The Iraq thread 4

[Balschoiw 0]

Hell will break loose, the day Saddam is hung.

The situation is already out of control, no matter

what the politicians try to make us believe.

The security situation in Iraq is far from improvement.

Iran has offered USA talks about the situation in Iraq, as

Iran is interested in a stable Iraq and imo an iranian

military force can do both in Iraq, contribute or conquer.

With Iraq´s pants down like it is right now, it´s very tempting for

Iran to "interfere". I hope we are smart enough to see where

they are going. The "bomb" plus a respectable military force make Iran someone you better deal good with.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The killings go on and the torture and the bombings and whole sensless mess.

No end in sight no real Goals anymore the original ones were wrong.

We did not even need to go in. There was no threat:

There was no WMD in Iraq.

There was no link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq.

Saddam has been out of power for what 4 years now? He may get hung in a month or so if his appeals dont take too long. Al Zaqawi is dead they just made him a martyr and replaced him the next day.

In Bagdhad Mortars landing on Adamiya, a Sunni district, killed three people and wounded 11. In the tit for tat Mortars also landed on the mostly Shi'ite district of Abu Dsheer, killing two and wounding four. Despite the curfew imposed for the Saddam verdict it is business as usual the bodies of 50 murder victims were discovered Sunday, the bulk of them in Baghdad.

In Kirkuk a bomb exploded near a truck in the city of Kirkuk, killing the driver and wounding two other people. Another bomb exploded near a police patrol in Hawija, 70 km (43 miles) southwest of Kirkuk, wounding five people, including two policemen.

The U.S. military on Monday announced the deaths of two Marines and one soldier in fighting in Iraq's Anbar province, and two more soldiers in a helicopter crash in Salaheddin province north of Baghdad -- bringing the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq so far this month to 18.

No Plan to win because Donald Rumsfeld said he would sack any general who planned for it.

So we have a quagmire with no leadership or plan for an exit.

The strategy seems to be let the Iraqi Civilians and our Coalition soldiers die.

And the people who have to pay for this lack of Goals or Strategy?

At least 60,000 Iraqis and 3075 coalition troops so far.

And Donald Rumsfeld calls up more US soldiers for the meat grinder. More young men and women called back for a 3rd or 4th deployment in Iraq and involuntary mobilizations of the reserves now looming large.

Quote[/b] ]Possible Iraq Deployments Would Stretch Reserve Force

Leaders Express Concern Over Troop Rotation Plans

By Ann Scott Tyson

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, November 5, 2006; Page A01

The Army's National Guard and Reserve are bracing for possible new and accelerated call-ups, spurred by high demand for U.S. troops in Iraq, that leaders caution could undermine the citizen-soldier force as it struggles to rebuild.

Two Army National Guard combat brigades with about 7,000 troops have been identified recently in classified rotational plans for possible special deployment to Iraq, according to senior Army and Pentagon officials, who asked that the specific units not be named. One brigade could be diverted to Iraq next year from another assignment, and the other could be sent there in 2008, a year ahead of schedule.

Next year, the number of Army Guard soldiers providing security in Iraq will surge to more than 6,000 in about 50 companies, compared with 20 companies two years ago, Guard officials said. "We thought we'd see a downturn in operational tempo, but that hasn't happened," said one official.

A more sweeping policy shift is under consideration that would allow the Pentagon to launch a new wave of involuntary mobilizations of the reserves, as a growing proportion of Guard and Reserve soldiers are nearing a 24-month limit on time deployed, they said. Army officials said no decision had been made on the politically sensitive topic but that serious deliberations will unfold in the coming months...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....60.htmlFollow the link for the full article

I recognise this form of lack of strategy it is what led to the mass casualties of WWI its called attritional warfare, the same mistake that was made in Vietnam. It does not work and is costly in life and treasure beyond belief.

The strategy was stupid then and its stuipid now.

Only a moron with no plan and no regard for human life would apply it for four years and expect to keep doing it for as many as it took.

Sadly Walker

[Bordoy 0]

Saw Blair being interviewed earlier today:

Journalist - "Are you in favour or against the death penalty?"

Blair - "I hold the firm belief that the death penalty is morally wrong."

Journalist - "So are the Iraqis wrong to sentance Saddam Hussain to death."

Blair - "Saddam Hussain killed coutless people over a period of many years etc etc etc"

Journalist - "I'm sorry, you must have missed my question, do you think its right or wrong for Iraq to hang Saddam Hussain?"

Blair - "I'm not going to comment any further".

Why doesn't the bloke just stand up and say what he thinks.

Another thing was the American reporter asking about the 75% of people in the UK who believe it was wrong to invade Iraq. Blair responded stating that it was up to politicians to take decisions that aren't always fully supported by the country. Excuse me you ****, isn't this supposed to be a democracy where the people vote and the politicians do as the people want. Or am I mistaken? Is this not infact a democracy, but a country ruled by business? Aaaaargh, I hate that fucker.

[Baff2 0]

Saw Blair being interviewed earlier today:

Why doesn't the bloke just stand up and say what he thinks.

He likes to be told what to think.

By George.

Spineless twat is the worst PM in my lifetime.

[xawery 0]

I don't get why so many countries come out bitch that hanging is inhumane. I mean wtf is their problems. Many countries execute criminals that way, and they don't complain about that.

Yes they do, perhaps not with regard to a specific method but the death penalty as such. Google "EU USA death penalty" and you should get enough reading material 'til the end of 2006.

[johnwilso007 0]

blair likes to play doggy with mr George "lame duck" "Dubya" bush thats why.

in all respects he should really come out and say that the death penalty for saddam was wrong, and state why. even if he did there would be no back lash. what would happen if he did? the iraqis wouldnt change their verdict and it would mean less political suicide for him already. and his people and the labour party may repect him a bit more. the only down side is that george would probably say no to the next blow J** blair wants to give him or the next game of fetch they play at Camp david.

the shit will hit the fan on the day hes hung, will he be hung publicly or in private i wonder?

they may allow people to spit on him like they did with mussollini.

sadam says hell show no fear in death but hell be shiting himself. cant they see thoguh that hanging will only lead him to a matyr, hes bound to shout something out before they hang him to make him sound like a martyr.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I said around beginning of this war that if it were found that there was no WMD, link to Al Qaeda, or involvement in 9/11 that there should be serious consequences for those who brought us to war on false premises.

I believe it is now time to enact those consequences on Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney and the other NeoConMen in TBA responsible as well as Tony Blair and those members of TBA2 who were complicit.

The consequences I suggested were that each of those responsible had their personal and family fortunes so reduced as to so force them to have to live in the housing projects/council housing.

I believe that every Iraqi civilian and coalition soldier and coalition tax payer should be able to sue those responsible as a class action in order to achieve this.

The basis of the class action should be the fraud involved in presenting false testimony as members of government to the public, citizens, congress, senate and parliament in order to achieve a wrongful war.

I don't believe those who are plaintiffs would get much money, probably pennies, when the money was divided among so many who are adversely affected but the mere action of trying to defend such a case would bankrupt the defendants.

I also think it would aid in reducing the violence and bringing peace in Iraq as the coalition would be able to say look this is how democracy deals with administrations who bring about a war on such fallacies

Kind Regards walker

[xawery 0]

That's all well and good Walker, but let's stay in Reality Land. We both know that none of this will ever happen. You can mislead, lie outright and be as incompetent as you like, but there is no way you will ever be held accountable for it, at least not in a legalistic way. Although the comparison is far from perfect, let's take a look at the Iran-Contra affair. A blatantly illegal, let alone immoral affair, and what happens? Reagan emerges unscathed, and the convicted patsies get high-level posts under GWB or a nice segment on Fox News.

[walker 0]

Hi all

But Xawery they were not civil suits.

Kind Regards Walker

[Baff2 0]

blair likes to play doggy with mr George "lame duck" "Dubya" bush thats why.

in all respects he should really come out and say that the death penalty for saddam was wrong, and state why. even if he did there would be no back lash.

In America he wouldn't say it because American's agree with the death penalty.

In Europe he did say it because Europeans disagree with the death penalty.

At home, no one is allowed to ask that question.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

hey everyone.

does anyone else think the the decision on Saddam came all of the sudden out of nowhere? Is it just co-incidental that it coinsided just before mid-term elections? im not sure personally alough it is very fishy.

[Sennacherib 0]

poor mesopotamy. it's really sad to see this great People in this situation.

personally i want the US leave far from Iraq. they should learn the History of the world before to try to impose their laws.

Iraqis forgot their history because of the religion. they forgot that they are a great People; children of Babylonians and Assyrians . now they are divided by their religion and the battles for the power.

but we must not forget that the iranian government is in shadow, trying to take the power in this part of the world. And this is not for the religion, but only for the power, money, oil etc.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

poor mesopotamy. it's really sad to see this great People in this situation.

personally i want the US leave far from Iraq. they should learn the History of the world before to try to impose their laws.

Iraqis forgot their history because of the religion. they forgot that they are a great People; children of Babylonians and Assyrians . now they are divided by their religion and the battles for the power.

but we must not forget that the iranian government is in shadow, trying to take the power in this part of the world. And this is not for the religion, but only for the power, money, oil etc.

bingo, learn from histroy.  how many times have we seen in histroy removal of a leader and then a power vaccum? countless.... and the US are no wizard, they were foolish to think a country can be controlled with such huge change in a short time.

[martinovic 0]

I'm sorry if this has been posted before here... i just saw it recently, so if it's a dead horse i'm sorry. But, it's a nasty story.

link

I realize that Aljazeera isn't the most reliable news source, but...

Quote[/b] ]Abu Dhabi TV reported at 1:00 pm ET that the two British soldiers who were arrested by Iraqi police, then by Al-Mahdi Militia, then freed by British tanks and helicopters were driving a car bomb lauded with explosives. They were in their way to downtown Basra probably to detonate it there.

Dr. Walid Al-Zubaidi, An Iraqi academic and a political analyst told Abu Dhabi TV during the interview, that the British occupation forces used tanks and helicopters and killed and injured many Iraqis in order to rescue the two under cover soldiers before they speak to the Iraqi police about their mission. They demolished the prison to discover that the two soldiers were not there. They were taken by Al-Mahdi militia. Then, British occupation helicopters flew to the house they were held in, and snatched them from the house, killing and injuring several Iraqis.

Dr. Walid Al-Zubaidi flatly said that Iraqis now are sure that the British occupation forces are responsible for the many terrorist attacks that killed thousands of Iraqis, in an attempt to create and expedite a Sunni-Shi'i civil war in Iraq, hoping that such a civil war will serve them to stay there as an occupying power.

Al-Zubaidi said this is one of the most important piece of evidence implicating occupation forces in several terrorist attacks against Shi'is and Sunnis. He listed several of them in which the police and witnesses said that occupation forces committed them. But in the past, there was no evidence. Now, these two British terrorist soldiers have presented the evidence that Iraqis have been looking for.

Even if the news is fake, the iraqis are already pissed... beyond repair.

[action man 0]

I'm sorry if this has been posted before here... i just saw it recently, so if it's a dead horse i'm sorry. But, it's a nasty story.

Apart from the story being "nasty", do you think it's real or fake?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

im sorry i flatly refuse to believe that.  it makes no sence, why? why would the british, or any of the occupiying forces be trying to esculate the shiayt/sunni tensions. more tension mean more occupieing soldiers deaths.  I think the iraqis are trying to find a way to justify the civil war that threatens to ensume by blaming the ocuping nations.  i think this will turn out to be a simple conspiracy story exagerated by al-jazeera.  as i was aware the two british soldiers were obtained at the police station, and at the time there were no reported fatalities.  im pretty sure that would have hit the news at the time if there were, seeing as how much of an uproar the iraqi police made.

im also pretty sure i remember seeing a vidio of the tank actually smashing the prison walls, and i recall seeing 2 warriors, not 10 tanks and helicopters that this source reports. i really dont understand this acusation

[martinovic 0]

im sorry i flatly refuse to believe that.  it makes no sence, why? why would the british, or any of the occupiying forces be trying to esculate the shiayt/sunni tensions. more tension mean more occupieing soldiers deaths.  I think the iraqis are trying to find a way to justify the civil war that threatens to ensume by blaming the ocuping nations.  i think this will turn out to be a simple conspiracy story exagerated by al-jazeera.  as i was aware the two british soldiers were obtained at the police station, and at the time there were no reported fatalities.  im pretty sure that would have hit the news at the time if there were, seeing as how much of an uproar the iraqi police made.

im also pretty sure i remember seeing a vidio of the tank actually smashing the prison walls, and i recall seeing 2 warriors, not 10 tanks and helicopters that this source reports.  i really dont understand this acusation  

Yea, it's probably fake, but most muslims, iraqis included, watch aljazeera and get their news from them. If stories like this are floating around then it's no big wonder things get worse overthere.

It doesn't even matter that it's fake or not anymore, an iraqi probably would believe it.

Plus the brits have a long history of playing tribes against eachother, whenever they have to deal with stuff like in iraq they just jumped the sides at eachother and sat back. They done it when their empire was intact... old habits die hard.

[Baff2 0]

How else do you occupy half of Iraq with only 15,000 men.

Last time we kept the whole place for 28 years with only 3,000.

Divide and conquer.

The events occoured pretty much as descibed.

Don't know about any casualties.

Can't say much for the hypothesis that goes along with it. Pitting Sunni against Shia in a Shia only area seems a bit of a weak story to me. But I'm British, so I am bias.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

well divide and conquer wasnt really what happened in the empire. most of the time british occupation united people, becuase rather than hating each other they hated the british more. the problem occured when britian left, be it in India, which it is claimed millions died in the blood bath than ensued, Iraq, South Africa and the other various african countries that have been locked in civil war in the past. During british occupation few colonies populations were divided.

[Baff2 0]

Rhodes captured half of Africa with 300 men.

The British Empire was built on divide and conquer.

Everytime they united, (eg. Zulu's, Afghans) the British armies disappeared without a trace.

P.S. There were blood baths in India before the British arrived, all during their stay and when they left.

[denoir 0]

How else do you occupy half of Iraq with only 15,000 men.

Last time we kept the whole place for 28 years with only 3,000.

Divide and conquer.

The events occoured pretty much as descibed.

Don't know about any casualties.

The Siege of Kut in 1915 resulted in 23,000 British casualties. It was followed by a number of "minor" operations through the years. For instance in 1920 the British put down a Kurd revolt, resulting in "only" 2,000 British casualties, which was considered a minimal loss, compared to the numbers that died in the battles of WWI.

In addition, it might be interesting to add that the British used chemical weapons against both the Kurds and the Arabs on a regular basis. To quote Winston Churchill:

Quote[/b] ]

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes."

The thing that has happened since then is that people (at least in the western world) have become more sensitive to the loss of human life, both military and civilian. This is a relatively new development (50 years or so) which severely restricts the capability to waging war.

The irony of the current war is that the occupying forces are too brutal to be acceptable and not brutal enough to get results. Carpet bombings, mass executions, tight control of the media, abolishment of all civil rights etc could easily solve the current civil unrest in Iraq. Fortunately today that is not an option.

Ironically however in the end the refusal to use excessive violence may in the end lead to a larger sum of deaths. If this Iraq war fails (if it hasn't already) and Iraq descends into complete anarchy, in the long term more people will probably die.

[quicksand 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ironically however in the end the refusal to use excessive violence may in the end lead to a larger sum of deaths. If this Iraq war fails (if it hasn't already) and Iraq descends into complete anarchy, in the long term more people will probably die.

But that`s the same thing as saying,ironically removing Saddam from power(which I opposed throughly) is leading to a larger sum of deaths as more people have already died during this war then during his regime according to the most recent study.

One could also say just as ambiguosly that Iraqis are better off if the Baathist outlive the US military in Iraq  capitalizing on it`s success to fight the occupation off to rally ordinary Iraqi citizens beside them and return to power under secular values and implement what they know best-fear among every Iraqi citizens that the next time they go on a sectarian rampage the Mukhabarat(secret police apparatus) will visit and we know the rest of the story from there.

What I am trying to imply is that after 4 years of a power vacum and radicalization at the core of every Iraqi community among who knows what other changes occoured,there are to many variables to accuretly determine if an approach is any better then the other.

[Baff2 0]

How else do you occupy half of Iraq with only 15,000 men.

Last time we kept the whole place for 28 years with only 3,000.

Divide and conquer.

The Siege of Kut in 1915 resulted in 23,000 British casualties. It was followed by a number of "minor" operations through the years. For instance in 1920 the British put down a Kurd revolt, resulting in "only" 2,000 British casualties, which was considered a minimal loss, compared to the numbers that died in the battles of WWI.

1941, a force of 15,000 recaptured Iraq.

The British/Commonwealth forces went on to hold the country until 1968 with one brigade only. RAF bases were maintained even after that date.

You don't need a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

How else do you occupy half of Iraq with only 15,000 men.

Last time we kept the whole place for 28 years with only 3,000.

Divide and conquer.

The Siege of Kut in 1915 resulted in 23,000 British casualties. It was followed by a number of "minor" operations through the years. For instance in 1920 the British put down a Kurd revolt, resulting in "only" 2,000 British casualties, which was considered a minimal loss, compared to the numbers that died in the battles of WWI.

1941, a force of 15,000 recaptured Iraq.

The British/Commonwealth forces went on to hold the country until 1968 with one brigade only. RAF bases were maintained even after that date.

You don't need a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Rhodes was able to capture 3 areas of South Africa , not half of africa with 300 men. Cape colony being the capital of trade of south africa. South africa gets alot more complicated with the turn of the century, what with the boers in the Transvaal and the discovery of gold and Germany poking there noses in (supposidly).

[Baff2 0]

I stand corrected,

but my point still stands, by dividing the tribes and fighting them individually he captured and held and united an area the size of two modern day countries with a force of 300 men.

Divide and conquer is a time honoured and successful tactic.