PFC Mongoose

None, though one day, I'd like to try and find a working replica Kar '98.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 04 2003,11:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">General Richard Myers, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Thursday stated that the Iraqi capital would not have to be under US control in order for the United States to set up a new interim administration.<span id='postcolor'> This is getting somehow weird. It would be like taking germany without Berlin... This does not work. By isolating Bagdad they mean cutting Bagdad of food, water and escapeways. Who will pay ? Not the civillians of course. Now it is obviouse that the US don´t intend to get into Bagdad for urban warfare.<span id='postcolor'> Well, like they said in the PEntagon Briefing on Reuters RawVideo yesterday, the idea is that if Baghdad is isolated, it means that the rest of the country might not neccessarily be as influenced by what's going on there (re: the people can finally 'rise up' if they so desire, which I'm still quite skeptical about, though I've been saying all along that at least some people in the country might be willing to rise up if it means getting a representative Government.) How they'll stop it from being a Humanitarian disaster is beyond me; though I think if Saddam is theoretically sensible enough to not use the B/C weapons most aknwoldge he probably has, then I think the Coalition might be sensible enough to be able to pull it off.  We'll just have to wait and see. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 04 2003,17:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">   </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 03 2003,16:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> What stopped Europeans from sending forces to Rwanda? <span id='postcolor'> anyone? <span id='postcolor'> No idea.  None at all.  All I know about Rwanda without looking stuff up is it's in Africa, somewhere. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,17:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Well, if the UN inspectors had been given the time to complete their work we would have known, now wouldn't we? <span id='postcolor'> Possibly. How long would that have taken, though? Months? Years? Were they getting unlimited access? Access to the Palaces? Would they have been ejected again once they started getting close? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,17:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Also an interesting point is that Bush said that there was imminent danger of Iraq using those alledged weapons. Why havn't they used it? They are at the brink of destruction and they have not used it! That's all the proof you need that there was no danger from Iraq in the first place. <span id='postcolor'> True, I highly doubted there was an imminent danger all along. highly doubt any nation in the world would use an NBC weapon on just about any other nation in the current political climate without a high probability of extreme retaliation. It almost always isn't worth it. But what if Ansar al-Islam got a hold of one? What if soemhow the Palestinian Liberation Organization got a hold of one? (No, I'm not saying there is a link between Iraq nd the PLO, I'm just speculating). For me, the point was, the U.N. told Iraq to disarm, and they didn't fully comply. Tehy told them again, and they didn't fully comply. They sen in inspectors, and the Iraqis played games with them, and threw them out. The only real progress I've seen the U.N. make in Iraq came after the U.S. threatened them. The U.S. threatened them, and they let the inspectors back in. The U.S. threatened them, and they began disarming al-Samouds, though not nearly as quicklyas they supposedly could have; and they were alledged to have reconstitued the moulds for the al-Smouds even as they claimed to be destroying them (an allegation made by Hans Blix himself.) So, in this instance, I feel it is the U.S., and not the U.N., who has been getting the job done. And if the U.N. is unwilling, or unable to disarm IRaq, then the U.S. will obviously take it upon itself to do so, and they are. And they will. And probably, this isn't the best way, and probably, it could have been done peacefully, especially if the Security Council could have shown just a hint of uniformity on this, but they didn't. And so now, after 12 years, the U.S. is going to FINALLY disarm the Iraqi regime of illegal weapons, as advised by U.N. Resolution; but not supported by Resolution, and so, I feel, perhaps wrongly, perhaps not; that it's about freaking time.

Never been by the Ghost Recon site... I probably should, see if there are any good mods that don't need the expansions. Anyone know how big the Raven Shield SP Demo is? Damned ISP and their stinking u/l and d/l limits....

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 04 2003,09:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,09:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 04 2003,09<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder why the U.S. doesn't send a bomber into SAM protected airspace, have it drop perhaps chaff munitions, or other missile-fooling devices, and have some fighter-bombers or some such following at a safe distance, waiting for the SAMs to open up, then taking them out before they can be moved or adjusted.<span id='postcolor'> The SAMs are in placed in urban areas.<span id='postcolor'> yeah, Wild Weasel and SEAD missions can get pretty messy, and are generally not copacetic for heavily populated urban areas.<span id='postcolor'> That makes sense. And from what I gather, aircraft aren't having too many problems from the SAMs, I just keep hearing about Apaches going down. Still, if they want to tak Baghdad, and if, once the retake/secure that airfield, they want to use it, sooner or later, I think those SAM sites will have to go...

I wonder why the U.S. doesn't send a bomber into SAM protected airspace, have it drop perhaps chaff munitions, or other missile-fooling devices, and have some fighter-bombers or some such following at a safe distance, waiting for the SAMs to open up, then taking them out before they can be moved or adjusted. Perhaps it isn't viable, perhaps it is considered a waste of a sortie (though I hardly think so, however, I'm obviously not really qualified to make such reccomendations.), or perhaps they are, and I just don't know it, because they aren't dicussing their attack plan in that great of detail.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 04 2003,02:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The plan called for British forces to operate in southern Iraq, whilst the US drove on Baghdad. This had been decided way before war was declared. Our job was Basra, the second biggest city, not Baghdad. If Brits need to get called up to help, it will underline how badly Rumsfeld fucked up the planning on this one. And to be brutally honest, this is your war, not ours. I have no inclination to see piles of dead Brits, who shouldn't be there in the first place.<span id='postcolor'> I didn't know the details or the logistics of the plan untill much of Iraq was taken. I only heard the operation discussed as the Coalition as a whole, not where each particular nation would be participating. Of course, up untill I started participating in these threads, the only news I had on the war came from CNN, so there you go. As far as the planning, yes, it seems like Rumsfeld made a lot of mistakes, however, the fact remains British troops might be required to assist in taking Baghdad. They have much more urban combat experience than the Americans, and American forces might fight the enemy in superior numbers than anticipated once inside the city. As far as the war goes, I have no particular desire to see dead Brits, dead Americans, or dead Iraqi (except maybe the Fedayeen Saddam, the ISS, and the Mukharbarat.), however, Tony Blair said the final objective was to oust Saddam's regime, and I think for all the good the British Forces have done, for all the success, and all the skill and professionalism they have shown, it would inevitably be a defeat for them in a way, if they were pulled out of Iraq before this objective was complete. Also, this isn't really 'my' war, unless you mean in a unified North American sense, which doesn't really make much sense. Canada wants nothing to do with the war, and while I wholeheartedly support the final objective, and for the most part, the means, I do not support the war itself as much as People Getting Done What They Said They Would, which is certainly not a justification, but rather, independently, a respectable trait. I think I lost my own point somewhere near the end there... ah well.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Powell continued, "I think it's sad that we've degenerated into some sort of elite relativism where you only have to be better than the next guy to be considered elite even if that next guy sucks. Any person that goes through two weeks of training shouldn't be called elite." <span id='postcolor'> Picturing Colin Powell saying that line almost made me jettison hot coffee from my nose. XD

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 03 2003,23:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Once we have sorted Basra, I hope the majority of the UK forces are brought home. Â Or will we have to do the dirty work in Baghdad?<span id='postcolor'> No bloody chance. Thats not our mandate.<span id='postcolor'> Blair said the purpose of the U.K.'s involvement in the war was to oust the regime of Saddam Hussein. If destroying the regime means going into Baghdad, don't you think British forces have a responsibility to go in and see it through? Or do you believe they should just pull back and let the Americans finish the job? Not meaning to sound inflammatory, I'm just actually curious about what your views on this are. In fact, I hope no one so far has felt inflamed or insulted by my posts, my views, or often my ignorance. I'm just really enjoying a heated debate with a groupd of (mostly) highly intelligent, well-informed people.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 03 2003,20:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"To help pay for Humanitarian efforts in Iraq, and possibly to help pay for the rebuilding." Oil for FOOD.... Shouldnt the Iraqis be allowed to do what they want with their oil once Saddam has been removed? Or do you suggest that they still should be sanctioned under the oil for food program?<span id='postcolor'> Once everything is settled, I do. However, there is going to most likely be a trasnitory period while Iraq sets up a new Government and the U.S. and the U.N. and U.K. and everyone else involved tries to figure out what's going on. In the meantime, it would be good if Iraq could use this program to help pay for food (and medicine, and other articles that are covered under Oil-for'Food' Denoir - Wow. That's a lot of stuff. I hadn't heard about any of that, previously.

I find with Windows XP, doing that will only cause it to save as 'untitled.jpg'.bmp (minus the quotes), except under certain circumstances.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 03 2003,19:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Possibly to make sure they aren't damaged, and to begin getting them ready to resume the oil-for-food program once the war is over." Why would the oil-for-food program continue after the war?<span id='postcolor'> To help pay for Humanitarian efforts in Iraq, and possibly to help pay for the rebuilding. I think they're trying to reorganize it already for Humanitarian aid, but I'm not sure if they'll be able to with the conflict still raging. Secretary General to Administer Iraq's Oil-For-Food Program </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Security Council March 28 unanimously adopted a resolution allowing U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to use funds in the oil-for-food program to meet the humanitarian needs of Iraqi civilians suffering the effects of the current conflict.<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is one very interesting thing with the post-war Iraq solutions. Iraq is under UN sanctions and a resolution is required to lift them. This gives Russia,France, China & Co an opportunity to force through a UN rule of post-war Iraq. No UN - no lifting of sanctions. <span id='postcolor'> Don't the U.N. Sanctions only apply to Iraq's Armament, Political Boundaries, the No Fly Zones, and limit certain trade from foreign contries (most notably arms)? --------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Denoir's edit: Fixed quotes. You can't just put </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> <span id='postcolor'> it messes up the whole page. You have to put it like this: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> <span id='postcolor'> or </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 03 2003,18:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I've heard it was a Patriot that got the F/A-18 as well. Â Sounds like some kind of a glitch in the IFF system. Â They better figure it out quick! Washington Post is saying U.S. troops were honored with a victory parade by hundreds of jubilant Iraqis in An Najaf.<span id='postcolor'> I don't think I've heard of this F/A-18 going down. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Robert Fisk: Saddam's masters of concealment dig in,ready for battle - the independent <span id='postcolor'> Well, if the Americans didn't know about this before, possible they do now...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 03 2003,15:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I´m sorry but 5 follow up posts could be done in one !!! </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe the idea is to capture them so Saddam can't ignite them. Apologies, it's just more difficult to follow up on individual replies all at once like that.  I'll make more effort to in the future. <span id='postcolor'> Yeah sure... Therefore Halliburton workers are already at the sites...<span id='postcolor'> Possibly to make sure they aren't damaged, and to begin getting them ready to resume the oil-for-food program once the war is over. The possibility exists that they're in it for the oil, but  think it would likely be more beneficial for the Coalition to help the Iraqis use the oil o pay for their own reconstruction, rather than occupy them, impose martial law, then funnel their own money into rebuilding, and try and use the oil to recoup their losses. Quote (turms @ April 03 2003,09:44) </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually the svastika,has a history before the nazis took it in use: A Swedish count called Eric von Rosen had the swastika as the family "lucky charm" He propably found it somewhere from India..In 1918 Eric von Rosen donated Finnish airforce its first plane,and the svastika was painted on it.It was the symbol of Finnish airforce until 1944. <span id='postcolor'> Quote (bn880 @ April 03 2003) </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yep, and the reverse pattern on the memorial is most likely intentional. <span id='postcolor'> The symbol was also used in 116th-17th century Japan by Portuguese Missionaries, and the Japanese reffered to it as the 'Manji" (source: Blade of the Immortal). It held a similar meaning to the original svastika. However, I don't see the relevance of using a svastika, as opposed to the swastika. Not in this particular case, anyway.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (HellToupee @ April 03 2003,08:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The US expected this to be a short war where in 30 days they have iraq and get right into pumping that oil, on the TV they are making every effort to capture oil fields and refineries.<span id='postcolor'> The British are also doing this, IIRC. I believe the idea is to capture them so Saddam can't ignite them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 03 2003,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I was the Russian president I would have prior to the war armed Iraq with the latest technologies. Lots of weapons. Well, basically what they did in Vietnam. That would have made Bush think twice and possibly stopped the war since it would be too costly.<span id='postcolor'> But if anyone found out, it would have put Russia in direct violation of U.N. Resolutions. However, since many seem to be losing their fath in the U.N. altogether, I guess it would be moot.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 03 2003,05:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Beno @ April 03 2003,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (turms @ April 03 2003,03<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dont condemn a nation becouse of acts of individuals.<span id='postcolor'> Well, I was pretty pissed off to say the least. I know that there would only be a minority who would do something like that, but I still felt like I had to voice my thoughts, since it's pretty discraceful.<span id='postcolor'> I thought the swastika was pretty ironic considering the results of France's last primary elections.<span id='postcolor'> Could you or someone else please elaborate? Unfortunately, I don't usually follow French Politics.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ April 03 2003,03:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yep, I read about that too. It really is repulsive when people desecrate a memorial of soldiers who died so that they good live free. Sometimes I think that some French people are ingrateful to what the US and UK did for them. I'm sure there are some French that are very grateful, but then again, some others, probably from the younger generation don't realize what was done for them. Please don't tell me that the French Resistance would have freed themselves, or that the Russians would have taken Germany and come to liberate France. The French needed us back then, and we were there for them.<span id='postcolor'> This is true, and it should also be remembered France gave money and weapons to the U.S. when it was fighting for independence. It amazes me sometimes how some states can have lasting relations for years, and others seem to have politiclally, very short memories.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Die Alive @ April 03 2003,02:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It was bound to happen..... ALL YOUR IRAQI BASE ARE BELONG TO U.S Hehe -=Die Alive=-<span id='postcolor'> LOL! That was pretty good. They needed to have more pics of it 'written' on stuff, though, like bombs and tanks and such. They also should have had someone drawing in the sand with a stick, with "All Your Base" written over it. Quite funny, though, 7/10

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 02 2003,17:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 02 2003,17:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 02 2003,01:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess that answeres the question if the Iraqi will treat POWs properly.<span id='postcolor'> She had both her legs and her arm broken. Â We haven't even heard her accounts on whether she was tortured or not. Funny how you are so quick to absolve the Iraqis.<span id='postcolor'> She was being treated in a hospital. Pentagon had hinted that they thought that they would be executed. Their story and the reality did obviously not match. Btw, on this rescue: I'm not hearing anything on the two POWs that were killed in the rescue mission. Anybody have anything more on that?<span id='postcolor'> But the Pentagon says that hospital was being used as an Iraqi field base. General Brooks made a big long tirade about the tactics of the Iraqi regime. The clip on Reuters said there was fighting all around the hospital, but didn't mention if she was being treated there, or merely held there.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 02 2003,16:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, I was referring to Operation Barbarossa. The quote is by Hitler, circa 1941. The premise was that once the liberating German armies enter the Soviet Union, the ecstatic citizens would throw off the shackles of communism and join the third reich in their rightful place as the untermenschen<span id='postcolor'> Ah, okay, Barbarossa, not Blau. Been a while since I studied WW2, and the focus on the Eastern Front was on Blau (then the counter-offensive). Thanks for clearing that up.

I dunno how well it will work for planes, but check This Thread, after the initial query, there was one that sounds almost exactly like yours, only for ground vehicles. The principle seems sound, though, so maybe it will be useful. Hope it helps. - Mongoose

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,14:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How predictable. Â Where do you draw the line when civilian lives are worth less than the lives of your men? Â Why not nuke or gas every settlement where hostile forces may be mixed in with the civilians if it will better protect your men?<span id='postcolor'> Or, on the other extreme, why don't they order their troops to personally identify each person they6're about to kill, but walking up to them in a leisurely pace (re: "careless" mode) and asking </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Excuse me, Sir or Madam, would you, by any chance, be a member of the Republican Guard, or Fedayeen Saddam?"<span id='postcolor'> And of course, having media personnel on hand at eveyr instance, to document the data, and send it directly to the U.N., to make sure the Coaltion isn't committing any war crimes, and to immediately pass U.N. Resolutions against them if they do. It's a fine line they're walking out there, and they've said many times they're trying not to kill civilians, but if they act like peacekeepers and drop their guard altogether, they're likely to get slaughtered. Does that make them an occupying force? Maybe so, not for me to say. But like I said, it's a fine line they have to talk, and when you walk a fine line, sometimes you'll slip and step off one way, and sometimes you'll slip and step off another. And sometimes all you can do is just try harder not to slip off that line. CENTCOM said it supported the decisions to let junior officers make those kinds of calls in the field. IT also said they were trying their damnedest not to kill civilians. Perhaps those two statements conflict, but I'm not out there in the dunes, so I don't know for certain.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,12:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now let's see. Â If I were about to send an army of suicide bombers I probably wouldn't erode their opportunities by announcing them to the enemy. Â On the other hand, if it was merely my intention to have your soldiers start shooting up more civilians then I'd attempt to drive fear into your hearts with loud threats.<span id='postcolor'> IIRC, he was calling upon all Muslims or Arabs (can't remember which, don't have the article on hand) to rise up and strike at any US/UK targets, uniformed or not, anywhere, anytime. What was he going to do, PM them all? Besides, this way, he is rallying support, AND putting coalition forces on edge. Two birds, one stone.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,14:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Witnesses Say U.S. Raid Strikes Iraqi Hospital (Reuters) Red Cross reports "dozens" of corpses after US attack in Hillah (AP) JPost subscribers only.<span id='postcolor'> I registered for JPost, but it won't let me log in. Maybe I FUBARed my password. Now, I wonder if hitting that hospital was a mistake, or if they believed it was being used as a Base Camp..

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 02 2003,13:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 02 2003,12:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But what about Baghdad?<span id='postcolor'> I guess the CENTCOM is still counting on the Iraqi resitance folding up by the time they get there. "Kick in the door and the whole house comes crumbling down" and all that... Remember how well that strategy worked out for Wehrmacht? And in this war, just as in that one, there are politicians running interference for the military. Edit: not CENTCOM, rather Rummy<span id='postcolor'> Was that the Wehrmacht's strategy in Russia? For Operation Blau? I assume so, but I'm just not certain what you were reffering to there.