it by bringing a case against the aledged pedophile.

Disgusted Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

Americans no longer believe what George Bush Jnr. and TBA have to say about Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]Poll: Sending troops to Iraq a mistake

By Susan Page, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Most Americans now say that sending U.S. troops to Iraq was a mistake, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds. For the first time, a majority also says that the war there has made the nation less safe from terrorism.

The survey taken Monday through Wednesday shows a turnaround in views toward the war in less than a month. Continued violence in Iraq and questions about the war's justification apparently are eroding support even as the U.S. moves to turn over sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government next week.

http://www.usatoday.com/news....l_x.htm

The fact that so many Soldiers will be there for at least another four to six years will be ticking off more Americans especialy those families of the soldiers. Already Soldiers have had to pospone their education and have lost jobs they were expecting to go back to. Not a nice state to be in when the US economy is so bad.

And still we see no plan for an exit strategy from TBA the weekness and lack of leadership is decidedly negative and a cause of concern for any of us worried that there does not apear to be anyone at the helm or doing any navigation in what is suposed to be the worlds only superpower.

Decidedly Worried Walker

[Balschoiw 0]

U.S., Iraq agree on immunity arrangement

Quote[/b] ] American troops in Iraq would remain immune from prosecution in local courts after the occupation officially ends, under an agreement in principle between the United States and the interim government in Baghdad.

Chief occupation official L. Paul Bremer is still negotiating the plan before the June 30 handover of political power, the general nominated as post-occupation military commander said Thursday.

Gen. George W. Casey Jr. told the Senate Armed Services Committee at a confirmation hearing that U.S. officials are working to get the same protections for American civilian contractors, who are in Iraq by the tens of thousands in military support positions.

Not unexpected but a temporary agreement in my eyes.

To grant civillian contractors who take over military jobs immunity also is bull. If those guys do wrongs they couldn´t even be punished by the military courts. Noone would be held responsible for his acts then. For example civillian contractors who tortured in Abu Ghraib wouldn´t have to fear any prosecution on this planet and this can´t be good. Even patriotic logic should see it that way.

Anyway this won´t last long concerning both parties, as the interim government will not stay long enough in power after the handover. That´s one thing for sure. And "deals" like that don´t especially strengthen their position.

[denoir 0]

Decidedly Worried Walker

I find this most worrying:

Quote[/b] ]Last week, the independent commission investigating the attacks reported it found "no credible evidence" of a link. Still, 44% of those surveyed say they think Saddam was personally involved in 9/11.

[billybob2002 0]

I think somebody just got gangraped.....another victim in Iraq thread 3 aka gangraped 3......anyway, back to my speech.....

[billybob2002 0]

I wish Moore interviewed him.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A731-2004Jun23.html

Quote[/b] ]

New Leader In Md. House Facing Iraq Deployment

By Matthew Mosk

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, June 24, 2004; Page B01

Maryland's newly named House majority whip, Anthony G. Brown, said yesterday he could well be deployed to Iraq with his Army Reserve unit in coming weeks and, as a result, miss his first session in Annapolis in a pivotal leadership role.

Quote[/b] ]

Brown, 42, is a lawyer who holds the rank of lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve. He was recently attached to a civil affairs unit responsible, in general terms, for what he called "nation building."

Quote[/b] ]

"We're going to support Anthony Brown 100 percent," Busch said. "He's made a commitment to his country. So whatever happens, we're going to honor his positions here in the House, and we will work around his absence."

Quote[/b] ]

Brown, a graduate of Harvard University and Harvard Law School, ascended to majority whip in his second term -- an extremely rapid rise. He has been frequently mentioned as a possible candidate for statewide office, including as a possible running mate for Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D) or Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley (D), both of whom are contemplating a run for governor in 2006. His colleagues from District 25 said yesterday they will handle his constituents' concerns in his absence.

   

[billybob2002 0]

Crazy....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3169-2004Jun24.html

Quote[/b] ]

Army Told Not to Use Israeli Bullets in Iraq

Reuters

Thursday, June 24, 2004; 5:56 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Israeli-made bullets bought by the U.S. Army to plug a shortfall should be used for training only, not to fight Muslim guerrillas in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. lawmakers told Army generals on Thursday.

Quote[/b] ]

The Army contracted with Israel Military Industries Ltd. in December for $70 million in small-caliber ammunition.

Quote[/b] ]

Although the Army should not have to worry about "political correctness," Abercrombie was making a valid point about the propaganda pitfalls of using Israeli rounds in the U.S.-declared war on terror, said Rep. Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces.

Quote[/b] ]

The Lake City factory, operated by Alliant Techsystems Inc., has nearly quadrupled its production in the past four years. This year, it will produce more than 1.2 billion rounds, Karen Davies, president of the ATK arm that runs it, told the panel. Lake City provided more than 2 billion rounds a year during World War II and Vietnam, she said.

I guess muslim crapheads can smell jew on bullets.....  

Edit: craphead=guerrillas or militants for those who think its racial or something.

[billybob2002 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3433-2004Jun24.html

Quote[/b] ]

Poll: Iraqis Positive About Incoming Government

By Robin Wright

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, June 24, 2004; 7:47 PM

A large majority of Iraqis say they have confidence in the new interim government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi that is set to assume political power on June 30, according to a new poll commissioned by U.S. officials in Iraq.

Quote[/b] ]

The first survey since the new government was announced by U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi just over three weeks ago shows that 68 percent of Iraqis have confidence in the country's new leaders. The numbers are in stark contrast to widespread disillusionment with the previous Iraqi Governing Council, which was made up of 25 members handpicked by the United States that served as the Iraqi partner to the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority. Only 28 percent of Iraqis backed the council when it was dissolved last month, according to a similar poll in May.

Quote[/b] ]

But 73 percent of Iraqis polled approve of Allawi to lead the new government, while 84 percent approve of the interim president, Ghazi Yawar, and almost two-thirds back the new cabinet -- all impressive showings that indicate the new leaders each have support spanning ethnic and religious groups, U.S. officials said.

Quote[/b] ]

In a sign that Iraqis are now more optimistic generally about their future after the occupation ends, two-thirds of Iraqis believe the first democratic elections for a new national assembly -- due to be held in December or January -- will be free and fair, the survey shows.

Quote[/b] ]

Despite the growing number of attacks on Iraqi security forces, including a series on Thursday, public confidence in both the new Iraqi police and army has reached new highs, the poll shows. Some 70 percent of Iraqis polled support the new army, while 82 percent support the police.

Quote[/b] ]

The poll was based on more than 1,000 face-to-face interviews in six major Iraqi cities that reflect the diverse communities -- Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Diwaniyah, Hilla and Baqubah -- between June 9 and 19. The margin of error was about 4 percent. The survey was conducted by an independent group that was not identified by U.S. officials for security reasons. The poll was paid for by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in an attempt to get a sense of Iraqi attitudes, U.S. officials said.

For once a positive poll....

[Homefry 0]

It doesn't matter how much support they get unfortunetly, it only takes a few people kill destroy the fragile government which is going to be set up.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]It doesn't matter how much support they get unfortunetly, it only takes a few people kill destroy the fragile government which is going to be set up.

If the poll was completely different, certain people in this forum would be using this has more ammo for them. Got to post the positive news about how the iraqi people do support the government/police/army and believe the elections are going to be fair....