The Iraq thread 4

[miles teg 1]

That article about the FLEA is a little misleading. The M2/M3 Bradleys did originally have problems with their armor. However those were later solved by adding an outer armor shield to the sides of the Bradley. However this did not protect the front, rear, and parts of the turret which still were vulnerable to RPG-7 attacks. Because of this, most of the Bradleys in Iraq are protected by ERA (reactive armor) boxes. However what puzzles me is why they replaced the side passive armor with ERA armor. I'm guessing that either the older passive spaced armor still failed on occasion to stop RPG's or they simply replaced it due to contracts with the company that makes the ERA. Sometimes the military does some very unethical things like that where they will give defense contracts to companies not for fiscal reasons or because their equipment will better serve the troops, but rather for political reasons and sometimes just due to outright corruption amongst the DoD contracts officers in the Pentagon.

The Flea is probably not necessary if the Buffalo is working well, however I doubt the Buffalo protects well against RPG-7's. It could perhaps use an anti-RPG cage like the Stryker to help minimize RPG-7 penetration of the vehicle. That and some fold down armor panels over the windows would probably do the trick.

Also it should be noted that the article on the Buffalo does not mention how the vehicle reacts to shape charged IED's.

That is the real test. If they react well then that would be very good and probably worth buying in large numbers.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[walker 0]

Hi Miles Teg

As I understand it the FLEA was cheaper and better armoured competitor to the hummer.

As to the South African buffalo and the cougar they are already in service in Iraq if you follow the links there are several videos of them being used. Including one in an explosion that would probably have demolished a bradley.

The results of the explosion 0 deaths 0 injuries and the buffalo lost an axel and a wheel. There is an after action photo of it in the gallery. The US soldiers explain in one of the videos that they just took it back to the work shop fixed it and were out using it again a couple of days laters.

I seem to remember reading the US has just ordered another 50 buffalos but I may be mixing it up with the Cougars the marines are buying. Of Course they could have already been equipped with the FLEA but as I say odd happenings in procurement.

Kind Regards Walker

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'd like to know what is told in the USA (not only from Fox News).

If you want to know more than try CNN or MSNBC

[miles teg 1]

Hi Miles Teg

As I understand it the FLEA was cheaper and better armoured competitor to the hummer.

As to the South African buffalo and the cougar they are already in service in Iraq if you follow the links there are several videos of them being used. Including one in an explosion that would probably have demolished a bradley.

The results of the explosion 0 deaths 0 injuries and the buffalo lost an axel and a wheel. There is an after action photo of it in the gallery. The US soldiers explain in one of the videos that they just took it back to the work shop fixed it and were out using it again a couple of days laters.

I seem to remember reading the US has just ordered another 50 buffalos but I may be mixing it up with the Cougars the marines are buying. Of Course they could have already been equipped with the FLEA but as I say odd happenings in procurement.

Kind Regards Walker

I seriously doubt that the Buffalo or Cougar would have better armor protection (especially with its big windows even if they are bullet proof windows) then a Bradley IFV decked out in either passive spaced armor or as they are now, with reactive armor boxes. Also the video shown was misleading. I don't believe that was a buffalo in the video but rather just one of the many insurgent videos floating around on the internet as I've seen that video before.

The only areas where the Buffalo is superior to the Bradley is in its belly protection which has always been a weak spot in most tracked armor vehicles. In this area, the Buffalo is definitely a much better design and indeed on occasion the IED's do blow up right underneath vehicles. If its large enough or if its a shaped charge landmine or IED, then the Bradley would be toast where as the Buffalo crew would likely survive. Furthermore the Buffalo does have that excellent claw arm although I imagine it would not be impossible to attach such a device to a Bradley or an M113 also equipped with applique armor. Finally the Buffalo is more mobile then a tracked vehicle in busy streets and thus will not tear up Iraqi streets with its tracks or accidentally run over or crush people and cars as the driver has a very limited view in most tracked vehicles. So it has its pluses and minuses. It also is obviously much better armored then armored humvees.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'd like to know what is told in the USA (not only from Fox News).

If you want to know more than try CNN or MSNBC

CBS before the first commercial break of every nightly broadcast, does a "Fallen Heros" segment that highlights a killed soldier. Usually has still pictures with what their friend and family said of them, as well as how they were killed. Usually end with something similiar to "...in their last letter home he said 'Don't worry. I believe in what I'm doing.'" or "...he left a message on his house answering machine the day he was killed.'"

The Leherer New Hour also has shows a list of US killed in Iraq (in silence) when the Pentagon releases their names each day.

CBS has done a number of stories on amputees and other war wounded, as well as families. Most would consider them "biased" though since usually the family members left alone aren't too happy. They also had a number of stories on how the army was working to keep service peoples marriages intact in the face of long deployments.

Probably all liberal BS though...

[walker 0]

Hello all

According to Donald Rumsfeld the Coalition probably cannot win the Iraq war.

In obvious moves as a precursor to another Vietnam style retreat, Donald Rumsfeld has stated the War in Iraq could last at least another decade and that the coalition cannot win it but whoever the Iraqi governement (Al Sadre or Sadam anyone?) is might.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq rebellion 'could last years'

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has warned it may be years before the insurgency in Iraq is defeated.

Speaking on US television, Mr Rumsfeld said ultimately Iraq's own forces, rather than coalition troops, would beat the insurgents.

Earlier, Mr Rumsfeld said US officials in Iraq have had talks with leaders of the insurgency.

It comes amid growing concern in the US about rising casualties and warnings that the insurgency is strengthening.

Recent opinion polls in the United States have shown a considerable drop in support for the US-led invasion of Iraq.

President George W Bush is to make a prime-time address to the nation about the situation in Iraq on Tuesday.

More than 1,000 people - mostly Iraqis - have been killed since the new government was installed in April.

Domestic concerns

The US defence secretary told Fox News: "Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.

Coalition forces, foreign forces, are not going to repress that insurgency. We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency." "

Mr Rumsfeld warned that violence could escalate ahead of new elections for a permanent government, due in December...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4625215.stm

So it is going the way of another Nam why the hell TBA did not listen to the sacked generals in the first place I will never know. My belief now is that the whole war was fought for Oil and nothing more.

A declining USA is the end to this sorry tale why would anyone ever believe what anyone from the US Administration has to say?

TBA has not delivered on its word. Trust has been lost. The long slide of the worlds leading democracy to ignomy seems inevitable.

Sadly Walker  

[quicksand 0]

And I thought I was pessimistic in asessing future prospects for Iraq.I can imagine how hard it was for Rumsfeld to admit that the insurgency will last for a decade still,shifting from the hardline "insurgents had their back broken are on it's knees and will be completly destroyed" stance.

I as Walker think from this point think it's all over.The Iraqi forces can double for all it mathers to the rebels.US forces with all their efforts and military power could hardly keep them from overruning cities and anihilating the Iraqi army and it took alot of blood to keep them from doing so.

After US is gone from the equation,well all cards will be played on the table.You won't know who to call "insurgents" with the Badr Brigade,Kurdish peshmerga,Sadr's Mahdi Army,Baath loyalists and Islamists(both Iraqi and foreign) in the streets.

The Iraqi army will be decimated by desertion and side switchers(tribal loyalities,Baath infiltrators) and the government will most likely ask for Bard Brigade and Kurdish Peshmergas help.

On the other side Sunni islamists are already allyied with Baath loyalists ever since 2003,while a super power haven't deteered them,it's highly doubtful they won't use this momentum for one final effort which in the eyes of the Baathists will enable them write a glorious history and grant islamists the chance to win the holy jihaad against the shiites and kurdish traitors.The only question that remains to be answered is on which side will Al-Sadr stand who has already colaborated with insurgents aside from Al-Queda in Iraq.

Well in less words,Al-Anbar province(Fallujah,Ramadi) will fall rapidly in the rebel hands, all hell breaking loose in the battleground cities of Baghdad and Mosul.

I feel realy sorry for the Iraqis.After being led for 30 years by a brutal dictator who led them to wars and a crippled economy,they were occupied by an invader who promised them the freedom they never had only to be mocked,humiliated,imprisoned and often killed leaving them off after making a total mess of their country on the brink of civil war.

[harley 3 1185 0]

I think by now we get the picture that the situation in Iraq is spiralling ever deeper into trouble. When even uber-Hawk Rumsfeld admits what was obvious years ago, we know we are in trouble.

Somewhat belatedly, I ask the regular posters here; is there a solution? What do you think can be done to retrieve the situation in the best manner possible, or do you think all that can be done is a withdrawal in the manner of "la Paix des Braves" en Algerie and the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam? I'm genuinely interested to know what you all think.

[ran 0]

2-->

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif[/img]2)]I think by now we get the picture that the situation in Iraq is spiralling ever deeper into trouble. When even uber-Hawk Rumsfeld admits what was obvious years ago, we know we are in trouble.

Somewhat belatedly, I ask the regular posters here; is there a solution? What do you think can be done to retrieve the situation in the best manner possible, or do you think all that can be done is a withdrawal in the manner of "la Paix des Braves" en Algerie and the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam? I'm genuinely interested to know what you all think.

I think that a withdrawal in the same fashion as the abandon of Algeria would be criminal.

Just look at Algeria after the french domination ended ... weekly if not daily massacres orchestrated by the GIA and other extremist groups.

In the actual global context, I think that if the americans want to uphold their ideals, to fight terrorism and for once, to be efficient at it, they have no other choice than staying there and cleaning up the mess.

It's not the cold war anymore and I doubt the USA could afford another vietnam-like fiasco if they want to stay at the top.

The only solution I see is the US administration getting its acts together, make a long auto-critic, start on clean fresh bases and start to actually plan and act with some good sense.

[walker 0]

Hi harley 3 1185

I think we have to do what the sacked generals said we should have in the first place put 5 to 10 times as many coalition troops in. It will beggar the US and other coalition economies but it is either that or watch it spiral into a civil war with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations coming in on the side of the Sunni insurgents and the Iranians on the side of the Shia. We have to completely lock the country down. then bring in NGOs and mandatory full employment for all Iraqis till the countries infrastructure and economy is rebuilt. essentially a Marshal plan for Iraq.

It is what the sacked generals and the French and more sensible UK politicians warned us of before we went in.

The Total Disaster Scenario

It is the old domino effect.

The Iraqi Shia majority will be forced to increasingly crack down on the Sunni.

This will be highlighted in the Sunni mosques in nations with Shia minorities as it is already happening in Pakistan causing ethnic attacks on mosques and the like.

The Shia repression of the Sunni will put even more pressure on the Saudis to invade. The mere threat of that will cause the Iranians to increase their support for the Shia government of Iraq. The action will spiral.

The Kurds will look to take over the northern oil fields they are already in the process of retaking Mosul and Kirkuk which were taken from them by Sadam.

This will bother several nations, Iran, Syria, a couple of former soviet block nations and most importantly Turkey. They all fear a separate Kurdish homeland which would have claims over a massive amount of Turkey and key resources like Lake Van; the Turks have already threatened to invade on this matter.

Probably under the guise of the Shia are attacking our Sunni brothers the Syrians will go for a buffer state land grab, as they did with Lebanon. They do not once again want to be under the Turkish yoke.

The Iranians already fear a Pakistan with nukes and are developing their own in response to that and TBAs threats. In Pakistan there is a real risk of Al Qaida and its supporters taking over in a counter coup. Bin Laden with nukes is a truly terrifying prospect bye bye Israel

The Major Sunni nations will be forced to be involved or risk a revolution. Then Iran will definitely come in.

The whole situation reminds me of WWI and the Balkans. Only in this case it was not Serbian nationalist assassinating the corrupt emperor it was the coalition removing a corrupt dictator. The whole situation is so fraught with chaos one butterfly's wings would rip the region apart.

The Arabs are at boiling point on the matter, if Saudi falls in a revolution especially with its ailing leader who nearly died last month. The Coalitions army could be left in a sea of enemies with its supply lines cut. The Coalition is in exactly the kind of position Bin Laden would want us.

Consider also how the hell do we retreat out of there? Down the narrow gulf with enemies close on both sides? Or through a then turbulent Turkey? Or through Jordan to Israel, a recipe for total disaster in the middle east.

The gross stupidity and lack of foresight of the people who lead us into this war leaves me shocked beyond belief. They never had an exit strategy. No plan. No contingency. No idea.

Sadly a worried walker

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Hi harley 3 1185

I think we have to do what the sacked generals said we should have in the first place put 5 to 10 times as many coalition troops in. It will beggar the US and other coalition economies but it is either that or watch it spiral into a civil war with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations coming in on the side of the Sunni insurgents and the Iranians on the side of the Shia.

There is no chance that the coalition is going to boost it's numbers by 10 fold without further international help, the US alone could not foot the number of troops without bringing in a draft, with falling numbers in recruitment (we have to wait to see if it's going to be a trend) means that the US could not possiblly be able to keep troops numbers say at a minimum of around 500,000 due to non re-enlistment, drop in new recruits and spacing tours it's just no feasable without a draft (thats not going to happen) and the only reason you suggest it is because you know damn well it's not possible without further international help or a draft which is totally undesirable as the quality of troops in theatre drops expenetially especially when it comes to counter insurgency.

[kerosene 0]

It depends where the troops are from (as far as quality and counter-insurgency skills), troops from muslim nations could be beneficial, but it's probably far too late for that to have a positive effect.

[walker 0]

the only reason you suggest it is because you know damn well it's not possible without further international help or a draft

Hi Monkey Lib Front

I placed my reasoning why we have to bring the troop level up to to five to ten times what are there now, in that post that you quoted.

Everyone warned us

It was what the French, Russians, Germans and the UN warned us. In fact every one and his dog were telling us. Our own intelligence services were warning us but TBA and TBA2 were deliberately ignoring it as the Downing Street memos have made clear.  

Quote[/b] ]From Memos, Insights Into Ally's Doubts On Iraq War

British Advisers Foresaw Variety of Risks, Problems

By Glenn Frankel

Washington Post Foreign Service

Tuesday, June 28, 2005; Page A01

LONDON -- In the spring of 2002, two weeks before British Prime Minister Tony Blair journeyed to Crawford, Tex., to meet with President Bush at his ranch about the escalating confrontation with Iraq, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sounded a prescient warning.

"The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few," Straw wrote in a March 25 memo to Blair stamped "Secret and Personal." "The risks are high, both for you and for the Government."

In public, British officials were declaring their solidarity with the Bush administration's calls for elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But Straw's memo and seven other secret documents disclosed in recent months by British journalist Michael Smith together reveal a much different picture. Behind the scenes, British officials believed the U.S. administration was already committed to a war that they feared was ill-conceived and illegal and could lead to disaster.

The documents indicate that the officials foresaw a host of problems that later would haunt both governments -- including thin intelligence about the nature of the Iraqi threat, weak public support for war and a lack of planning for the aftermath of military action. British cabinet ministers, Foreign Office diplomats, senior generals and intelligence service officials all weighed in with concerns and reservations. Yet they could not dissuade their counterparts in the Bush administration -- nor, indeed, their own leader -- from going forward.

"I think there is a real risk that the administration underestimates the difficulties," David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote to the prime minister on March 14, 2002, after he returned from meetings with Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, and her staff. "They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean they will necessarily avoid it."

A U.S. official with firsthand knowledge of the events said the concerns raised by British officials "played a useful role."

"Were they paid a tremendous amount of heed?" said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "I think it's hard to say they were."

Critics of the Bush administration contend the documents -- including the now-famous Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002 -- constitute proof that Bush made the decision to go to war at least eight months before it began, and that the subsequent diplomatic campaign at the United Nations was a charade, designed to convince the public that war was necessary, rather than an attempt to resolve the crisis peacefully. They contend the documents have not received the attention they deserve.

Supporters of the administration contend, by contrast, that the memos add little or nothing to what is already publicly known about the run-up to the war and even help show that the British officials genuinely believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They say that opponents of Bush and Blair are distorting the documents' meaning in order to attack both men politically.

But beyond the question of whether they constitute a so-called smoking gun of evidence against the White House, the memos offer an intriguing look at what the top officials of the United States' chief ally were thinking, doing and fearing in the months before the war.

This article is based on those memos, supplemented by interviews with officials on both sides of the Atlantic -- none of whom was willing to be cited by name because of the sensitivity of the issue -- and written accounts. Spokesmen for the Foreign Office and the prime minister's office declined to comment but did not question the authenticity of the documents...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....84.html

TBA even set up its own fake intelligence department to feed itself the false intelligence so it could pretend plausable deniability or have you forgotten already the office of special plans?

Just a quick reminder of how TBA scammed the US people.

Danger of the Dominoe Effect

As I said in that post you quoted; it is the danger of the domino effect; that Iraq would descend into civil war if we left now or before the country was stabilised. Such a destabilised Iraq would trigger massive political and military upheaval in the Middle East with the very real danger of leaving Bin Laden in charge of a United Arab world and with control of Pakistan's Nukes.

Can the coalition retreat in contact?

In such a situation with coalitions line of retreat cut off, how would you suggest the Coalition retreats out of Iraq? Pulling out while in contact is one of the most dangerous military activities there is. It has only ever been done successfully once; that was at Dunkirk across only 30 or so miles of water and that was by sheer luck and indecision on Hitler's part. Imagine it on the scale we are talking about. With the whole of the gulf to traverse.

TBA are acting like a bunch of head less Chickens

We already know TBA have not got an exit strategy. They seem to be running around like a headless chicken with contradictory messages being put out by diferent members of TBA, none of which seem to jell with what the generals and troops on the ground or indeed the news reports and facts are telling us. Someone needs to take command and they had better get a plan and fast.

Talking the Talk but not Walking the Walk

If the Coalition with all its military might cannot even control a country with a tiny insurgency and as small a population as Iraq; then it is truly a paper tiger and it might be good idea not to go threatening countries like Iran who have a fully working air force and army because they may just call your bluff.

I think the only possibility is sufficient troops to do the job as the generals TBA sacked originally said.

Sadly Walker

[walker 0]

Hi all

George Bush Junior wants to use Iraqi soldiers to stabalise Iraq. I have to say I think he has about as much chance of that as South Vietnamese had of beating Ho Chi Mihn.

Quote[/b] ]Bush says Iraq sacrifices 'vital'

US President George W Bush has said that the sacrifices being made to fight insurgents in Iraq are vital to the future security of the United States.

Speaking at an air force base in North Carolina, he urged Americans to stand firm on "the latest battlefield in the war against terrorism".

He said the only strategy to tackle militants was to "defeat them abroad before they attack us at home".

He had no plans to send more troops to Iraq or schedule withdrawal, he said.

He said setting a timetable would simply enable insurgents to wait for a US departure.

"We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed - and not a day longer," Mr Bush said.

The president said he would send more troops if military commanders said it was necessary.

But he added that increasing US troop numbers "would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight".

9/11 lessons

Mr Bush's address came on the first anniversary of the handover of power to an Iraqi interim government.

He attempted to answer growing criticism of the US presence, as opinion polls indicated disapproval of his handling of the war in Iraq.

Mr Bush's approval ratings have fallen to their lowest point in his presidency.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4631339.stm

The increasing degree to which this war resembles the Vietnam Quagmire is astonishing. How can and administration so continue to follow the failed policies of the vietnam war without realising it?

Sadly Walker

[Balschoiw 0]

Hey ! Who cares about Iraq anyway ?

There is so much money to be made for some....

Whistle-blower faults Halliburton subsidiary’s Iraq contract

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON — An official responsible for overseeing some of the U.S. government contracting in Iraq said Monday that the agency responsible for giving out those contracts had acted irresponsibly in awarding a contract to a Halliburton subsidiary.

“I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to (Halliburton subsidiary) KBR (Kellogg Brown & Root) represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career,†said Bunnatine “Bunny†Greenhouse, a U.S. Corps of Engineers’ senior procurement official veteran with 20 years’ experience.

Greenhouse officially announced herself as a whistle-blower in a written statement before members of the Democratic Policy Committee. The hearing featured several witnesses who reported on Halliburton inconsistencies, which ranged from the delivery of its food services to how it was awarded contracts.

The Democrats issued a report saying the Defense Contract Audit Agency had found about $1 billion in “questioned†Halliburton costs and $442 million in “unsupported†costs.

Greenhouse charged that what should have been an independent process was compromised at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the agency in which she worked as a senior procurement executive overseeing government contracts. She said KRB had been given the contract unfairly because companies that determine the cost of the project are normally not allowed to bid on them. KBR was given the contract without competition, she said.

“I observed, firsthand, that essentially every aspect of the (Restore Iraqi Oil) contract remained under the control of the office of the Secretary of Defense,†instead of the Corps of Engineers, Greenhouse said in her statement.

KBR has billed the government $2.5 billion for services in Iraq. The Pentagon’s auditors have found cases of excessive billing totaling more than $100 million, according to a report issued in March.

Aside from the involvement of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Greenhouse charged that KBR was given the contract with the option to extend the two-year deal to five years without competitive billing, a practice that she said is uncommon. Her objection wasn’t noted in the final deal, so Greenhouse said she wrote a note next to her signature on the final contract. It said extending the no-bid contract might “convey an invalid perception that there is not strong intent for a limited competition.â€

Greenhouse said her comment was ignored.

Halliburton denied all the charges in a written statement.

“Their (witness) statements are false, especially when they say the priorities are backwards,†the statement reads. “Halliburton is taking care of our troops’ needs so they can focus on the tasks at hand. That is and should be our priority.

“Audits are part of the normal contracting process, and it is important to note that the auditor’s role in the process is advisory only.â€

Other witnesses said Halliburton intimidates its employees not to talk to auditors, a claim that Halliburton denies.

Hehe, go Cheney, go !

Fraud is so patriotic, isn´t it ?

Happy anniversary Iraq !

Bush seeks to steady US nerves over Iraq

Quote[/b] ]Insurgents today murdered a member of Iraq's National Assembly, on the first anniversary of the handover of political sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

Dhari Ali al-Fayadh, the oldest member of Parliament and a representative of the ruling Shia-dominated political alliance, was killed along with his son and three bodyguards by a suicide car bomb that struck his convoy in Baghdad’s northern outskirts.

Although a Shia Muslim, he led a tribe many of whose members are Sunnis, and was respected in both communities. He served as the Parliament's speaker on the first day it gathered after elections in January.

The killing happened hours before President Bush was due to give a speech to ease growing American doubts about the presence of US troops in Iraq. According to a recent poll, more than half of Americans now believe that invading Iraq was a mistake.

Amid conflicting messages from within his own administration about the prospects of crushing the insurgency, Mr Bush was expected to outline his strategy to quell the violence, which some fear has no end in sight. More than 1,740 US troops have died since the invasion.

In an address from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, home of the elite 82nd Airborne Division of the US Army, Mr Bush was to argue that there is no need to change course in Iraq despite the upsetting images produced by daily insurgent attacks.

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, said today that Mr Bush will stress the need for patience, as Iraq moves toward democratic government. She acknowledged that continuing violence and the loss of life makes it hard for Americans "to focus on the quiet process that’s going on in Iraq of building a political consensus toward a stable and democratic Iraq".

Miss Rice told NBC's Today show: "I know it’s difficult and the President will acknowledge that. But the United States has been through difficult times before to come out on the other side with a more stable world."

Mr Bush has said they will not leave until Iraqi security forces are trained and equipped to keep the peace. He has refused to give a timetable for troop withdrawal, even though some Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress are supporting a resolution that calls for Mr Bush to start bringing them home by October next year.

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said that Mr Bush will talk today about insurgents killing innocent people and how stopping the violence "will be a major blow to the ambitions of the terrorists."

Mr McClellan said: "This is a time of testing. It is a critical moment in Iraq. The terrorists are seeking to shake our will and weaken our resolve. They know that they cannot win unless we abandon the mission before it is complete."

The administration does however appear to be shifting its strategy, focusing more on political solutions to the insurgency. Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, has confirmed that talks have taken place with some insurgent leaders, and the US commander of the multinational coalition in Iraq has said the conflict will ultimately be resolved in a political process.

Outside the Fort Bragg base, opponents of the war planned protests. "There’s a groundswell against this war,"’ said Bill Dobbs, spokesman for United For Peace and Justice, an anti-war coalition of more than 1,300 local and national groups. "You can see it in Congress, you can see it in newspaper editorials and what young people are saying to military recruiters: ’No."’

Dick Cheney, the US Vice President, made headlines last month with his assertion that the insurgency in Iraq was "in its last throes". He was later contradicted by the top US commander in the Middle East, General John Abizaid, and by Rumsfeld, who said the insurgency could drag on for years.

Meanwhile the anniversary of the handover of sovereignty was little noted in Iraq, with no public events held to commemorate it. "What changed since the transfer of sovereignty? Terrorism, killings and bombings became widespread," said civil servant Luai Hadi, 34. "There is no water, services and no power."

You gotta love the braindead arguments G.W uses again and again and again...

10 CLS

20 print "freedom"

30 print "terrorists"

40 print "9.11"

50 goto 10

Rummy the conqueror made a nice statment lately. He said that the insurgency could take 3, 6 or even 12 years

That somehow reminded me of his WMD location description in Iraq. N,S,E,W of Baghdad.....

How does it feel to be guided by greedy, incompetant weekend - warriors and lowbrainers ?

[walker 0]

Hi all

In yet another case of hacking your foot off with a blunt axe the 21 year old cousin of the Iraqi envoy to the UN has been shot in back of the neck while helping marines to search his families house.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq envoy accuses US of killing

Iraq's ambassador to the UN has demanded an inquiry into what he said was the "cold-blooded murder" of his young unarmed relative by US marines.

Samir Sumaidaie said his 21-year-old cousin was shot as he helped marines who were carrying out searches at his village in the restive Anbar province.

Mr Sumaidaie said the ramifications of such a "serious crime" were enormous for both the US and Iraq.

US officials said the allegations would be thoroughly investigated.

Meanwhile, a suicide bomber has killed at leat 20 people outside a special police recruiting centre in the capital Baghdad.

It is the latest in a spate of attacks targeting the country's security forces.

English exercise

In a letter to colleagues, Mr Sumaidaie explained in detail what happened to his cousin Mohammed al-Sumaidaie on 25 June in the village of al-Sheikh Hadid.

He said Mohammed, an engineering student, was visiting his family home when some 10 marines with an Egyptian interpreter knocked on the door at 1000 local time.

He opened the door to them and was "happy to exercise some of his English", said the ambassador.

When asked if there were any weapons in the house, Mohammed took the marines to a room where there was a rifle with no live ammunition.

It was the last the family saw him alive. Shortly after, another brother was dragged out and beaten and the family was ordered to wait outside.

As the marines left "smiling at each other" an hour later, the interpreter told the mother they had killed Mohammed, said Mr Sumaidaie.

"In the bedroom, Mohammed was found dead and laying in a clotted pool of his blood. A single bullet had penetrated his neck."

The US military said the allegations "roughly correspond to an incident involving coalition forces on that day and in that general location".

Maj Gen Stephen T Johnson said the allegations were being taken seriously and would be thoroughly investigated.

Acting US ambassador to the UN, Anne Patterson, had "expressed her heartfelt condolences" to Mr Sumaidaie, said a spokesman.

She has urged the Pentagon and state department to look into the matter immediately.

"All indications point to a killing of an unarmed innocent civilian - a cold blooded murder," said Mr Sumaidaie in his letter.

"I believe this killing must be investigated in a credible and convincingly fair way to ensure that justice is done, and the sense of grievance is mitigated, and to deter similar actions in the future."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4643481.stm

This Iraq war looks more an more like Vietnam everyday.

Sadly walker  

[Balschoiw 0]

I wonder why the "investigations" have not been taken out of the military hands long ago. There are hundreds of these so called "investigations" that are

a. never finished

b. have a very positive outcome for the military personel who were involved

c. just get forgotten and rested

This is no way to build public trust in Iraq.

If the US would take that killings serious they would act different.

Right now it looks like everyone can go on a killing spree and has nothing to fear.

I guess this is related to the recruitment problems the US has.

If people realize that they will get punished for illegal actions it would lower the rate furthermore. So they just put some people to court and let them go off with ridiculous punishments...

It´s time that an independant panel investigates such actions and takes legal actions that are representing the seriousness of crimes comitted in Iraq.

[Bordoy 0]

http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=1679&date=20050629

Quote[/b] ]Iraq Swede vows to catch kidnappers

A Swede held hostage in Iraq for 67 days and released a month ago has vowed to take revenge on his captors and has hired bounty hunters to capture them, Swedish media reported on Wednesday.

"I want to take them out of the game," Ulf Hjertström, a 63-year-old oil broker who has lived in Baghdad for 14 years, told daily Expressen.

Hjertström, who shared a cell with another recently released hostage, Australian Douglas Wood, was even more categorical in comments made to the Australian media.

"I have now put some people to work to find these bastards ... I invested about 50,000 dollars so far and we will get them one by one," he told financial television channel Ten Network.

Hjertström declined to say what fate awaited his kidnappers, but told Expressen that two of them had already been captured.

"Vengeance is always important, but that is not my main motive. I want people in Baghdad to be able to walk in the streets again," he said.

The Swede's release was recently announced in Sweden but his kidnapping was never made public, in contrast to a long line of other high-profile hostage cases in Iraq.

The foreign ministry in Stockholm confirmed that a Swede had been kidnapped and released in the war-ravaged country, but refused to provide any further details.

Hjertström spoke out in the Swedish media however about his ordeal, describing how his captors had killed a number of other prisoners before his eyes and how they on several occasions subjected him to mock executions.

According to him, the motive for his kidnapping was money.

It is not known if a ransom was paid for his release, but Hjertström said he believed it had been.

Go get 'em!!

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]This Iraq war looks more an more like Vietnam everyday.

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

Quote[/b] ]

Vietnam vets in Iraq see 'entirely different war'

By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY

TIKRIT, Iraq — Before dawn, the pilots digest their intelligence briefing with coffee. The sun rises as they start preflight checks. Just after 7:30, they start rotors turning on their UH-60A Black Hawk, and ease it smoothly into the desert sky.

Hear DeWayne Browning, left, and Randy Weatherhead talk about their experiences in Iraq and Vietnam.

Chief Warrant Officers DeWayne Browning and Randy Weatherhead will take off and land a dozen times this hot day, ferrying infantry troops battling Iraq's insurgents in the Sunni Muslim heartland that Saddam Hussein calls home.

Only if those young troops look closely, past the jumble of struts and wires and into the obstructive flight helmets, will they notice something odd: Browning's gray, nearly white moustache and telltale furrows on Weatherhead's face.

Browning, 56, of Paradise, Calif., and Weatherhead, 57, of Elk Grove, Calif., are grandfathers. They first flew combat missions in Vietnam, before most of the soldiers in the current Army were born. They and others their age are here with the National Guard's 42nd Infantry Division, which includes some of the oldest soldiers to serve in combat for the modern U.S. Army. Few soldiers or officers in the military, other than the service's top generals, are as old.

If there are parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, these graying soldiers and the other Vietnam veterans serving here offer a unique perspective. They say they are more optimistic this time: They see a clearer mission than in Vietnam, a more supportive public back home and an Iraqi population that seems to be growing friendlier toward Americans.

"In Vietnam, I don't think the local population ever understood that we were just there to help them," says Chief Warrant Officer James Miles, 57, of Sioux Falls, S.D., who flew UH-1H Hueys in Vietnam from February 1969 to February 1970. And the Vietcong and North Vietnamese were a tougher, more tenacious enemy, he says. Instead of setting off bombs outside the base, they'd be inside.

"I knew we were going to lose Vietnam the day I walked off the plane," says Miles, who returned home this month after nearly a year in Iraq. Not this time. "There's no doubt in my mind that this was the right thing to do," he says.

The Army says it's impossible to know exactly how many Vietnam veterans are serving in Iraq, and there might be only a few dozen. Most of them came to Iraq last winter with the 42nd Infantry, a National Guard division headquartered in Tikrit, north of Baghdad.

Of the Vietnam veterans still in uniform, most are in the Guard. They once were the backbone of that part-time force, but today fewer than 20,000 remain in uniform from the Vietnam era, a definition that also includes many who never actually served in that theater, according to the National Guard Bureau. Of those, many are ineligible for service in Iraq, including those within two years of the mandatory retirement at age 60.

'No such thing as a POW'

The Vietnam vets here share their insights and experience with the younger troops. And they're learning some new tricks, too.

"I wish that I could take some of the things that I've learned (and) ... take them back in time to that 20-year-old kid flying in Vietnam," Browning says.

"There was a lot more action in Vietnam than there is here," says Chief Warrant Officer Herbert Dargue, 57, of Brookhaven, N.Y. But the danger in Iraq is higher for those who are shot down but survive. "There's no such thing as a POW," he says, referring to the terrorists' penchant for executing Westerners.

The enemy in Iraq has "absolutely no value" for life, Dargue says, who flew Huey helicopters in Vietnam from June 1968 to June 1969.

Miles says the biggest difference he saw was that, over time, Iraqi civilians grew more positive toward U.S. forces. He says he saw more people smiling and waving near his base here than there were 10 months ago when he arrived.

1st Sgt. Patrick Olechny, 52, of Marydel, Del., an attack helicopter crew chief and door gunner in Vietnam from March 1971 to February 1972, says the most important difference to him is the attitude of the American public.

"Vietnam was an entirely different war than this one," he says. The basic job of flying helicopters is the same, but the overall mission now is clear when it wasn't then. "We thought in Vietnam we were doing the right thing, and in the end it didn't seem that way," he says.

Now, "the people in the United States respect what the soldiers are doing," says Olechny, who still fills in at the door gunner position when he can get away from his administrative duties.

Browning, recently back from two weeks of R&R in the USA, says he was overwhelmed by the reception he got stateside: More than a hundred people met the airplane to help the soldiers and wish them well. "I can't tell you what, as a Vietnam vet, that means to me," he said.

....

Iraq will never become Vietnam. There are some similarites but all wars have similarites. Some wars have more similarites than others.

 

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]Iraq will never become Vietnam. There are some similarites but all wars have similarites. Some wars have more similarites than others.

It will if Bush doesnt grow a brain.....

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Iraq will never become Vietnam. There are some similarites but all wars have similarites. Some wars have more similarites than others.

It will if Bush doesnt grow a brain.....

It will not be another Vietnam if dolts stop trying to compare the two....

Iraq isn't Vietnam nor it will never become Vietnam.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I agree Iraq isnt Vietnam, nor will it be. Its Iraq. And at the moment, thats bad enough.

[miles teg 1]

No offense to those veterans but they are pilots and may not drive around much or get to talk to locals much as an infantryman. Obviously they gotta have a hell of a lot of patriotism to volunteer to go fight in Iraq... hence the reason they may very well think we're winning in Iraq.

But I can find you just as many articles if not more of soldiers saying that we're losing this war and that average Iraqis are becoming increasingly hostile.

To say that there are no similarities between Vietnam and Iraq is just plain stupid. No they are not identical wars, but there are enormous similarities such as those rehashed many times on this thread.

To ignore the lessons of the past is just idiotic.

However I agree that you can only go so far in comparisons. There are certain things that should not be compared and indeed overall the conflict is in a very different political, cultural, and religious context. Both similarities and differences need to be taken into account to figure out how to solve this conflict. But so far I have seen very few ideas for how to solve the conflict short of making a big bad ass Iraqi military to fight terrorists. But that is short term and will not guarantee a lasting democracy in Iraq. Only Iraqis can do that...and if they don't want to...then we're screwed.

That is why I think we're going about handling this conflict in the wrong way...or at least not in the wisest manner. We are totally ignoring the root cause of terrorism and the ideologies that fuel Al-Qaeda type insurgent/terrorist movements. Destroy their ideology and you win the war on terror.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Ironsight 1]

While we are getting attacked by terrorists in Europe, terror continues in Iraq:

Quote[/b] ]Captors 'kill Egypt's Iraq envoy'

An internet message purported to be from the militant group led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi says Egypt's ambassador to Iraq has been killed.

A video on the website showed a blindfolded man who gave his name as Ihab al-Sherif saying he had worked at Egyptian embassies in Iraq and Israel.

Mr Sherif was abducted in Baghdad on Saturday. ID cards bearing his name appeared on a website on Wednesday.

No killing was shown. The authenticity of the claim has not been verified.

A statement released on Wednesday in the name of al-Qaeda in Iraq said Mr Sherif would be killed because he was an "apostate", who had betrayed his faith.

It also criticised the Cairo government for its support of the US and Iraqi administrations.

Al-Qaeda claims to have beheaded several foreign hostages in Iraq under the leadership of Zarqawi, a Jordanian fugitive.

The Egyptian government has not commented on the claim that Mr Sherif has been killed.

'Delayed announcement'

A written statement on the website on Thursday said "the verdict of God against the ambassador of the infidels, the ambassador of Egypt, has been carried out".

It said the group had been planning to abduct more foreign envoys in Iraq.

"The reason we delayed the announcement of capturing the ambassador of the dictator Egypt was to be able to capture as many ambassadors as we can," it said.

Mr Sherif had been in Baghdad since early June.

BBC News

R.I.P. Ihab al-Sherif

What a wonderfull world we are living in.

[Garcia 0]

Iraq won't ever be as bad as Vietnam, cause in Vietnam US only supported South Vietnam, they had the NVA and VC fighting against them, they had the russians and chinese supporting North Vietnam with weapons, and they had to fight in the jungle, which was VC and NVAs "home ground". I'm 99% sure that figting in a thick, hot jungle full of traps, where the enemy knows how to hide and how to fight in the jungle a lot better than you is a lot worse than fighting in desert and urban areas...in vietnam US didn't have much use of their high tech shit cause of the jungle...in Iraq it's much easier to evacuate people, and give CAS, cause there's no jungle in your way

Besides, in Iraq there's mostly several small groups attacking US soldiers, most of them ain't working together, most likely...