Topic awaiting preservation: Gulf War 2: The Revenge of the Son

So nearly all the dominos are in place and the onrushing inevitable war is virtually upon us so here is a new thread to track developments.

Bush has given Saddam 24 hours:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2858965.stm

Tony Blair (looking old) is calling for a vote tomorrow/today in Parliament) but his majority os so big the 100+ votes against won't stop things:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859189.stm

he has faced one resignation from the cabinet from ginger gnome Robin Cook:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2857251.stm

and other resignations are pos. in the pipeline.

Our Attorney General has said that war under 1441 is legal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2858939.stm

but legal opinion is divided and since when has a defense 'my lawayer said it was OK' worked in court?

-----------
The BBC have an hour-by-hour running commentary on things:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2859297.stm

--------------------------
So how are things developing in other countries?

--------------------------
Anyone fancy predicting the progress of the war?

Here I go:

The intial advance will be rapid (with British troops taking important positions like Basra) but then there will be some stiff resistance in the larger urban areas. The body bags will start coming home but things won't get too bad in the US. I would iagine everywhere outside of Baghdad will hav fallen somewhere between 2-4 weeks.

Pos. expect at least one use of small scale nukes on WMD targets.

Turkey will grab the Kurdish area as part of a 'humanitarian' effort and will prove awfully difficult to winkle out again (when the British split Kurdistan to make modern Iraq they kep the oil rich parts and gave the Turks most of the rest).

The US and UK will suffer terrorist attacks pos. starting with the onset of war but if not then then within weeks - I doubt it will be much more than 'conventional' attacks against political/finacial organisations.

Ths shoul all flow fairly easily although I fear Rumsfeld's 'arrogance' and his push to end things quickly will lead to a few nasty 'Blackhawk down' kind of incidents. Its the longer term problems that concern me with growing unrest in the region over continued US interference leading to a spread in the conflict.

Ahhhhh well we'll wait and see...........

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Robin Cook? Doesn't he write those medical-thriller type books?

And to steal a line from Mr. T:

"My prediction?... Pain."

:::krets.net:::

[This message has been edited by krets (edited 03-18-2003).]

It is time to wait and see. This could all be over within a week if everything goes as planned. But things never go as planned so I'm think 2-4 weeks sounds just about accurate.

The war is going to be done in an extraordinarily short amount of time but it's the rebuilding and the length of military government before transitioning to an Iraqi one that concerns me the most right now.

I know very few of you here believe this but we are very fortunate that *this* administration is at the helm. I don't say that because they are ideally suited to this task but only to point out that there is as much capability in the people executing this war than we could possibly have hoped for *if* war is going to happen.

So pray for a quick and relatively bloodless action but more importantly pray for the proper rebuilding of this country so its people can have a fighting chance at something better than Hussein's brand of hell on earth.

. . : slicePuzzle

My prediction? Absolute devastation of the enemy. I don't think there will be much left over, after the initial 'strikes'. This one will go even faster than the first war (less than 100 hours). I don't think Saddam will be taken alive. I believe that we will have more casualties from friendly fire, than from the enemy. After brief initial resistance, the army of Iraq will surrender in masses (esp. should Saddam fall in the first hours). The reasoning behind this? The army of Iraq is poorly equipted (esp. in comparison to the first War), is demoralized (because of the first War, they know what is coming), and knows that it can avoid being killed by surrendering. IMHO, every effort should be made to eliminate Saddam in the first hours. That will end the War very quickly.

However, afterwards...that will drag on indefinitely...and that is where (IMHO) the bodybags will start rolling home...and where public unrest, difficult living conditions, and UN resolutions, aid workers, military, etc will get tangled up...esp. in Northern Iraq, where the Kurds are. As for Turkey, I highly suspect that they will do as Emps as suggested...and there will be no way to get them out, outside of military conflict ('Hey, we are just protecting our borders'). Because they are part of NATO, it would be very hard to justify any armed conflict with Turkey...so they will take possession of the rich oil fields in Northern Iraq, which will set off the Kurds there. I'm very interested in what Iran will do...they will probably wait until the initial conflict is over, and then start sending terrorist cells into Iraq big time...and start supporting terrorist cells, organizations, etc, within Iraq...

Well, we will see.


WebShaman

WS: Yes Iran might add extra complications to this - they could send in troops to help their Shia brethern in southern Iraq (conquest under the guise of humanitarian efforts could be this seasons new black) although I suspect they can't afford to do this too overtly as they are already in the Axis of Evil and, if North Korea doesn't start getting out of hand in the meantime, they are the most likely next country to get rolled over in our War Against Terror. So I suspect they will do things in a more covert way - smuggling in weapons and 'advisors'.

Iraq could end up split three ways with Turkey controlling the north (expect more bombs in Ankara and Istanbul - damn my Dad will be out there next month) and Iran supported Shia Muslims probably declaring themselves as an independent area (pos. very quickly - taking advantage of the chaos of the coming weeks).

As the current administration would jump at the chance to take out Iran they might use this as the opportunity - expect accusations of WMD within a couple of months.

------------------
And in the news:

The British parliament is currently debating the war:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2860717.stm

More members of the government have resigned:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2860583.stm

Although Clare Short has stayed despite saying she would resign if there wasn't a second resolution (in a post-Blair government, he will probably win the next election and step aside into some kind of internationl statesman role, its possibly, due to a deal with the Chancellor over the Euro, that the strongest contenders for leadership will be a Brown/Short combination so she has her eye on the bigger picture):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859809.stm

and there has been a lot of criticism from around the world about the move to war:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2860309.stm
___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Today's Guardian newspaper has 3 full page ads from various groups opposed to the war:

A Manifesto for Peace and Progress

Our World Our Say and the Stop the War Coalition

Sojourners: Christians for Peace and justice

and for any Brits out there remember you can Fax Your MP (I did again last night - she must be getting sick of me).

---------------
And in the news:

On how legal this war is from a UK point of view:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,916397,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,916395,00.html

and the varying opinion:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,916396,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Interestingly support for the war (and the approval ratings for Bush and Blair) has increased in the UK:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,916466,00.html

and Bill C*****n has spoken out in favour of the war (urging MPs to vote for the motion in Parliament today):
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well, Emps...I don't think it is really support for the war, just more like solidarity for our troops, now that it is inevitable.

I, too, support our troops...because I have an ilking of what they are about to get involved in...I just hope the Veterans are in charge...nothing like having a war vet leading.

quote:

---

WASHINGTON - As the United States moved closer to war with Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday that 30 nations have declared varying levels of support and 15 others have given their backing privately.

---

Whether you call it the coalition of the willing or the coalition of the bribed, it is still a coalition and not a unilateral action on the part of the US.

I've heard other reports that the Iraqi resistance blew up train tracks and derailed a train. The opposition is becoming more bold and I've heard there have already been some desertions from the Iraqi army. I was listening to the radio news at lunch again, sorry for the lack of links.

Well, the first consequences of this are starting to show up...and they are not pleasant Invasion, even if Saddam goes noted here

quote:

---

The president also telephoned the leaders of Russia and China, two nations that opposed Bush's demand for United Nations authorization to use military force against Iraq. Bush told Russian President Vladimir Putin and newly installed Chinese President Hu Jintao it was important to maintain good relations despite their differences over Iraq, Fleischer said.

Putin seemed to share that view and reiterated his invitation to Bush to visit St. Petersburg in May for the Russian city's 300th-anniversary celebration, Fleischer said.

But there was evidence of repercussions in Moscow, as Russian parliamentarians put off indefinitely a ratification vote on a new arms reduction treaty with the United States. The U.S. Senate has already approved the treaty and the Russian Duma had been expected to begin debate on it Friday, but Duma leaders said the impending U.S. assault made that impossible.

"In the event of an American strike on Iraq the fate of the entire treaty will be in question," Duma Speaker Gennady Seleznyov said in remarks reported by the independent Interfax news agency. "The Americans are striking at international law."

--Newsday

---

Also, the fact that America is going to invade Iraq, irregardless of whether or not Saddam leaves, is...well, an invasion. I think that says it all.

Also, this

quote:

---

That frustration with Bush is shared by citizens throughout Europe, even in countries whose leaders are supporting him on Iraq, according to a new poll released yesterday by the Pew Research Center.

The survey, taken in the United States and eight European nations, found that the public view of America has turned sharply negative in the past year, almost entirely because of Bush and his policies. It found that support for war in Iraq was a minority position in every country, regardless of whether its leaders backed Bush.

--Newsday, Pew poll

---

Well, so much for increasing the love of Americans around the world...thank you, Mr. Bush. IMHO, the worst diplomatic President we have ever had...

I just hope that this doesn't sabotage the war on terrorism. Because, quite frankly, a lot of people (and countries) are pretty fustrated and angry with America (and Americans) right now.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-19-2003).]

And more on the issue of supporting our troops but not supporting the war:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916976,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916977,00.html

In fact opposing an unjust and potentially illegal war is the biggest support you can give the troops

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

"unjust" war? I do not accept that at all. We have the 3rd largest international coalition of the last 100 years supporting this move and we are already seeing signs that this may go better than expected. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq030318_signals.html
...

quote:

---

Intelligence sources told ABCNEWS the United States is getting clear signals from some senior leaders of Iraq's elite Republican Guard that they are looking for a way to cooperate.

---

I believe Baghdad is where we are going to run into the most trouble and that is very worrisome. But we have to wait and see as we get closer.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-19-2003).]

Bugs: Just because we have managed to cobble together support and are going to cream Saddam doesn't make it 'right'. It failed to get UN security council backing and has no explicit mandate for action.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

well, is it "right" for countries to blanket veto ANY action moving towards giving resolution to the matter at hand? not trying to justify necessarily, just looking at both sides. c*****n had a good point in that article, that the threatened vetoes didn't help diplomacy.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Ah, yea.

We just dispatched our Delta force into Iraq to try and either capture or kill Saddam.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-18-us-forces-usat_x.htm

I was wondering when someone was going to do ^that^. Why on earth did we not hunt him down before all of this hullabaloo? I'm almost 99% certain it could have been done without the current trashing of international relations...

Bodhi - Cell 617

Security Council backing is in no way a measure of 'right' either. The point is that this is not a unilateral action and it has quite a bit of moral justification. The UN Security Council *refused* to follow its own mandates! Even though mobrul and I disagree vehemently about the UN's role, we can at least agree that the Security Council needs to change because it is ineffective in situations like this.

[edit] bodhi, you have to get rid of the entire regime to make any real change. And besides, do you really think the UN would have sanctioned the assasination of Hussein? So getting the agreement of France would have been no more the easier.

Speaking of France, interesting flip-flop in position today. Isn't that interesting? So they will fight if Hussein uses WoMD that he never had? I'm glad we have their support. [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-19-2003).]

And the double standard (and duplicity) of some of the opponents of the war:

Russia: They are hiring Antonov transports (with engineers and crews) to the RAF to help ferry goods to Our Boys in the Middle East (always a buck to be made during war).

France: They have seemingly been inviting Iraqi anti-Saddamites to France to discuss cutting in french firms (esp TotalFinaElf - could they not have come up with a better name?) after the war.

These articles detail the oil situation nicely and how badly France (TotalFinaElf) and Russia (Lukoil) would be hit (the China National Oil Company would also lose out):
www.forbes.com/markets/commodities/newswire/2003/03/19/rtr911776.html
http://foi.missouri.edu/usenergypolicies/itsnotallaboutoil.html

----------------
I can't say that what France was doing was right but it shouldn't have be used as an excuse to abandon diplomatic efforts.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Emps, I came across this Op/Ed and thought it hit a lot of the points I think of when you and I discuss this issue.

[edit] I forgot to make this point. I agree that some people are using it as an excuse and they are focusing so much on the French issue that they are forgetting the real issue which is regime change. [/edit]

Diplomatic blunders don't nullify arguments for war

It calls the "rush" to war into question. It is very critical of Bush's diplomatic abilities with allies. But underneath all of that, it cuts to the heart of the matter.

quote:

---

But with conflict likely hours away, what can't be blamed on diplomatic blundering is the ultimate need to go to war to disarm a dictator with weapons of mass destruction and a history of using them. While war is always a dangerous undertaking, it is, in this case, the best of the bad alternatives. Twelve years of trying -- and failing -- to do the job peacefully testify to the uselessness of options short of force.

---

You have stated repeatedly we should give it more time. This article explains why more time will lead to exactly what we're doing now, just later on.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-20-2003).]

It has begun.

And so it begins..........

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

......or has it? It appear they had sme intelligence that Saddam and some senior members of his government were in a specific location and they've bombed it. No news on the outcome but that would be the best possible start to the wa

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well, Bugs, I can't speak for Emps, but the article is precisely along the lines that I've been holding...that I'm not against a war in Iraq, but I'm against how Mr. Bush has (and is) waging it. This explains what I mean

quote:

---

Bush has not adequately explained why the U.S. must adhere to a rigid timetable for invasion. And a strong case can be made that attacking Iraq now with a limited coalition, rather than waiting several months to garner broader support for combat, needlessly complicates the war's goals.

---

taken from the same article that you posted.

It is not enough, that one can 'win'...one needs the UN and allies and world opinion, to optimize not only the actual war (conflict), but also to deal with what happens afterwards. In this, Mr. Bush and his administration failed badly, even catastrophically.

We learned in Vietnam what happens, when we 'go it alone'...not saying that Iraq is similiar, but...what happens afterwards? Are we then going to rebuild Iraq alone? Station troops there, indefinitely? How long is the involvement of US military personal going to be? Shouldn't UN Peacekeepers be installed, after the conflict? What about the people of Iraq? How about the infrastructure?

All unanswered questions...and they all point to one source...Mr. Bush's inability to gather a global coalition, and UN support. Also, where are his plans for post Iraq? Just saying 'We will bring peace and prosperity to Iraqi citizens', will not keep them fed, fix the infrastructure, or re-install a 'just' regime (or government entity) in Iraq. One needs a concrete plan, money, and the will...in end effect, from the ideal, to the reality...that cannot be accomplished with mere words.

Bugs - for a full scale assassination attempt to be effective, of course we would have to take out the whole regime. You have assumed I am only concerned about taking out Saddam. My statement referred to a blanket attempt on the people associated with him, not just him... and I wasn't really concerned about a sanction from the UN. If Bush doesn't need their approval to bomb a nation, surely he wouldn't have needed it to send some special ops in there quietly and take out the operation... He is certainly capable of dealing with the backlash after it had been taken care of...

And I still think that would have been possible without blowing things up.

Alas, no further opportunity for that now...

*edit - damn fingers...

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 03-20-2003).]

Actually Bohdi23, what you are supposing is actually illegal (I think since President Ford). It is illegal (under US law) to assassinate the heads of states.

So...it would have to have been a 'black operation'. And such operations, should they go wrong, can have a very messy political pricetag.

Of course, had Mr. Bush of got the go from the UN, and it was really War, that might have changed things somewhat...being that it is a real War. In that case, it wouldn't of then been considered assassination, but instead killing of the enemy.

It appears things are starting to move. The troops within the DMZ in northern Kuwait were told to be ready by 16:30 GMT (half an hour ago) and, athough reports are sketchy, it appears they may be moving out.

There are various reports (including eye witness reports) that at least 3 or 4 oil wells have been set on fire in the main oil area around Basra - I believe the UK troops are supposed to be in charge of advancing on that area (they are also in command of US troops which is the first time this has happened in a long time). I cn't imagine thats going to be pleasant.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

A real partnership going on there, eh? Yeah, I wonder how that is going with the UK commanding US soldiers.

Another thing about this war that is new. We have reporters on the front lines traveling with the troops. I was listening to a report this morning from a guy with an artillery group. As he was reporting there were all sorts of shouts and he quickly said they had to get moving. It sounded pretty intense.

I think the US military wants to show the world that we aren't out to slaughter people but to get the regime out. So they are risking the coverage at the front to avoid all the negative press they got in Afghanistan.

WS, i won't disagree that i wish the war had happened with more support from the UN, but that really seemed to be looking more and more like a lost cause. saddam should've been disarmed 45 days after the gulf war, and 10 or 12 years later we're still dealing with much of the same problem we started with. hans blix this week has said that iraq really wasn't cooperating, has provided little new evidence in their reports, and seemed to only respond at all once millitary force started to build up in the region (and even then with no real new information). i think france's blanket veto was really the nail in the coffin, as others have observed.

my question to you is, how should this have progressed? its painfully obvious that france was not going to support any sort of resolution with a deadline or even a motion simply supporting 1441. how could this possibly send a message that something needs to happen to saddam. disarm or else...we'll, um...write some more resolutions with no consequences. its like telling a kid to go to his room, he says no and you go well, ok, and leave him there. the kid's learned that he doesn't have to listen because nothing's going to happen to him, so he doesn't.

chris

Bugs: They're all professionals I'm sure they'll be just fine

Yes there are plenty of BBC reporters - one reporting back from the very front line. Amusingly the picture from Ankara was worse than ones coming in from northern Iraq and forward bases in Kuwaiti!!

The shelling has started along the front line and it shouldn't be long:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2869121.stm

The one to watch is Turkey for now their parliament has a pproved use of Turkish airspace (but not refueling):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2862903.stm

they claim they have permission to go into Northern Iraq but the US say they don't:

quote:

---

Ankara has said the US agrees in principle to a Turkish troop presence in the region - but US officials say they oppose a unilateral incursion.

---

I would imagine the Turkish troops are moving already in a move to deliver a fait accompli. The Turks have objected to the PKK and/or the Peshmerga (who now claim to be an army and not just guerillas) actually moving into the main cities and the US say they will occupy them but once the bombing starts things aren't going to remain very clear cut and it could get messy (as will getting the Turks to give up northern Iraq afterwards).

I've travelled through the Kurdish area in Turkey and there really is no love lost there

In fact I was only 15-20 miles from Iraq when Iraq invaded Kuwait last time around (although I didn't find out for a week or so).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

I think the US military wants to show the world that we aren't out to slaughter people but to get the regime out. So they are risking the coverage at the front to avoid all the negative press they got in Afghanistan.

---

They are not "risking" anything. Quite the opposite - what better way to control the media coverage than putting (carefully chosen) reporters under direct command of the military, while telling all other media people to "leave Iraq immediately for their own safety". How convenient for the military to always know where the reporters are, what they are filming, and that they won´t be allowed to send home any second of material that doesn´t fit in the PR agenda.
Tell me when you see the first mangled corpse on TV, filmed by an "embedded" reporter. Not going to happen, I dare predict.

They are most certainly trying to avoid negative press by keeping specific reporters on the front lines, but that fact doesn't necessarily negate the idea of propaganda either...
It's all one.

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 03-20-2003).]

MW, I disagree because every one of those reporters will not be under military intelligence contraints once the initial attacks have finished. They will be able to come back and report how many bodies they witnessed and any other terrible outcomes you would care to catalog. And I hope you are not suggesting they should not be contrained during the action because too much info leaked out at this point could be directly related to losing lives.

bodhi, I never suggested propoganda and misinformation was not in effect. This is a war and if that were not going on, there would be something seriously wrong

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-20-2003).]

Just stumbled across this picture: http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg

It's no secret, Sash

Well, if one really thinks those reporters are going to be allowed to present any information that has a negative impact, think again. It's just not going to happen. Think about it. You are a military commander, and you have total control over the embedded reporters...would you let them report negatively? Not if you are smart. Edit and destroy the negative stuff...yup. As for embedded reporters leaving the unit...well, that will also be tightly controlled, IMHO. I mean, you don't want an embedded reporter then 'running amok' on the battlefield...so, if he/she wants to leave, set them on the first plane out of Iraq...without their material. Then they can scream all they want...but without proof.

So I don't think those embedded reporters are going to be showing 'the real war'...because they won't be allowed to...at least, not as it is going on. Maybe afterwards.

Also, to be quite honest, should it come to real firefights, I think most of the embedded reporters are going to be given a real dose of reality. Won't be all that much time to report anything real, under such circumstances, at least, not at first. I wonder how many of those embedded reporters are going to be coming home in body bags?

And to Fig...I already suggested another course of action...I feel that with the proper diplomatic means, a well-defined reason of why, and how, and an explanation of what afterwards, combined with a reasonable time-line, to allow inspectors to attempt to fulfill their duties, would have worked much better...because then, if Saddam hadn't of cooperated fully, it would have been obvious. Then comes the war, backed by the full support of the UN. Now, as to the French reaction, I'm sure a lot of that came because of the harsh words (and actions) on behalf of the US. In fact, if the US had taken all the ground-laying arguements out of why not to go to war (and let Saddam dig his own grave), then the US would have been in a position of right. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush took a great opportunity, and wasted it.

However, this is all now conjecture...we should be concentrating on getting the war over as quickly as possible, and figure out what we are going to do afterwards, to rebuild Iraq as quickly as possible, in order to keep suffering among the Iraqi people at a minimum.

quote:

---

Then comes the war, backed by the full support of the UN.

---

How could that have ever happened when the French stated quite clearly that they would veto any such action? The Security Council is the only entity that can authorize a war.

And I think several billion dollars worth of revenue had far more to do with their opposition than and "harsh" words from the US. They were perfectly willing to go along with the disarmament resolutions but as soon as regime change began to be discussed that's when France put its down.

WS, I've been watching Fox News and the embedded reporter has been riding along in a tank battalion. It's quite historic to be able to see footage live like that. I think we agree that they will be filtered during the war but will be able to report anything they like after the fact. I couldn't imagine it much different, just the fact that they're allowed in there is quite amazing really.

bugs, i have a foggy memory of reporters being controlled by the military, some war/police-action since the vietnam war.. the reporters complained bitterly at the news that was "shared" with them by the military. this may be why they are being allowed to move with the troops, but as ws noted - it's not likely they will be able to report anything negative.

[edit - this is not the first time reporters have been in the action. i recall watching "live" video feed of battles during the vietnam war as well as footage of the troops out on patrol

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 03-21-2003).]

I have little to add but this:

At this precise moment in time, I feel ashamed to be British, and I am seriously considering just how big a part this coutry will play in my future.

The only people whom I shall be thinking of over the coming weeks are the citizens of Iraq, who face an onslaught er of near genocidal proportions.

If I had a God, I would pray to him/her that they survive this, but there are, and shall continue to be, human casualties.

Looky!

Bugs, in response to

quote:

---

How could that have ever happened when the French stated quite clearly that they would veto any such action?

---

I would say, just because they said it, doesn't mean they would do it. After all, many things get said, and then aren't done, after all (case in point - the 'huge' attack that was supposed to roll through Iraq...instead, we have a 'little' attack, that is moderately underway).

As for the French, if Mr. Bush hadn't of been 'hell-bent for war', and had not trod all over the French, I'm sure that a diplomatic solution to the 'impasse' could have been reached. Just another example of Mr. Bushs failed diplomacy efforts. Especially France, which really doesn't liked to be bullied, it would have been far more effective to approach them with civility and the feelings of equalness. And to actually listen, of course, to what they have to say. A deal to 'split' the Oil, maybe? Would have been worth a shot...nobody likes to be completely on the losing end...which is where Mr. Bushs beligerence forced France to be.

And yes, they did have reporters live in the field in Vietnam...the difference being, that they couldn't report live, as one can these days...technology advances...

I know this is supposed to be a serious thread, but oh well...
http://richstevens.com/flash/time2.swf

{edit} Also, this is real cool, it's 3-D models of all the aircraft we are using. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/weapons/3d.models/index.117.html {edit}

[This message has been edited by Gilbert Nolander (edited 03-21-2003).]

Theb52s took off from the UK 5 or 6 hours ago and the 'shock and awe' attack has started on Iraq and I'd recommend you get to the TV as it is shocking and awe inspiring

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

haven't the US and britain already agreed that the iraqi oil proceeds will go into a fund for iraq's rebuilding? it doesn't seem that the US would just get to walk away with that...

chris

Just wanted to add a few things...

American governement justified this war to the eyes of the American people saying that it would be a clean war and very quick.

First, NO war is clean. For god's sake, no one can justify a war by saying that it will be clean...

And, the first thing said the American governement after the beginning of the war was that it may last longer than it was thought...

I really have the feeling to be fooled and treaten like a dumb. Do you also share this feeling ?

Edit : Ah and watching those bombs explode in Bagdad is too much for me... How can humans want to do THAT to other humans ?



[This message has been edited by Moon Shadow (edited 03-21-2003).]

quote:

---

haven't the US and britain already agreed that the iraqi oil proceeds will go into a fund for iraq's rebuilding?

---

AFAIK the US have agreed with themselves that the first xx billions will be used to pay for the costs of war on the US side.

live bagdad video feed

article dated 1/23/03 on cnn:

quote:

---

Iraq's oil "belongs to the Iraqi people" and the United States would hold Iraqi reserves in trust if it occupied Iraq after a war, Secretary of State Colin Powell said.

In an interview with regional newspaper reporters, the transcripts of which were released Wednesday by the State Department, Powell said Iraqi oil "will be held for and used for the people of Iraq."

"It will not be exploited for the United States' own purpose," he said. "We will follow religiously international law, which gives clear guidance with respect to the responsibilities of an occupying power, if it comes to that."

Both domestic and international critics of the Bush administration's confrontation with Iraq say oil -- not a professed desire that Iraq give up its weapons of mass destruction -- is the U.S. motivation. The Iraqi government has said the United States wants a war in order to assert control over Middle Eastern oil production.

Powell said the United States is "studying different models" of how Iraq's oil fields would be operated under a U.S.-led occupation, "but the one thing I can assure you of is that it will be held in trust for the Iraqi people, to benefit the Iraqi people. That is a legal obligation that the occupying power will have."

---

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/23/iraq.powell/index.html

Moon Shadow,

quote:

---

How can humans want to do THAT to other humans ?

---

We do NOT want to do that and that is why we tried every other possible way to avoid it. The difference here is that we believe that sometimes it is *necessary* even though it is unpleasant.

I seriously wonder about why you don't see the need. Is it because you feel very secure and unthreatened where you live? Does it not bother you that other people suffer? How much were you complaining about the horrible things happening to the Iraqi people before we went in? Why does taking down a brutal regime upset you more than the regime itself? Can't you see the relief of the people in the areas we have already secured? Did you see the pictures of Iraqis tearing down pictures of Hussein? Why would they do that? Can you even relate to what it is like to live in that constant state of unrest? There was no peace in Iraq. Perhaps now there is a chance for it.

I am not convinced this will result in a worse situation or there is no way I would support this war. I have serious disagreement about what will result and I intend to explore this more in other threads. But can you please explain to me why you are so opposed to this war? You seem like a very reasonable person and I would very much like to know *your* thoughts on why taking down Hussein is wrong.

. . : slicePuzzle

This is a worying development - a Moslem US soldier has rolled grenades into 3 tents belonging to senior commanders of the 101st US Airborne Division i Kuwiat. After considerable confusion they shot him and took him into custody - no one died but 13 soldiers have been injured:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2877087.stm

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

well now, here's an unexpected start to a sunday:

quote:

---

RAF Tornado downed by US missile

BBC News

---

So how the hell can we believe that they'll keep civilian casualties to a minimun, when the 'allied forces' can't even avoid each other? Haven't they ever heard of a transponder signal?

Damned ugly mess if you ask me.

War is *always* an ugly mess. Friendly fire was expected but it *really* hurts. From what I can tell, it is much less frequent than previous wars. But I really have to wonder why it has to happen as frequently as it still does

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-23-2003).]

Well, things have taken a turn for the worst...and what should have been a relatively fast war, has now slowly started turning into a longer war...and may threaten to turn into a quagmire. That Turkey (Full article here) has sent troops into the region, is just 'icing on the cake'...and could potentially lead to disaster

quote:

---

The Kurds of Zakho are preparing to resist. "We don't want to be liberated from Saddam only to be oppressed by Turkey," said Ahmed Barmani, a car mechanic. "I hate Turkey more than I do Saddam."

He joined his childhood friend Massoud to dig themselves into a defensive position overlooking the river.

"Wherever they try to cross, we'll be ready for them," he said.

The two friends were not alone. Several hundred peshmerga fighters from the villages around Zakho could be seen taking up positions in the hills.

--Guardian Unlimited

---

Hoboy. Turkey has skillfully out manouvered Mr. Bush, it seems. And now it may come, that the Kurds will not join the US forces in helping free the north, which was the 'contingency' plan, after it became obvious that Turkey wouldn't allow US ground troops to attack from Turkish soil. Or, even worse, the Kurds start attacking the Turks, and the American troops are forced to chose sides...and thus the north becomes a boiling pot.

Also, the old 'women in the military' thing has finally taken a realistic 'step'...as one of the POWs captured was an American woman. I find that somewhat disheartening, myself. I'm sure she finds that disheartening. I just hope they haven't used any 'torture' on her...

Also, casualties are starting to rise...that's always a bad sign. I personally hold Mr. Bush responsible, for every body bag. Sleep well, Mr. Bush. I hope, that by the time it is over, that it was worth it. I also hope that the next couple of days will bring an end to the 'seige' of Baghdad, and the end of Saddam...and as few casualties as possible. I think that Mr. Bush (and the military commanders) have been 'blindsided' by the Iraqi resistence...surely not an indication of a quick end, IMHO. They also don't seem to be welcoming the American and British troops, either.

And no massive surrendering, as in the first Gulf War...that is troubling.

As of now, the latest developements are indeed that, troubling...

I'm wondering if anyone has the feeling that Bush, as 'arrogant cowboy' as he's been :P isn't being a bit of a PC war fighter here. I don't understand the tactics from what I've seen (admittedly not much without television). It appears to me we're sending lots of high dollar missiles into buildings in Baghdad that were most likely evacuated before the first explosion ever took place. That's kinda cool on the low loss of life front but it seems to encourage what WS mentioned, there's no surrender going on like there was in the first war. Seems to be 'shock and giggle'. They've even used surrender as an ambush to catch unsupecting marines who apparently think they're in Iraq for a stroll in the park (absolutely no offense intended to military personel with this comment).

I just wonder why we're not hitting more military targets heavily from the air as we have Baghdad, and why are we sending in ground troops so early.

I also wonder if anyone's heard anything about the Russians selling Iraq jamming devices to throw off our satellite guided missiles? If those are indeed in their hands, and working as advertised, that could maybe be a reason for the lack of aerial assault on other military targets? Does anyone know what types of missiles are being used in the successful (on target) strikes?

I may have said many things a little screwey here as my information comes from spotty jumping around on the internet, I don't have a television so I'm not getting the constant play by play. I would just hate to see this much resolve from a President turn to crap because of some kind of politics of war, there should be no politics in war, only victory. I'm afraid if this is happening, it could have awful consequences.

Somebody fill me in on *how* we're appraoching/carrying out this war if you have any idea, I don't like my ideas.

War sucks.

Jason

Well, JKMabry, the situation is really hard to analyse, actually. Despite the information overload, there are some major problems : who is telling the truth? Time and again, I've seen information that both contradicts itself, and what other sources are saying. Also, there is a lot of information that is apparently not making its way into the American media. And a lot of the information available from other non-american sources, are full of 'biased' information...as well as the American media. In fact, the coverage is mostly so biased, that it is making it extremely difficult to extract any worthwhile information at all. In other words, it's a nice 'show', with little real content.

As for the war itself, I think there has been some major mistakes and confusion, especially from both intelligence, and the top brass. However, it is hard to tell, really, without reliable information. Why are they 'selectively' bombing Baghdad? Good question, we don't really know. Why did they send in Apache helicopters to weaken the Republican guard, instead of just bombing it to smithereens (and therefore placing the pilots at heavy risk)? We don't really know. Why didn't they just mow Baghdad down, and erase it from existence? Again, we don't really know. In fact, we have no real reliable informaiton on just about anything...how many causualties have the coalition forces really taken? Depends on who you believe.

Also, this 'lightning strike' of ground troops, by-passing pockets of resistance and cities...could become a very difficult position to hold - if the war drags on (meaning that Baghdad doesn't fall within a couple of days). Hit-and-run tactics could result in not only more casualties for coalition forces (against lightly armed support personal), but also runs the danger of having the front forces being cut-off from support. This in turn, could result in a quagmire, of isolated coalition 'pockets', which would be a very dangerous situation to be in.

Some things to consider - the coalition forces could of ended the war relatively quickly...if they would have erased Baghdad from existence at the start of the war. That many civilians would have died in the operation, is perhaps the only consideration...but war is war(and I personally believe that overwhelming force should be used wherever possible - it saves lives, especially among ones own forces). In light of the fact that Iraqis are not wildly praising and receiving their 'liberation', and that Iraqi troops are not surrendering en masse, I personally feel that reducing Baghdad to rubble would have been a better choice...esp. considering the out-manuovering that Turkey did to the Bush administration...a quick end to the war would have foiled Turkish plans to invade from the North (which is now a little to late - according to Russian sources, they are already in Northern Iraq, and have been for 2 days now). However, American military officials deny this, and Turkey is now denying it, as well (before they said they were, now they say they are not).

Also, the longer this war continues, the more casualties, both on the military front, and among the civilians. In the case of street fighting in Baghdad, expect the casualties to rise sharply. I personally am very surprised that no chemical/biological weapons have been used...could it be, that Saddam really doesn't have any WMD? It makes absolutely no sense not to use them now (esp. considering that Baghdad is directly under attack by ground forces). The only thing I could perhaps see, in not using them (providing that Saddam has them) are either that the troops refuse to use them (possible, but unlikely), or that Saddam himself won't let them be used (also unlikely). Maybe he actually expects to be captured? It just makes no sense, actually, not to use them at this point. Soon the coalition forces will be to close to Baghdad to use them effectively, without becoming a serious danger to his own troops, civilians, and possibly himself.

To make a long post short, I think that you, like just about everybody else, is feeling the same fustration as I...that there is no real, reliable information forthcoming...instead, it's a propaganda whirlwind of huge proportions. At least, that's the way it looks to me.

I think the issue is that the war is Rumsfeld's plan for a smaller, faster army conducting a rapid operation stretched across a very wide area. This is against the general's prefered warfare which is deploying overwhelming force and rolling the enemy up as you progress. The problem is that this has been heavily flagged and if I was Saddam I'd have told my troops that if they kept fighting and nibbling away at supply lines then they actually stood a chance of really slowing the Americans down and doing them harm. Things could end up severly overstretched and that could turn nasty:

quote:

---

Fears were expressed yesterday that Washington had underestimated the number of troops needed , and that an attacking force could sustain as many as 3,000 casualties in the battle for Baghdad. Retired US army general Barry McCaffrey, commander of the 24th Infantry Division 12 years ago, told BBC Newsnight that the US-led force faced "a very dicey two to three day battle" .

"If they (the Iraqis) actually fight, clearly it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties," said Gen McCaffrey

---

from:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,921355,00.html

Although I am sure they are bombing military targets (I've seen a lot of footage from northern Iraq for example) but this is from the article above:

quote:

---

An extensive Iraqi air defence system - known as a Super Missile Engagement Zone - is still in place across central Iraq to defend the Republican Guard.

---

I think one thing that might not have been taken into account is that ordinary people while hating Saddam might not be overly happy about Western troops occupying their land and accidental killing them:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,921356,00.html

and this could cause long term problems.

quote:

---

A surgical assistant at the Saddam hospital in Nassiriya, interviewed at a marine check point outside the city, said that on Sunday, half an hour after two dead marines were brought into the hospital, US aircraft dropped what he described as three or four cluster bombs on civilian areas, killing 10 and wounding 200.

Mustafa Mohammed Ali said he understood US forces going straight to Baghdad to get rid of Saddam Hussein, but was outraged that they had attacked his city and killed civilians. "I don't want forces to come into the city. They have an objective, they go straight to the target," he said. "There's no room in the Saddam hospital because of the wounded. It's the only hospital in town. When I saw the dead Americans I cheered in my heart.

"They started bombing Nassiriya on Friday but they didn't bomb civilian areas until yesterday, when these American dead bodies were brought in.

---

[edit: It appears expat Iraqis are flooding home to fight the Coalition:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,921351,00.html

and this is a more personal view which highlights my main concern that Iraq will explode in war between various factions (which will drag in various countries like Turkey and Iran):
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921189,00.html

And the find of a chemical weapons factoy seems to have been untrue:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,921234,00.html

Just on the news: it appears an F16 has had to fire on a Patriot missile battery because it had locked on to it. now that is scary.]

and on the subject of Russia selling Iraq military equipment:
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,921453,00.html

Intersting article on the reporing of 'facts' in the war:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,921647,00.html

-------
On a side note support for war in the UK has rocketed and for the first time there is a majority in favour:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,921394,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

And on the issue of war crimes - this is the starkest discussion of our own infriging of the Geneva Convention:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Heh. And When are facts not facts? is exactly what I was talking about...

Thanks for posting that link, Emps.

At least Al-jassere (or whatever they are called) are posting more pictures...and have been more acurate up to this point...shame on you, western media...

Just have to 'screen-out' the bias...

On another note....casualties are rising, irregardless of who one chooses to believe (the exact count will not be released, at least not until the conflict is either over, or someone puts a hell of a lot of pressure on those who do know). However, we can go with a number of 30+...that's relatively conservative.

Now, let's consider the Vietnam Conflict, which went 7 years - total of KIAs : 58,169
Divide by 7 = ~839 per year
Divide by 12 = ~70 per month
Divide by 30 = ~2 per day

Gulf conflict - ~30 so far
Divide by 6 = ~5 per day

Doesn't look so rosy, does it?


[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-25-2003).]

interesting stuff...tho emps, the chem facility was only called a chem weapons facility by some media, the military has said from the beginning that they didn't think it was active. then again, i've never been to a chemical plant that had a general in charge of it

there were two former gulf war POWs on the news last night, and their stories were nothing short of shocking. they were literally tortured and beaten before being released. there have also been some stories of the iraqi's treatment of olympic and other athletes that is frightening.

ws, tho the info on the US geneva convention breachs is enlightening and somewhat disturbing, i personally can't place that anywhere near what looks like executions of US troops (as photos have clearly showed some of the bodies with bullet wounds to the forehead). can't say i'd agree that al-jazeera has been more accurate either, if they were we'd have already lost half our air force from farmers throwing pitchforks at F-117s

chris


KAIROSinteractive

quote:

---

I wouldn't say that I was exactly pro-war - no, I am ambivalent - but I have a strong desire to see Saddam removed.

---

This is a very interesting article from a former "human shield".

I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam
By Daniel Pepper

I am thinking that most of the anti-war protests are far more about keeping the US in check than they are about concern for the Iraqi people. I know that isn't the case with all but as a general rule I don't see it otherwise.

quote:

---

Now, let's consider the Vietnam Conflict, which went 7 years - total of KIAs : 58,169
Divide by 7 = ~839 per year
Divide by 12 = ~70 per month
Divide by 30 = ~2 per day

Gulf conflict - ~30 so far
Divide by 6 = ~5 per day

---

Either your math is off or your KIA number is wrong.


Now, let's consider the Vietnam Conflict, which went 7 years - total of KIAs : 58,169
Divide by 7 = ~8310 per year
Divide by 12 = ~700 per month
Divide by 30 = ~23 per day

Gulf conflict - ~30 so far
Divide by 6 = ~5 per day

That's what I get when i crunch the numbers....

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

Here is an interesting article, really worth reading.
I start to believe that this war is all about Baghdad's move to Euro. Who is next, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea . . .?

Breaking news suggests that the Coalition have bombed the TV station and have pos. used ther e-bomb (which supplies an electromagnetic pulse to knock out electronics - and also might be fairly unpleasant to anyone too close too).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Found this regarding the number of casualties in various wars. Seems to me that any way you crunch the numbers this war is going quite well (so far) in comparison to all the others, with the possible exception to the first Gulf War. I'd even suggest that it may be one of the most bloodless ground invasions in history.. at least for our troops (again, so far). I haven't heard much about Iraqi casualties, military or otherwise.

E-bomb? I gotta search that one out, sounds cool.

edit: in case anybody else is interested in e-bombs

[This message has been edited by cyoung (edited 03-26-2003).]

The war is only four days old and we are sitting around wondering why we haven't finished yet. The best estimates I heard were 2 weeks from anyone credible. I predicted 2-4 weeks. We'll have to just wait and see how it goes. But if you had to rate the progress thus far, it is nothing short of extraordinary and most definitely historically unprecedented.

Whoops! Thanks, GD, for correcting that...you are right, my math was off (dropped a 0 there...*sheepish grin*). However, as I said, 30+ was conservative...who knows how high it really is...and in the last couple of days, I haven't seen any KIA counts....CNN says that there are now over 40+ KIAs...unfortunately, there are other KIAs that are not being reported...just that there were casualties. So 40+ KIAs in 6 days = ~7 per day. KIAs per day are increasing...

And Bugs...the conflict is older than 4 days...think back...it started on Thursday...meaning it is going on the 6th day now...

As for 'bloodless' conflict...well, that's really hard to tell, at this point...full casualty figures have not been released. I myself find the figure high, especially when considering that no real 'classical' battles have been fought yet. That is yet to come.

I don't know how many on this board are truly aware of what 'classical' battle means...or of what city fighting entails.

A classical battle is exactly that - ground troops engaging ground troops, head-to-head. Expect casualties to rise sharply. It is a true measure of 'mettle', if you will...and will be decisive. The upcoming battle between coalition forces and the Medina Republican guard, will be a showing battle...with an advantage to the defenders (that is normal). Troops attacking defenders, normally take high casualties.

As for city fighting...just check out Stalingrad, for what that can be like...it's nasty. No amount of high-tech will make a real difference. It's house-for-house, man-to-man fighting...and US forces haven't engaged in this sort of fighting since WWII. I personally hope that the defenders give up...and we can avoid this type of conflict...but that doesn't seem likely. Also, city fighting tends to drag on, and on, and on...if coalition forces are dragged into a city fight, expect the war to stretch into weeks...or months.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-26-2003).]

I reckon weeks. I totally agree that Baghdad will be the most difficult part. I was counting from Saturday because I thought that was when the ground troops crossed the border. Either way the war is very young.

I was listening to a war veteran who fought house to house in Vietnam. He thinks we will definitely win this thing, but he is very concerned about the house to house in Baghdad.

Oh, and about the Apache battle with the RepGuard... it seemed to me that was a bold and intentional move in order to draw fire and clearly identify the location of the opposing forces. Do you think that was the reason?

Urban warfare is inevitable. Coalition troops are within 50 miles of the capitol and without spreading to the skirting cities to clear resistance troops, they'll soon enough get cut off from all sides. With any luck, Baghdad will fall, and the rest of the villages will lose hope and surrender, or it's going to take a loooong time to clear out every building



[This message has been edited by The Crawling Chaos (edited 03-26-2003).]

Welcome, The Crawling Chaos There is a plan and we will see if it works in the coming days.

WS, I was just reading your words above more carefully as today I could only skim. You said,

quote:

---

I personally feel that reducing Baghdad to rubble would have been a better choice...

---

Did I read that correctly? I just can't figure you out sometimes! I really thought your opposition to this thing was partly based in wanting minimize civilian casualties. But I'm just flabbergasted at reading that. Is this what you have in mind for the DPRK and Iran too? Am I missing something?

Bugs, when it comes to war, real war, I am mainly interested in two things : that it is done quickly, and at the least amount of loss of life to our troops. Actually, both of these hang together. And a quick way to have ended this conflict, was to reduce Baghdad to rubble, especially considering that this conflict is not about protecting American freedoms...any type of classic battles, or house-to-house fighting I deem as risky, reckless and un-necessary, considering the fact that on day one, they could have just reduced Baghdad to rubble. And I do mean rubble.

That's why I am generally against war, and definitely against conflicts of this nature : I believe in total domination war. That means that it is the last resort - and the enemy is to be decimated with all means available, to spare lives amongst our troops. Since it seems that Saddam and his regime is the target, and that they are centered in Baghdad, that's the main target - obliterate it, and them. For as you can now see, this conflict is stretching into weeks, now...with almost one week up. If it becomes a conflict of months, then casualties on all sides (both military and civilian) will increase...to who knows how much. This conflict at the moment, has all the 'elements' of Vietnam...what with rules of engagement leading to deaths among our troops, zones of non-engagement, the enemy hiding within the citizens, 'dirty' tactics, and rising body counts. And the expected 'jubilation of being liberated' doesn't seem to be there...at least, not in force. And if the conflict drags out, expect to see any type of gratefulness replaced by something else...namely, hardship, suffering and resentment.

In other words, I'm very concerned about the turn of events...this is not what they said, at the beginning...now, they are 'changing' their words...as the conflict becomes bloodier and harder as expected. Also, our troops are taking more casualties as was predicted, which is never good. To be blunt : Mr. Bush got us into this, thinking that it would be a cakewalk, aparently. As he has no previous combat experience, he's now learning a bitter lesson - war is hell, and a bullet doesn't care what you believe in, or what side you are on, or if you are a civilian or military personal.

It doesn't seem to be bothering him all that much, though, from what I've seen of him...

Let's get a few things straight, Bugs. I'm a veteran of war. I'm not a liberal, as some have suggested. I'm only against war, because I know what it is - it should always be the last option, because I believe in total domination. I believe one should fight to win. Also, consider this : what happens to our troops, the Iraqi troops, and the civilians of Baghdad, should Saddam really start using WMD in and around Baghdad? The death toll will rise immensely. And it would be counter-productive to the reason for sending our troops into a city-fight situation - that is, to get Saddam, and end the conflict. With that in mind, wouldn't it of been better, to just have reduce Baghdad to rubble? It is the same thing, really (in the event of WMD use by the Iraqi's within the city or near surroundings)...so why sacrifice our troops to do the same thing?

Now, I am aware that this would take a terrible toll on the civilians of Baghdad. However, this is war that we are talking about. Are you then suggesting, that our troops should take casualties, just so the civilians can be spared? You are willing to sacrifice US lives, for Iraqis? And what if, despite this, you get the same result? That Iraqis die, despite casualties within our troops? That, IMHO, is senseless, and reckless. You are aware, that had Baghdad been reduced to rubble (and I mean rubble), that this conflict would now be over, if the Iraqis really are fighting because of Saddam and his regime, that is. If not, this conflict will be a disaster. Since I believe you support the idea that the Iraqis are indeed only fighting because of Saddam and his regime (and I believe Mr. Bush and his administration believes this, as well), then the flattening of Baghdad would in that sense, be logical (if somewhat...cold-blooded).

What did you think this conflict would be like? A dainty parade to Baghdad? You do realize, I hope, that men and women in uniform have been killed Bugs. They are dead. They are not coming back home alive. They will not be raising children, or enjoying the American dream, eating-out, going shopping, and other things. I am bitterly disappointed that the first wave of bombings did not reduce Baghdad to rubble. It sends me the signal, that the decision makers have totally underestimated the reality of the situation in Iraq, and men and women are dying because of this, needlessly. A classic battle with the Medina Republican Guard? For christ's sake, why? Just keep pounding them...eventually, in a siege situation, they'll have nothing left...don't send ground troops against them...one does this only if it is the last resort, because it results in large casualties, especially when one is the attacker. One also runs the risk of losing...yes, that's right, losing. We are talking about a classical battle...and an offensive launched at a defensive position, where the defenders have dug-in, and are on their own ground, with little hope of rescue or escape, you can bet that they will fight to the last man. And these are not just conscripts we are talking about here...we are talking about a unit, that is used to war...and used to American tactics. Just hearing the American General on TV casually discussing this, made me both sick, and outraged 'We're going to engage them in a classical battle'. Well, he seems pretty confident, now doesn't he? Of course, it's not his ass on the front line, is it? Yes, if the Medina is crushed, then it would be a big victory for the American troops...but what if they lose? Think about it...better to avoid this type of situation, where possible. I don't see, that this is needed...the top brass is rushing this, much too fast. Much better just to keep pounding away, making sure that targets are destroyed, and that equiptment is unusable. Also, get rid of the means for the Iraqis to launch WMD. This is, IMHO, very important.

Other things to consider - we are being lied to. At least, the American public is. I have seen news reports here, in Germany, from the embedded reporters on this front...and pictures of screaming, wounded US soldiers, also dead. When the news says 'bloody' battle, they don't mean just among the enemy...that would be named something different. Alos, the use of the word destroyed. When they say that two M1s were destroyed, that means totally, and immediately, in my mind. Therefore, that means the crew, as well. But they say the crew was not harmed. So why say destroyed? Should be put out of action...that is an accurate description of a tank that has been damaged, so that it no longer can effectively be used (which would allow the crew to then escape).

As for the Apaches...I don't know what they were thinking. You don't use a delicate, attack craft for recon. Never. That just invites casualties. Also, the terrain is not conducive for this type of 'recon' activity, with helicopters. I think that the top brass made a big mistake here, and drastically underestimated the enemy. I heard that those Apaches came back, badly shot up. I'm not sure how reliable that information is, and certainly there have been no pictures to support this. We do know that at least one went down, and that the crew was captured. I also heard that a rescue attempt (several, actually) were tried, but that our troops were horribly out-numbered, and every rescue attempt failed. No casualty figures mentioned here, either. There are other ways of determining the postitions of armor in a desert...and troops. I think they used these methods (no, I won't tell you, that's classified) to direct the Apaches, and ran into very stiff resistance. In other words, it was a flawed, failed mission. Things like this only happen when one has a top brass that is overconfident and green. Or under extreme pressure, to produce results. Or is uncaring. Not the types of things that General Stormin' Norman was known for...bless the man. I enjoyed serving under him, and as I reacll, he was very critical of this conflict...and has now been 'blacklisted' by the Bush Administration...and basically, his carreer is over. A great General, now useless...sad.

As you can see, I'm really disgusted with the American media right now...and with the Administration and top brass running the 'show'. For that is how they are portaying this...as a show. Well, it's not. It's combat, and people are dying. It is very important to show this, so that all the armchair Generals out there, who supported this, get a good face-full, of what war is. Namely, American troops are being killed. And they are being killed, for what? It's time, for those who supported this, to accept the responsibility for these lives lost. Not a pretty picture, is it? That screaming, wounded soldier...that captured, tortured woman, that dead soldier...look at it in the face, and tell me that you still are gunning to support this war. Tell me, that this is justified. Tell me, that running a classical ground campaign is the right strategy here. War leaves no room for ideals, fantasies, or fools. I hear top brass, and administration officials 'complaining' about sneaky tactics being used by the Iraqis...give me a break. It's war, for cying out loud...do you think they will just walk out, and allow themselves to be shot? They are using tactics...and they have been effective. There are no rules in war, complaining about 'cheating' is not only stupid, but a dangerous mentality to have. Mr. Rumsfeld just disgusts me, as well...'These are terrorists, because they don't wear a uniform'...oh good grief, man, get a grip. Don't you remember how the Americans fought the British for Independance? We were also called 'terrorists' because we didn't wear proper uniforms, or marched in straight lines, because we used hit-and-run tactics...that's what one does, when one is overpowered. A stand-up fight would be silly, and deadly.

All signs, that the Bush administration and the top brass were totally idealistic about war. I can't believe that these type of tactics come as a surprise, or, quite frankly, that our troops were not prepared for them. They should have been prepared. This points to poor leadership. What exactly, did they expect the Iraqis to do, lay down and die? Seems like it...now they are getting a sobering dose of reality. And that is causing casualties among our troops...I'm ashamed, enraged, and shocked by this lack of leadership. You should be too, if you are interested in the lives of our troops.

Also, why the hell are you shocked by my words, Bugs? I can't get over that...this is war, dammit! What did you think it was going to be? A party? People are dying...that's war. This is what you wanted. Why are you then shocked at the suggestion of leveling Baghdad? Do you think that war should have rules, and no-engagement zones? Well, if you do, think again. Because the enemy will use tactics that are effective against such 'rules'. We learned in Vietnam, that this just doesn't work. Either it's all out, hell bent for destruction, kill the enemy now, or leave it. Did you think that our troops should get shot, wounded, killed, and captured, just to 'spare' a few Iraqi civilians? Well I don't. This is like the guy that goes into a bar, picks a fight, and then complains about getting sucker-kicked in the balls as being unfair...and then gets the living shit beat out of him. If you are going to fight, fight to win. This is not a sport. It's not a show. It's war. You'd understand this, if you had gone through it yourself. Now, you are having to deal with deaths among our soldiers, deaths that you supported. Still think that war is rosy? That it is fun? That it makes sense? Still think that this is justified? If so, then wake up.

What good is it, to wage a war that is 'just', with rules and all that, when our troops are dying? If the objective can be reached by other means, then use them, especially if it means less loss of life among our troops. IMHO, the first concern must be the safety and lives of our troops. And if they must be sent in Harm's way, then by god, do it in a manner that is not risky or reckless, if possible.

I hear people lightly discussing classical battle and house-to-house city battle, as if it were the next show in town. I can only shake my head at this...and wonder at how the human brain can be so deluding. By not showing us the true battle (and cost) of the war, this type of mentality is being sponsered. Also, when I hear things like 'well, these losses are less than in other wars'...good god, we are talking about the lives of Americans here...does that mean that these losses are then acceptable, just because they are 'less'? And are they really less? How does anyone know that? Quite frankly, my experience tells me that the casualty rates are always higher than reported.

And if you, too, are interested in a quick end to the war, then what do you propose, in place of leveling Baghdad? Yes, let's turn the tables for a minute...before, I was asked the same question regarding war in Iraq...of what alternatives there were. So, what alternatives are there, to end the war quickly? I'm open to suggestions. As I see it, it's not too late, to level Baghdad. Just pull the troops back, and hammer away. Destroy the Rebublican Guard first, around the city...and then go after Saddam and his regime, until there is nothing left. With the Republican guard gone, the civilians would then have at least the chance to escape the city. Case closed.

A little off topic, I received this article in an e-mail.

BTW, nice post WS. Thank you.

WS: Intersting point of view. Harlan Ullman (who was one of the people who developed 'shock and awe') is interviewed here where he discusses how sock and aw has been misinterpreted. He is in favour of nuclear strikes too if there rapidly deployment (as against the Japanese in WWII) destroys the enemies will to carry on and in the long run means their use leads to the least possible casualties:
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,921228,00.html

and an extract from his book:
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,921229,00.html

mobrul: Nice link

Point 6 made me wonder who the 'Coalition of the Willing' (CoW) are?

There are largely US and UL troops in Iraq with some Australians thrown into the mix (although I hear there is much more coverage on them in Oz). There are some Polish and other central/eastern European special forces (much to the suprise of most people from their countries) who seem to be experts in chemical and biological weapons just in case. I believe Spain (the third big ally) hasn't really sent many troops although its willing to help in sme capacity.

The US administration claim the CoW numbers as many as 47 countries. If point 6 is righ then quite a few of them don't want to be named. According to a report on the radio most of the rest include those countires allowing us to use their airspace (which I assume takes in most NATO countries) and Croatia is allowing the CoW to use their airports for civilian flights to land (which is sort of what they were doing in the first place).

Anyone got any more details?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030325-9.html

Jason

I do apologize, WS, for not reading your long post but I have a question. Is a classical war really going to be that likely? From what I've seen we've under-estimated the resistence offered by the Iraqi's and also their tactics. We're on their ground and they know all of the tricks for fighting on their land. Guerilla warfare seems like the most likely infantry combat to me. And the most likely to bump the body count, excepting a city battle of course. They might not be overwhelmed by numbers but they are still outmatched as far as technology goes. In any combat where my only advantage was knowledge of the land and the fanatacism of my soldiers.... I would encourage independant guerilla warfare. Put my trusted commanders into the field at the head of battalions and let them go on their own. Random incursions and strikes at random targets. It's hard to win when you can't shoot the ghost.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

I did read your entire post, WS. I was following you very carefully through it and was preparing a response and had some good points, I think. Then I read this,

quote:

---

You'd understand this, if you had gone through it yourself. Now, you are having to deal with deaths among our soldiers, deaths that you supported. Still think that war is rosy? That it is fun? That it makes sense? Still think that this is justified? If so, then wake up.

---

This is a completely misdirected emotional attack. Do you have some need to bash me? If that is what you need, I'm willing to take a little more of it again for the sake of friendship, but it seems your words keep going back to something personal I'm beginning to think I've severely misjudged you. This makes it very difficult to carry on a real discussion

All you get from me are my honest opinions and thoughts.

You assume far too much. You assume that every supporter of this war doesn't know anything about war. Many don't that's true, but you cross the line when you lump me in that category and I am sick to death of it. Save that crap for people who hold those views. I have never claimed this was going to be walk in the park or that we were not going to lose American lives. I do know that war sucks and is hell on earth. You don't have to be a self proclaimed murderer to know that.

I have said war is neither rosy nor fun. You insult me. I have said this war makes sense and that it is justified. I am still very much awake and I still very much stand behind those words. For you to even suggest that I thought this would not cost any lives boggles my mind.

I believe you have read things into my words that were never there. I have done this to others and when I have realized my mistake, I have apologized.

Look, I simply don't share your views about levelling Baghdad. In fact, I find them to be everything the true liberals around here are complaining about. You put *all* the value on American life and *zero* on Iraqi life. I don't agree with that approach and I'm sure most of this stems from your views on life and how they differ from mine.

You mentioned Vietnam and I agree we learned a valuable lesson there, that is to not run a war from Washington. You provide the military with the objectives and then let them do what they do best. But if you are suggesting that our military should be a bunch of barbarians, then we disagree once again. Obviously, they are not because this is their plan. I cannot speak to the divisions within the military and I'm sure they exist, but I do know that the majority of our troops realize they are not there to wipe out the Iraqi people but to wipe out a viscious regime. While that makes the objective harder it does not make it impossible, and I think I have a lot more faith in the military that says they can achieve this because I believe they know what they're doing better than me, and yes, even you.

I have not spoken lightly about house-to-house combat. I have mentioned it because it will happen and I have been listening to a war veteran who *has* done that kind of fighting for some of my information. Not all veterans are against this war.

I actually share some of your approach in that we need to go in with overwhelming force to achieve victory, but we part company when you say we have to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians to do it right.

Well...that was interesting. If I struck a nerve, then I apologize. But apparently, you don't know enough about war...I said, eliminate the repulican guard ring around Baghdad first...you did read that, right? The reason? So that the civilians can actually leave the city, without being shot by the guard (which is probably the only thing holding them in the city, at this point...what kind of casualties do you think the civilian population is going to take in a house-to-house war?)

I am not directly attacking you...I am pointing out, what every American that supports Mr. Bush in this episode of his insanity is responsible for. You have often stated that you support Mr. Bush...and this war. Therefore, you share the responsibility of the deaths of our boys and girls. That's as honest as it gets.

The point being, there is no real need, as I see it at the moment, to kill and punish the civilians...providing that they really do want to be liberated. So leave them a way out, hell, provide them with a way out. They will not stay in a place that is promising death, unless they are faced with certain death by leaving. Then there is no need for the house-to-house fighting...

As for the barbarian term...huh? I think you have forgotten WWII...and the huge amount of civilian casualties among the Germans, especially in Dresden. But maybe that is besides the point. Let's look at this tactically, shall we?

Fazit : we know, that Saddam and his regime has, is, and will be using any and all means, to make this fight as difficult as possible. That means his command posts are not in well-marked military installations, but spead out and hidden among the civilian buildings...we have seen this in Basra, so we know what to expect. I think this concept is termed 'human shields'. He will use this tactic in Baghdad, and has used it...which is probably why the command structure is still functioning, despite 'shock and awe'...which turned out to be 'shock and giggle', really (at least, it would seem so...hard to tell, at this point). To defeat troops stationed in a hospital, our troops better be prepared to be 'barbarians'...otherwise, they will get slaughtered. I don't think you are really thinking this through. Talk to your veteran friend...ask him about that. You say he was involved in village fighting in the Nam...so at least he knows about the nastiness of that. But this is not Nam, this is Baghdad. A huge city, much more 'modern' than a village in Nam. If you can, talk with those who were involved in house-to-house fighting in either WWII, or Lebenon.

I'm still waiting for your alternative plan. I still think that maybe you are not getting enough information, on what is happening on the front line...here in Germany, it seems, there is more (at least, that's the impression that I'm getting...especially when compared to what's being presented on CNN here...). Since the Germans are not involved, the information is pretty unbaised...as far as that is possible, anyway.

And in war, there is no 'barbarianism'...there is win, and there is lose. You survive (live), or die. But I guess you could call it barbarianism if the American troops were to fall on the civilians, and to engage in rape and plunder...though that has nothing to do with war. And as for this conflict, well, there are huge divisions among the theorists that make policy, on what is the correct path of action...and cracks are also showing between the hard-liners, and the Neo-Americans...the hard-liners want a quick war, and then the troops out, the Neo-Americans want a longer war, with a prolonged stay, to launch the next war from.

If I left you feeling personally attacked, then I apologize. That is namely not my intent. More, it is my intent, to get you thinking. To get you thinking, that maybe there are other alternatives, than to just throw our troops into a classical battle situation needlessly. To find an alternative to house-to-house fighting, to realize that there are alternatives. If you really care about our men and women in uniform, then you will do this. In short, I'm asking you to question, as is your right, as an American citizen. And if an intelligable arguement will not reach your ears, then I had hoped that maybe an emotional one would. I do not condemn you for your beliefs...you are entitled to them, just as we all are. In fact, I hold your presence on this board to be a great enrichment, and I have often listened hard and well to your words here. Especially when it comes to the Bible, I have sought out your advice, and listened, because you have much more knowledge than I do. Well, in this situation, it is the opposite.

And yes, I do care about the Iraqi citizens. But I care more for the men and women that are putting their lives on the line here. For me, it's our boys and girls first, the Iraqis second. Any good leader, feels the same. And I have lead troops. They were always my first concern. Where then, lie your priorities?

We both know (or should) that there is a very real danger of WMD being used here. I would like you to think that over. What kind of alternatives could be found, to avoid subjecting our troops to exposure? Because quite frankly, I think that it is Saddams 'ace', so to speak...and it may well get used, if he thinks that there is no way out...and that the end is inevitable. So we need a strategy, a tactic, if you will, to avoid this. Not only for our troops, but to spare the civilian population. Our troops may have gas masks, and protective suits (and let's hope they really do work, if it comes down to it), but the civilians do not. It is a real danger, and not to be taken lightly. Saddam has used them before, against Iran...we would do well to learn from this.

And one last thing, what if Saddam really doesn't have any WMD? How do you then justify the conflict in Iraq, if that is true? Because he killed hundreds of thousands? Well, there are many dictators that have been far worse, and we never did anything about it. And there are dictators, that we are not going to do anything about, that have done far worse, and are continuing to do so. Are you then saying 'well, we did something about this one', and turn a blind eye to the rest? Isn't that hypocritical?

Lastly, as I said, I am not against removing Saddam. I'm against how it is being done, and under what type of conditions it is being done. I thought it might be like this, but had hoped it would have been different (see my first post). I have absolutely no confidence, that Mr. Bush will prove equal to a task of ridding the world of other, more dangerous foes. So he chose a weak bully...and even here, has not proved equal to the task. Remember, the Bush administration chose the General to lead this war...not the Pentagon. Our best Generals are not leading it. Why is that? Remember Carter, and the disaster of the hostages? The longer this conflict drags out, the worse it will get, and become. Our interests then, lie in a quick, decisive victory, which we not only owe to our troops, but to those that we are 'liberating'. To avoid unneeded suffering among the civilians, end the war quickly. Because history shows, in every way, shape, and form, that the big losers of a war, or conflict, are always the civilians, and this is proportional to the length of the war, or conflict. Also, I offer my apology if I have misunderstood you. Please feel free to correct my mistakes, and mis-judgements. I, too, am only human.



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-27-2003).]

GD to answer your questions, and address your points...I'll make it short, because there is already tons of text...

First of all, General whatever his name is said that not only would there be a classical battle, against the Medina Republican Guard, but he also gave me the impression that he is looking forward to it. That somewhat nauseated me, but there it is. So, yes, if one can believe that, there will be a classical battle.

As for hit-and-run tactics, well, that is first of all, hard to do in the desert against the American military (which can see you coming, and see you going). Second, Saddam is trapped in Baghdad...so dispersing his forces would only weaken his own position...and remember, the Americans showed in the first Gulf War just how fast and flexible their military is...very hard to pinpoint where the American forces really are. Better to get them to come to a specified point, and draw them into classical battle situations, and house-to-house fights, where the technology advantage is largely useless. Also, I think that Saddams strategy involves a play for time...he knows that the end is inevitable, if the Americans stick it out to the end. But, I think he is gambling, that with enough casualties, and time, he hopes that the Americans might give up. He knows, that with each passing day, international pressure is building against the Americans, but I think he is more concerned with the homefront in America...the longer the war lasts, the higher the casualties, the more likely it is, that the anti-war movement will gain momentum.

Of course, the American military could just lay siege to Baghdad...but I don't think either side is relying on that...or have even considered it as an option.

Last, so far, no-one is really sure if the Iraqi people want to be liberated, or not. If they do, hit-and-run tactics will fail, in the long run. If they don't, then a long war would then support the tactic, if the people of Iraq were willing to engage in it. Frankly, that big question mark is for me a bit too risky...I've already offered up my suggestions on a quick war...and then pull out the troops, and go home. In end effect, avoiding the question altogether. Never rely on a strategy or tactic with a question mark...unless one has to. Since we are the aggressors, we don't have to.

This is an interesting piece on the new lighter, faster way of making war we are seeing (and the problems it could get into):
www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,921970,00.html

We know the Coalition will win but as I read elsewhere its not really about winning the war it is about winning the battle for hearts and minds both at home and around the world. The small numbers of troops and the rapid advance has left things awfully stretched and if I was Saddam I'd certainly be ordering my men to make hit and run attacks on the supply lines, etc. and the longer this goes on the more it seems t be crystallising anti-US (and UK) sentiment in the Arab world which could have some very nasty long term reprecussions.

But why is it being done this way? This article on the fact the the US is now finding itself in need of a lot international treaties and laws it had really wanted to ignore or get rid of:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921971,00.html

might provide an explanation:

quote:

---

In the months before war a debate raged in the Pentagon between, crudely put, the uniforms and the suits. The soldiers wanted more time, so they could build up to the 250,000 troops that would constitute the "overwhelming force" believed since the first Gulf war to be the best way to deploy US power. They wanted another month. But the Pentagon civilians, led by Defence Secretary Rumsfeld, insisted on going earlier, with many fewer men.

Why would a hawk like Rumsfeld prefer less to more? My Washington source offers an astonishing explanation: "So they can do it again." The logic is simple. Rumsfeld and co know that amassing an army of quarter of a million is a once-a-decade affair: 1991 and 2003. But if they can prove that victory is possible with a lighter, more nimble force, assembled rapidly - then why not repeat the trick? "This is just the beginning," an administration official told the New York Times this week. "I would not rule out the same sequence of events for Iran and North Korea as for Iraq."

---

And more on the UN this is Richard Perle's (one of the chief architects of the current US administrations policies) take on things (an edited version of what appeared in the Spectator):
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,918764,00.html

quote:

---

As we sift the debris, it will be important to preserve, the better to understand, the intellectual wreckage of the liberal conceit of safety through international law administered by international institutions.

---

I would ask - if they are planning on tearing up all the rules what are they planning on replacing them with. The policy of 'Might is Right'?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Yes, and as Bugs has mentioned before

quote:

---

Might does make Right as a practical matter of world governance. This is why I get so confused when we discuss this. How can it be any other way?


--Bugs

---

that seems to be the case...Might makes Right.

I'm curious to see which faction in the Bush administration will win out...the hard-liners, or the Neo-Americans. As for Mr. Bush, I feel that he is hopelessly overwhelmed by these two forces within his Administration...and seems to be going back and forth between the two...maybe that is why we haven't seen any plans on the aftermath of Iraq yet...because it hasn't yet been decided.

Things that also make one curious - why hasn't Mr. Bush and his administration blasted Turkey, for prohibiting launching ground troops from Turkey (and wavering on the airspace)? I mean, where the French and Germans were concerned, they got blasted, sure enough. But not Turkey...apparently, Mr. Bush feels that it was not necessary to have French and German support...in fact, maybe that was all a smoke-screen, designed to cause a failure of a resolution. Piss off Germany, piss off France...'old Europe', trash those old friends, and destroy old commitments, to make way for the 'brave new world', maybe?

Let's look at this closer...Turkey's support was far, far more important, that must be obvious by now. So why aren't they getting lambasted in the Media? Where is Mr. Rumsfelds mouth now? Why isn't Mr. Bush trashing them like he trashed 'old Europe'? Due to Turkey's failure, to allow the ground troops, and their reticence, to free their airspace, many troops have been endangered, and plans have been changed. It has made the task all the much harder, not to mention the very real threat of Turkey sending it's own troops over the border.

I find this suspect.



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-27-2003).]

Well, now we know what they plan to do with post Iraq...read all about it here. Here an interesting part

quote:

---

Tony Blair lined up staunchly behind George Bush last night in agreeing that the United States military should administer a post-Saddam Iraq before handing the country over to the United Nations.

At a working dinner at the US President's Camp David retreat, the British Prime Minister backed Washington's plans to install General Jay Garner as civil governor for the country in the short term.

Mr Blair and Mr Bush agreed that a new UN Security Council resolution would be needed to authorise an interim UN administration and release funds for reconstruction – but only after the military situation stabilised. The talks came amid growing controversy over the extent to which the UN should be involved in Iraq even during the conflict and, more importantly, once the fighting is over.

--Independent.Co.Uk.

---

So...General Jay Garner is the civil governor for the country...sounds strangely like how the Romans used to do things. No democracy, no self-rule...at least, not until the UN gets a resolution (and that could take years)...I thought the UN security council was 'defunct', 'impotent', and many other derogatory terms? I would very much like to hear Bugs view on this developement...

I thought there was a coalition of the willing...why don't they pay for the rebuilding and order in post-conflict Iraq? I thought the UN Security council wasn't needed, that the UN wasn't needed, that a coalition of the willing was more than enough...apparently not. First, bash on the UN, then crawl back to it begging for help...heh. Hooboy.

Or is this just another smoke screen, designed to further push the UN and UN security council over? A smoke screen designed to allow an indefinite stay of the US military in Iraq (especially if the UN and UN Security Council wash their hands of it).

Also, this just in US Casualties. Especially this

quote:

---

As the war in Iraq continues, officials with Dover's 436th Airlift Wing are calling in more than 100 reservists from as far away as California to assist the mortuary staff.

--Kansas City Star

---

Hmmm...looks like the amount of casualties are much higher than that being hinted at...otherwise, why would they need the aid of more than 100 reservists?

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-27-2003).]

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-27-2003).]

Jay Garner...interesting.
He is a retired General and , until recently, the CEO of L-3 Communications, a defense contractor specializing in missle guidance systems.
He's also very close to Arial Sharon.

Nothing at all like installing an Israeli puppet into Iraq to convince the Arabs this is in their best interest...[sarcasm]brilliant move, if you ask me.[/sarcasm]

Watch how you talk about Jay. YOU don't know him. I do. A better man you'd not find and he's right for this job. You folks in here are just the same as you were a while ago. Does your arrogance NOT ever stop?

Sheesh just came in to find something and I see this. Unreal. AND some of us are making shit up.

^^

Ummm...maybe you could be a bit more specific, ettie? What shit is being made up? And since when did anybody say anything personal about General Jay? I think most comments were more directed to the situation, and how it's developing...I certainly do not have anything personally against General Jay. I just question the Bush Administrations actions by planning to impose a military governor in post-conflict Iraq.


[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-27-2003).]

Oh, blow it out your ass ettie.

Try reading the posts and get the meaning behind them rather than jumping at the first thing that catches your eye.

As I said to Morgan Ramsey a few weeks ago: if we pissed you off so badly last time, why come back?

Hey all! WS, in response to a couple of points..

quote:

---

It is very important to show this, so that all the armchair Generals out there, who supported this, get a good face-full, of what war is. Namely, American troops are being killed. And they are being killed, for what?

---

There is a sparkling naievity breeding among the top brass and media heads, where they still like us to believe that the war isnt *that bad* because we can still count the casualties on our side on our fingers and toes. thought you all might enjoy this ..

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/


Also,

quote:

---

Well, there are many dictators that have been far worse, and we never did anything about it. And there are dictators, that we are not going to do anything about, that have done far worse, and are continuing to do so.

---

Bush cited in his 'Why Saddam must go' speech the main reasoning was the apparent threat of WMD. Great. But nobody ever accused our government of giving the full frontal truth. We all already know that the Bush wealth is based in oil. We took the oil fields in southern Iraq first. Maybe purely coincidence. Doesnt really consecrate the deployment of every US Marine who's recruited in the last 10 years to the middle of the desert, but I'm just one voter, and my opinion doesnt matter.
My problem lies in the fact that the troops dont really know what they're fighting for either. The only source they're getting is CNN in the mess hall on every satellite linked TV they can muster. Granted Hussein's use of NBC tactics and the torture, rape and murder of American and Coalition troops acts as fuel to the fire, it still doesnt justify the original invasion. Nobody knows what we're burning for.
Bush proclaims it to be about democracy. Let freedom ring. But if democracy were that greatly needed, a] why aren't they happy to see us, and b] why does Hussein still have a standing army who are willing to fight and die for him of such a sizable mass that we have to bully 45 other countries into supporting the war effort. Half of Iraq didnt even know they had a dictator until we invaded *last time* and the other half was divided in either indifference or support of the man we are chasing around caves and basements.
In real world terms, that's Japan coming in to the States right now and saying 'Hey, we dont like your president. We're going to bomb you until you kick him out and elect someone more qualified.' We may not particularly like him either, but he's ours. This isnt to say i wouldnt take a small amount of glee in Saddam's head on a pigpole on my front lawn, but.. I'm still reserved in support because I have no idea what just happened.



[This message has been edited by The Crawling Chaos (edited 03-27-2003).]

big
fat
thread

Jason

When you guys start a continuation thread you should call it Gulf War Tutu: The Revenge of the Son

Cell 816 ~ teamEarth ~ Asylum Quotes

Saddam heading for Syria? Well, I'm not getting my hopes up too much but it sure would be a welcome event.

quote:

---

Also, I offer my apology if I have misunderstood you. Please feel free to correct my mistakes, and mis-judgements.

---

Thanks. Apology accepted. I?m going to remember this the next time and I?m going to focus more on the facts of the discussion from now on as I usually prefer to do.

quote:

---

I said, eliminate the repulican guard ring around Baghdad first...

---

I got the distinct impression from your post that you had hardly any regard for the citizens of Baghdad. You never mentioned anything about getting them out first. You say the reason I didn?t understand that is because I?m somewhat ignorant on the ways of war. I admit I don?t understand where that many people would go even if they could get out. How would they be fed and sheltered? The humanitarian relief is just now rolling in and only in the South. Please explain how that works I would like to know.

The entire ?barbarism? thing came from my thinking you meant to level Baghdad with the citizens still there. That is what blew me away but you are now making it clear you would not do that unless they cleared out, right?

quote:

---

...every American that supports Mr. Bush in this episode of his insanity is responsible for.

---

Time will be the judge of this. I don?t know the future, I can only tell you why I support these actions. I knew we would lose lives but sometimes I think you forget that so do the soldiers. We have a volunteer army who understand their job can be very dangerous. Police officers are killed in the line of duty all the time but we don?t have mass protests calling for the police to stop enforceing the law because they might die in the process. If we had a military draft, I would be singing a different tune on this.

quote:

---

If you can, talk with those who were involved in house-to-house fighting in either WWII, or Lebenon.

---

I appreciate your views on the tactical issues. I wanted to add about the house-to-house in Baghdad is that the shorter buildings are better than in Lebanon. The higher the buildings the worse it is for that type of fighting.

I also just spoke with a friend today I hadn?t seen since the war started and she pointed out that the troops from Northern Ireland have been training the other troops in city fighting since they have a lot of experience with that. That had never occurred to me and I thought that was very interesting. You might have an opinion about those troops and for that matter didn?t tomeaglez have some experience in that arena? I would love some more insight on this from you and him.

quote:

---

I'm still waiting for your alternative plan. I still think that maybe you are not getting enough information, on what is happening on the front line...

---

WS, ummm I never said I had an alternative plan... I?m on board with the current plan. You have already pointed out that I don?t know enough about war and that is why I trust our military to carry out this objective competently. They have proven their ability time and again and especially in the Gulf War and in Afghanistan. Remember how so many people were predicting another Vietnam in Afghanistan? Didn?t happen.

I am willing to listen to why you have so little faith in this operation. I will continue to consider your views on how we are totally screwing things up in this war. Then I?m going to compare that with the eventual outcome. You?ve made it more than clear a few times that I should not speak about things I don?t know enough about and I think that is actually fair advice.

About not getting enough information... I really don?t think that is a problem. I don?t know what you?re getting in Germany but with the Internet, I?d say we both have access to a wide variety of sources

quote:

---

...when it comes to the Bible...you have much more knowledge than I do. Well, in this situation, it is the opposite.

---

I appreciate that and I am going to do my best to keep that in mind. Expect me to ask lots of questions of you then because I will need to test your theories and views about war. In short, I need to question as you recommend. I think that is a very fair arrangement

quote:

---

Where then, lie your priorities?

---

I want to minimize coalition casualties *and* Iraqi civilian casualties. I think we can both agree on that.

quote:

---

And one last thing, what if Saddam really doesn't have any WMD? How do you then justify the conflict in Iraq, if that is true?
...
And there are dictators, that we are not going to do anything about, that have done far worse, and are continuing to do so.

---

I'm positive WMD will be found. I have explained in other threads precisely why Hussein needs to be taken out and why some heinous government like that of Sudan will be left alone. In short, he's an expansionist, he threatens the world economy's lifeline, and he poses an increasing threat to the United States through his dealings with terrorists and what he is likely to provide them by way of bio/chem/nuke weapons. He simply could not be allowed to continue on his path unchallenged. Not all regimes have all of that going for them.

quote:

---

Our best Generals are not leading it. Why is that?

---

Now this really has me interested and I don't know enough about it. What is wrong with Franks and who should be running this operation? Like I told you before, I am not a military man and that is why I trust our military to get the job done.

quote:

---

Last, so far, no-one is really sure if the Iraqi people want to be liberated, or not.

---

Please read the article I posted above about the human shield that was surprised to learn a good many Iraqis want Hussein taken out but for fear of reprisal have to watch what they say with extreme care.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-28-2003).]

quote:

---

humanitarian relief

---

This has really nothing to do with military actions directly...it is more of a support issue, and one that this lightning move largely precluded...now that the troops are being massed, it would be relatively easy, to bring the necessary relief to them - they would no longer be in Baghdad, after all. That with the port, is an entirely different issue, and relief for most Iraqis within cities is, as well. On can ship supplies through Kuwait...it's not that difficult, over land. They are doing it for the troops, they can do it for civilians. I don't see this as a problem, more a small challenge, maybe...and it is largely a logistical one.

quote:

---

level Baghdad with the citizens still there

---

Heh. No, I'm not particularly bloodthirsty. Of course the civilians must be given not only a chance to get out of the city, but the means and opportunaty to do so...before any action in Baghdad takes place, be it levelling or house-to-house.

quote:

---

I knew we would lose lives but sometimes I think you forget that so do the soldiers

---

No, I could never forget this...I lived it for 11 years, and was involved in the Gulf War. However, there is a difference between responsibly leading our troops, and irresponsibly. We know the difference, the Nam showed them to us. Somalia, as well. In fact, no good leader can forget this...or should.

quote:

---

troops from Northern Ireland have been training the other troops in city fighting since they have a lot of experience with that

---

I can't speak for Tom, he'll have to put in his own words. Training is one thing, reality another. Point is, irregardless of training and equiptment, house-to-house always involves increased casualties among troops, esp. attacking troops. If it can be avoided, then it should. If there are alternatives, they should be used. This is my main point here. Remove the houses, and it becomes a moot point.

quote:

---

You have already pointed out that I don’t know enough about war and that is why I trust our military to carry out this objective competently. They have proven their ability time and again and especially in the Gulf War and in Afghanistan. Remember how so many people were predicting another Vietnam in Afghanistan? Didn’t happen.

---

Yes, but who lead that? It wasn't General Frank. And the strategy was Colin Powell's, not Mr. Rumsfelds (Overwhelming force). Also, be aware that Afghanistan is not done, we still have troops there, and there is still resistance. I would suggest (if you haven't already) reading the Military Bible, The Art of War and 5 Rings. Anybody who wishes to understand war, needs to study these books. They are manditory, for Military studies. I heartily recommend them.

quote:

---

I am willing to listen to why you have so little faith in this operation. I will continue to consider your views on how we are totally screwing things up in this war.

---

By now, you must be beginning to wonder, what's going on in Iraq. At the very least, you must be asking yourself, at the sudden change in tactics. First, we have a 'blitz' of troops to Baghdad...and not a large force. Then, problems with the logistics and supplies. Probleems with the Northern front (or lack thereof). First we skirt the cities, now we are having problems with them. Propaganda lies (always the first sign of trouble), about this battle, that taken place, low to non-existant casualty counts, then information censorship. I see signs all over the place, that things are much different, than the top brass (and the Bush administration) want to admit. And the strategy that was used (and counted on to work), was based on faulty conclusions...irregardless, of why they are faulty. The Iraqis are not surrending in masses (doesn't matter why, from a military standpoint), and the civilians are not 'wildly welcoming' the troops (irregardless as to why). We don't really need to go into the whys of that...for they are only important when choosing a strategy, but we already know, that Mr. Rumsfelds strategy doesn't (and didn't) work...that's why it's being changed, that's why the ground troops in Turkey are being shipped through the Suez to Kuwait, to join up, that's why more heavy armor is being shipped in, and that's why the troops on the front are not pushing forwards (enmassing, instead). We've seen other failures of judgement, as well...the Apache disaster (yep, that's right...militarily speaking, a disaster), cases of friendly fire, declaring a 'zone' is clear of the enemy when it is not (and suffering casualties because of it), and an actual fire-fight between our own troops (and this one is very strange, not only because it occured, but because, apparently, no-one was killed. Either the US military is not that effective in battle, or we have been lied to...and there were casualties. I suspect the later, as the laboratory for identifying the dead has called up 100+ reservists to help out with the casualties, which up to know 'only' include 16...you don't need 100+ extra people to identify 16 bodies).

Now, I think reason is starting to slowly sink in now...and the strategy is shifting back to Overwhelming force...as Mr. Rumsfelds strategy has failed. That's why I am so enraged, at the Administration, and how this thing is being run...it should have been in place from the go, with a General who has not only experience with this strategy, but experience with the Iraqis, and leading troops in wartime. This would have spared American and British lives. I'm not against the fact that war can result in casualties, I'm against needlessly throwing the lives of our troops away! And that is what this failed strategy has done.

As for our best Generals, I prepared a bit below.


General Franks - He was chosen for this by Mr. Rumsfeld, who has ignored Colin Powell and his docrine on over-whelming force, which was so effective in both the first Gulf War, and Afghanistan. Nothing personal against Gen. Franks, but he is really just Mr. Rumsfelds 'whipping boy'...a career officer who is 'looking for his big chance', and has received it. That doesn't make him the best man for the job - far from it. However, to impliment Mr. Rumsfelds 'new' military theory, those that would have been better didn't want to do it, for good reason (as we have found out). Stormin' Norman would have been a better choice, but only for the overwhelming force scenario. Because he spoke out rather negatively against Mr. Rumsfelds plan (this light, 'blitz' strategy), he was blacklisted, and career-sabotaged by Mr. Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration. That is sad, because he has the experience that we need against the Iraqis...he has faced and defeated them before. He is also an excellent General, and I enjoyed serving under him.

There is one more thing - and you put it well, that politics should be seperated from the actual warmaking. However, this conflict is exactly the opposite. Politics is running it, Mr. Rumsfeld is not a competent warmaker, and neither is Mr. Bush (both have never had actual war experience - they are politicians, and should have been listening to Mr. Powell). Mr. Colin Powell does, but he is not being listened to, at least, he wasn't...now, maybe he is...I certainly hope so, in order to avoid a total disaster. This conflict can still be won...we haven't progress so far, that it is not possible. I see the beginnings of a new strategy, and that one of Overwhelming force...this brings in me hope. Of course, that will prolong the war (now), so I guess the Neo-Americans are also cheering it on...which I don't like, in particular. I truly wish that Overwhelming force had been done from the beginning...this thing would be over, by now, with minimal loss to our troops. Now we will have to wait, until enough troops and armor can be brought into position, which is having a negative effect on the civilian population!

Because of these specific reasons, I am unhappy with the conflict so far, and I cannot accredit the Bush administration, nor Mr. Rumsfeld, with anything near a 'good' grade for it. Irregardless of the outcome (which I hope will be as bloodless as possible), these points have shown, that Mr. Bush and his administration is not up to the task, of directing our forces, and therefore the conflict, let alone trying to do the 'Pax Americana' idea.

That they seem to finally have realized their mistakes, and are trying to correct them, is good, but not enough. We have already lost lives among the troops because of this. And that is the point, really - war penalizes mistakes with death.

There is an old adage - 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'. Overwhelming Force works, it's been tried and tested, and it's been very successful. Why then, try something experimental, that has never been tried or tested (this 'blitz idea' of Mr. Rumsfeld)? It cost American lives, to find out that it doesn't work. This is, quite simply, unacceptable, irregardless of how one looks at it, especially considering that the alternative (Overwhelming Force) exists that works! How can any American support an administration, that is willing to bet (and spend) American lives on such a whim?

Now, I hear people saying, 'Yes, but it did manage us to capture the Oil fields, and to contain Saddam in Baghdad' - while this is certainly true, overwhelming force would have accomplished the first, as well, and as for the second...he wasn't going anywhere, anyway. In fact, it was (and is) his strategy to draw our troops to a pre-destined point, to play by his rules (which, up until now, we have been doing). Unless we change tactics (and the rules), we then have to beat him at his own game - very risky...and why go the risk, when it can be done differently? I'm not willing to throw American lives away, just to 'beat' Saddam at his own game...better to use another tactic, that takes Saddam by surprise, and spare our troops as much as possible. I hope, now that 'blitz troops'( or whatever Mr. Rumsfeld calls his little 'disaster') has clearly failed, that we will do so. I also hope to god that Mr. Bush has enough sense to give the reins of control over to someone who knows what they are doing, namely, Mr. Colin Powell.

And this General says it war will take longer than originally planned is exactly what I am talking about...and direct evidence, that I am right.

quote:

---

The commander of U.S. Army forces in the Persian Gulf region says removal of the Iraqi government is likely to take longer than originally thought. General William Wallace says overextended supply lines and stiffer-than-expected resistance from Iraqi forces using unconventional tactics have slowed the U.S. drive toward Baghdad.

General Wallace is quoted in the New York Times and Washington Post as saying the enemy faced by coalition forces is different than the one they prepared for "war games against".

He described Iraqi fighters as willing to launch suicide attacks against British and U.S. forces, and spoke of incidents in which Baghdad loyalists are forcing civilians to fight by threatening their safety. The general's remarks come as at least 100,000 more U.S. and allied troops are on their way to Iraq to reinforce the 125,000 troops already there.

However, a U.S. military spokesman, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, denied that military planners had underestimated the Iraqi forces. Thursday, President Bush said the United States and its allies will stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to overthrow Saddam Hussein and put an end to what Mr. Bush calls the Iraqi leader's "grip of terror."

--VOA

---

Of course, Brigadier General Vincent Brooks, denied that military planners had underestimated the Iraqi forces. Heh, yeah, what else could he say...either tell the truth, and shoot his career down, or just parrot the Bush line...give me a break. How stupid does he think we are?



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-28-2003).]

Thanks, there are some very interesting points there. I am hearing you be an advocate for a specific approach to war which goes against another faction in the military establishment of alternative tactics. On the one hand, we have the Powell Doctrine and on the other we have I guess the Rumsfeld approach.

I have a question for you. I was listening to the radio this morning as I do every morning and there is a military analyst on the local station, Captain Dale Dye. He's a former marine and he was the one that did the house-to-house fighting in Nam (he's not a personal friend I'm sorry for the confusion there) Anyway, he addressed this very issue you brought up about the two approaches to this war. He said that in the Gulf War the Powell Doctrine was definitely the way to go, no doubt about it. However, he said that he did not think it was the right tactic for *this* war because of the civilian concern.

In the Gulf he pointed out we went up solely against the Iraqi military. But because we are now involved in liberation, strictly following the Powell Doctrine would be a mistake.

Furthermore he explained what did bother him greatly and that was not being able to attack Baghdad from the North through Turkey. Had we been able to do that, it would have drawn many of the defending forces in the South upward and had a much greater effect. He then added that this shift is causing us to do a tap dance but we are very good at tap dancing It is very interesting listening to him. BTW, did you serve in the Marines? This guy's a marine and quite proud of it. For that matter have you ever heard of him? Here are some links about him:
http://www.dvdfever.co.uk/reviews/daledye.shtml http://www.lordly.com/talent/lordly/DyeDale.html http://www.kfi640.com/daledye.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2001/10/15/dale_dye_2001_3_interview.shtml


I was re-reading your words and realized that you said these two things just paragraphs apart:

quote:

---

We both know (or should) that there is a very real danger of WMD being used here.
. . .
And one last thing, what if Saddam really doesn't have any WMD?

---

I am really not saying you contradicted yourself because I know you were making a larger point with that second statement but what I want to know from you is, what do you personally with your knowledge of war and this situation believe to be the case? Do you think he possesses such weapons or not?

Emps, I was thinking of you last night and this morning because on the local talk radio stations, KFI640 AM and KABC 790 here in LA, they are beginning to have joint call in programs with British talk show hosts. They have been taking British and American calls alternately and it is very interesting to hear the opinions from both. I think the thing that is most striking is how very similar the opinions are both for and against this war from both our countries.

This morning Bill Handel was sharing air time with David Prever. Are you familiar with him? Where does his station fit into the political spectrum over there?

I can tell you that Bill Handel is pretty right wing when it comes to the economy and taking down people like Hussein but he is *very* liberal when it comes to social issues. This is a common mixture among our conservatives in the US to be socially liberal and economically conservative.

I'm not discussing shite with you. You just all know everything...yet don't have the sense you were born with.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_13/b3826609.htm

Great article, I didn't know much about this guy before. I guess I don't know much about you either, ettie. What's with the animosity? I'm probably missing out on some Asylum history on that one.

While I am in no way an expert on these issues, or even all that up to speed on them, I did have a question when I read one part of that article that ettie posted. It said:

quote:

---

Garner coaxed them [Kurds] back down by persuading Saddam's troops to withdraw

---

I was under the impression that there was no coaxing going on, that we had sent military force in because the Kurds were being slaughtered and Saddam's troops left...there was no diplomacy going on. Could someone please tell me if that's correct or not??
I also have the understanding that Rumsfeld is part of the 'hawks' at the Pentagon? Would it be safe to assume the same of Garner since they are such close friends?
I'm not asking to stir the pot...but I do want to make sure that my information is correct.

ettie, don't you work at the Pentagon??

__________________________
Cell 1007::SST

Well gee, ettie, thanks for dropping by to let us know you won't discuss anything with us



(bug - no big thing, ettie just flipped out on a few occasions for no reason and then left in a huff because of it somehow....=)

Al-Qaeda 'with Saddam forces' I came across this today. This would seem to be a direct link if true.

Lacuna, we'll have to look into the details of what happened after the first Gulf War. I agree that sounds odd that he persuaded the Iraqi troops to withdraw.

But to be clear about what that article does say, notice it was the Kurds who fled to the hills because of the Iraqi troops. Apparently Garner was able to get the Iraqi troops to pull out of the North and then convinced the Kurds it was safe to come back to their homes. We established a NoFlyZone in that area and assuming that was in effect at this time, it could certainly have played a role in convincing Hussein's forces to withdraw, i.e. by threatening air attacks if they did not.

But I'll do some digging on this and get back. Hopefully someone else here knows more about the history of that and enlighten us all.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-29-2003).]

quote:

---

In the Gulf he pointed out we went up solely against the Iraqi military. But because we are now involved in liberation, strictly following the Powell Doctrine would be a mistake.

---

Well, I know of the guy...my point is what kind of alternative is he then talking about? And the other thing - why then, are American forces going back to the Overwhelming Force method? Either way, if you support that guy's way of thinking, there is a problem in Iraq accordingly...either Overwhelming Force is wrong (according to what you have said he said)...but the other tactic failed miserably...and now they are going back to Overwhelming Force...anyway you look at it, it's wrong. And being wrong in war is not a good thing...not at all. In fact, it's deadly.

No, I most surely was not a marine - US Air Force and US Army.

And in the interview, he hit on a major issue...that we had not properly understood the enemy in Nam...and quite frankly, I believe we have done the same in Iraq. But time will tell...and body counts.

As for WMD...this one is puzzling me to no end...I can't for the life in me understand, if Saddam has them, why he hasn't used them yet. It just doesn't make sense. Personally, I would use them, and I would give them to units that were ambushing the supply lines and lesser defended areas...and the oil fields. I would also have heaps buried in the ground around Baghdad, ready to be detonated and released, as the enemy came within range (a wonderful surprise tactic). But then, I am not Saddam...and quite frankly, I'm really beginning to doubt that he has them. Or, maybe he has them, and is not willing to use them. Now, that would be interesting...maybe we just don't understand Saddam well enough. Or maybe he really is dead...that is a question that I've been asking...what if he is already dead, but the Iraqis keep on fighting? What if, even if the regime is destroyed, the Iraqis keep on fighting?

To put it bluntly : I don't know, and there are, at this point, too many unknowns to accurately say (IMHO).

As for the proposed military governor in Iraq (with 3 American civilians for each area)...this is exactly how the Romans ruled their conquered lands...this is unacceptable, if you ask me. I think it will not bring the expected results...far from it. I also feel that General Jay will be under enormous stress, and pressure, to make it work...I don't think that he will get a real chance to do it, though...I'm sure the Bush Administration will keep a tight 'political' finger on him...if not, that would be a radical departure from the way that the Bush administration has done things, up to this point. But first, we have to win the war...I think that's proving hard enough, at this point.

And over the weekend, I heard the reports from that British soldier on CNN...very interesting...I guess he just shot his career to all hell and back...gutsy move, I must say...I can only applaud the guy. That finally lends real evidence, that I'm right - that Iraq was not only underestimated, but that the situation was fully mis-understood. I just hope that those sitting above and watching the show were listening...and take it to heart, and react accordingly...

I've also seen the...rather ineffective reports on the 'northern front'...bombing runs that don't strike the target? Artillery strikes? That is strange...I guess they are not using precision ordinance in the North...and the Iraqi solders just casually maintain their positions, in full site of the cameras...no real stress or effects to be noted...so at the moment, I guess there is no Northern front...not yet, anyway...

And yes, I do think the Bush administration did purposely mis-lead the public, about the length and simplicity of the conflict...it would fit right in, with the way the Bush administration has always done things...and will continue to do things.

Funniest thing I've heard ol' Mr. Bush say to this point - that the war will continue as long as it takes...well, Mr. Bush, that's assuming you are elected next time round...and if the conflict is still going on, by election time next year, don't count on that happening. In fact, the constant lying, mis-direction, and propaganda is starting to take its toll...we will see how it looks, at the end of this month...I suspect that if the conflict is still raging by the end of this month, real concerns will start to be raised...

WS, is this incredible or what? We are rolling into Baghdad already. That's it, I'm just sitting back and seeing how this ends up. Trying to predict events is futile it seems. The fact that we are actually *in* the city and considering the relatively low casualties for civilians and our troops is unprecedented... so far. Let's just hope and pray this really is going to end in a whimper so we can move on to rebuilding Iraq. And this is where things will get extraordinarily difficult in order to do it "right". I am specifically thinking about mobrul's dire prediction of installing another thug. I must say, I don't see it going that far but I do see it not going far enough in the other direction, namely an provisional government run by Iraqis and not the US military.

ok i am putting a few things together regards my time in N.Ireland and CQB (close quarters combat) i will post it tomorrow, who knows what will happen in the mean tinme tonight, but trust me if it goes house to house street to street, you better have strong stomachs, its gonna get real bloody,high casualties, and civilian casual;ties will rise and so will friendly fire incidents,this is the dirty messy end of war...

Good to see you around, tomeaglescz. I really look forward to that. I am very eager to here what you and WS and any other veterans have to offer to help us civilians better understand the horrors of war.

Bugs: Sorry I didn't get back sooner I've been a little occupied. I've never heard of the guy or his radio station (LBC) so I can't comment really.

and on this:

quote:

---

WS, is this incredible or what? We are rolling into Baghdad already. That's it, I'm just sitting back and seeing how this ends up.

---

I am glad to see things moving into the end game here but taking of Baghdad will not be the end (and as Tom has said urban warfare is brutal - as Northern Ireland has taught us, and him esp.):

1. There will be a low level war with pockets of Saddam lolayists for a long time.

2. This controversial interim Iraqi government will cause all sorts of problems.

3. Watch where the oil money goes. Although Bush has said the moeny will stay with the Iraqis watch it disappear to the US via: reconstruction, direct repayments for the war and privatisation of the oil industry.

4. They are already gearing themselves up for the next war. I was wondering what would happen - if it would be a rolling war or there would be a year or so pause but it looks like it might just keep rolling. Odds on favourite for finding a large Coalition boot in their rear appears to be Syria (although Iran also gets a good emntion so don't rule them out) thanks to (with a nod to Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys) I'll call 'The Case of the Invisible Infrared Goggles':
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,925240,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,926157,00.html

I think this is scarily inevitable and (as mentioned a while back all part of one plan made years ago).

the main question is when will the UK back out and the international community actually make a stand? It does appear that the UK (which has always had a more pro-Arab policy, although any good will we have built up is being osed away rapidly) is rapidly backing away from this issue:
www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,928302,00.html

although that might be partly because they are possibly British nightvision goggles:
www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,930977,00.html

but it seems clear that this 'diversion' of goods has been known about for years.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Hmmm...end game, it is not (good points, Emps). However, the change in tactics (Overwelming Force) really was the way to go...look what it has accomplished. As for American casualties...well, we will have to wait, until they release the real figures...I at least hope, that people are starting to wake up to Rumsfeld (and Mr. Bush)...ignoring the advice of the Generals (and Veterans), and sacrificing unnedded American lives in a futile effort (that 'blitz' strategy) was really stupid, and pointless. Just an example, of when unexperienced, arrogant idealists think they can wage wars. Also, your friend Bugs (or that guy on the radio, whatever) was wrong...overwelming force works.

Let's hope that it all ends soon, and with as little blood lost as possible. I, too, shudder at the coming house-to-house fighting...I hope it is swift, and takes little toll on our troops, and the civilians...

I do wonder, how long it will really take to complete the Iraq operation...remember, Afghanistan is still going on...

So Bugs, you are celebrating too soon...it's just half-time, so to speak. We are storming the beaches of Normandy, not entering Berlin...

Though I am curious to see what type of effect Saddams death will have on the war.

I also hope that the international community puts down it's squabbles and decides to help the Iraqi people...for they are the real victims here.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-07-2003).]

The imperial elite guard was seen on a road northwest of Bagdad with plenty tanks and artillery. I guess they will enter the war when the American will think they own Bagdad... Man, why does men like so much the blood lust ?

Anyway I agree with Webshaman, I would like to see this war end as quickly as possible.

As we have all noticed the news has been awfully contradictory and this has had a big impact the stock markets. So where do they go for what migh pass as the truth (or a more factually correct version)? Russian army spys.

This article goes into the issue:
www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,931084,00.html

and it appears that it is easier to get hold of this information than you'd think as the GRU (the army intelligence) post daily reports here:
www.iraqwar.ru./?userlang=en

As opposed to what the article says it is in English but the site it points to for the translations is also worth nosing through too:
www.aeronautics.ru

[edit: And they have more information on the GRU:
www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news072.htm

as well as suff on #cough# anti-gravity - but as large aeonautics companies are looking into this kind of thing.....]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

And the above has some interesting reports on the issue of Syria:
www.iraqwar.ru./iraq-read_article.php?articleId=2084&lang=en

quote:

---

"Syria has become the only airway passage for Saddam. They have transferred night vision equipment and also parts for the Republican Guards' T-72 tanks," Maj Gen Aharon Zeevi, head of the Israel Defence Force Military Intelligence branch (AMAN), told the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot on 3 April.

---

quote:

---

Israeli intelligence sources have suggested that Iraq might also be hiding banned surface-to-surface missiles and chemical components in Syria. On 31 March AMAN head of research Brig Gen Yossi Kuperwasser informed the Israeli parliament's Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee that there is evidence to support the latter claim.

---

It sounds like the Israelis are really going to push for this hunt for WMD and it is setting the Coalition up with excuses for why so little was found. However, this report suggests early finds of a Sarin-like substance:
www.iraqwar.ru./iraq-read_article.php?articleId=2063&lang=en

although this earlier report suggests little had been found up until them:
www.iraqwar.ru./iraq-read_article.php?articleId=2026&lang=en

Most of these reports are culled from other sources (Reuters, Janes, BBC, etc.) and I presume the Russian intelligence reports are the ones being translated on Venik's main page (if so it sounds like things aren't all roses at the airport).

[edit: and it looks like its not just the oil people are after:
www.iraqwar.ru./iraq-read_article.php?articleId=2033&lang=en

this queing up of people to pillage a country (the source of civilisation as we know it - a country filled with priceless anyquities which are a priceless resource which over the years will help the Iraqi people bring in more tourists to help their country recover) really disgusts me]

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well Emps, I think Mr. Bush set up the Syria-Iraq connection when he said that WMD had been all moved to Syria...so that may be the next move planned...and when one thinks that Isreal has developed their new tank to fight Syria...1 plus 1, right? But we'll have to wait on that one...at least, until this one is declared 'over', anyway...

And yeah, I've been scrounging around the intel from Russia, as well...for the casualty reports (which they rate as much, much higher than the offical reports). Still, it's hard to confirm. One thing of interest - actual official counts are 3-4 days old, they only count from what the medical people have already worked...according to Russian intel.

I guess the main spectre of WMD has been largely removed...no reports of them being used, as of yet. Now that US troops are actually in Baghdad, it's a bit to late for their use, really. Hard to deliver such agents in that confined space. Yes, there is that report on this serin stuff, but it was unused, and who knows how it actually got there...food for thought, really. No, the WMD issue seems to have fallen off the face of the earth...and no real word from anyone on that front...at the moment, I think it's 'get Saddam' fever...and the large questions like those concerning WMD...well, we will see, won't we? Of course, they could have been sent into Iran...hehe...but no-one would probably believe that...hmmm...maybe Saudia Arabia? Maybe they were all given to Bin Laden? North Korea? On ships circling somewhere in the Indian ocean? I guess Syria makes more 'sense'...

Yes, stay tuned for 'The missing WMD'...

from foxnews.com (second section of the article):

quote:

---

U.S. Marines also crossed the Tigris River east of the city despite heavy damage to bridges from booby traps and heavy fighting.

Meanwhile, U.S. biological and chemical weapons experts believe they may have found an Iraqi storage site for weapons of mass destruction, a U.S. officer told Reuters.

"Our detectors have indicated something," Major Ros Coffman, a public affairs officer with the U.S. 3rd Infantry, said of the site just south of Hindiyah. "We're talking about finding a site of possible WMD storage. This is an initial report, but it could be a smoking gun."

U.S. forces near Baghdad found around 20 medium-range missiles equipped with chemical weapons, National Public Radio reported.

The rockets, BM-21 missiles, were equipped with sarin and mustard gas and were "ready to fire," NPR said, attributing the report to a top official with the 1st Marine Division.

Senior defense officials told Fox News that an exploration team is at the site now and there may in fact be something substantial there.

---

[This message has been edited by Fig (edited 04-07-2003).]

Well Fig, I have seen the reports (I guess we all have had information overload on them by now, it seems to be everywhere at once, go figure).

Some things to consider - first of all, that lays three, almost four days behind us now (yep, they discovered those two places that long ago). That's a lot of time, to test stuff...where are the results of that testing? I'm absolutely certain, that if they had certain proof, it'd be all over the media, and 'in your face' everywhere...second, it seems it's more of that serin stuff (at least, they hinted at that...could be just agriculture pesticides, as well). They said they tested for something else, that it might be a type of nerve gas...well, we will have to wait and see. Also, it didn't seem like it was really in 'deliverable' form, whatever it is...and certainly not already packed in the delivery systems (now that would be a dead give-away). No word on biological agents...

However, I'm certainly no expert on ABC type stuff (just the normal training). I really don't know how long the testing process is. Anyone?

So do you think that recent hit really got him and his sons? How in the world will they find evidence even if they were in that building?

WS, Captain Dye didn't say that the Powell Doctrine didn't work. He just said that it was not appropriate for densely populated areas like Baghdad where the civilian casualties would be enormous and unacceptable.

And, no, I'm not celebrating just yet but I am extremely pleased at the progress. This is precisely the kind of time table that was predicted (2-4 weeks) and the kind of things that we needed to happen for this war to be a success. Now the looong task of rebuilding will soon begin. That is where it becomes extremely difficult and it remains to be seen if Iraq is ready for democratization.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-08-2003).]

Bugs, this information is a bit more accurate

quote:

---

The total time for the operation against Iraq is estimated by the US military planners to run between 15 and 21 days.
According to Col. Gen. Rukshin it is unlikely that the first phase of the US attack will be able to achieve its goals and destroy most of the main Iraqi forces. This stage of the operation is likely to take between three week and one-and-a-half months. During that time the US command will put an emphasis on the destruction of Iraq's top political and military leadership, including Saddam Hussein. For this purpose the US plans to use high-power aviation bombs capable of penetrating reinforced underground facilities at great depth. Additionally, for the first time the US plans to use tactical airborne troops and special forces against Iraq's military and political command sites.

GOU GSh finds it possible that the military campaign against Iraq will be considerably more difficult than expected by the US military planners. The US troops may encounter determined resistance from the Iraqi forces, which may lead to the slow down and even complete halt of the attack and will force the US to resume the mass bombing campaign. This will inevitably prolong the war into the 2-3-month timeframe and possibly longer.

--aeronautics.ru - War in Iraq - GRU's take on things

---

Also, Russian intelligence reports the found 'chemicals' to be, in fact, pesticides...very interesting. And the War has past the 1 month phase...going slowly towards the 5 week phase. In other words, it is taking longer than planned.

On another front - it does seem to look like foreign TV and reporters are being targeted...Al Jazzara and Dubya (or whatever) both got hit hard, and then there is this

quote:

---

Later, the Palestine Hotel, the base for most foreign correspondents covering the war in the Iraqi capital, was struck by what was believed to be tank fire.

In London, Reuters news agency spokeswoman Susan Allsopp said four Reuters staff were injured in the blast - a reporter, a photographer, a cameraman and a technician. The extent of their injuries was not clear, and they were taken to hospital.

--ICWales

---

Hmmm...accidents? Somehow, I don't think so. What is really strange is, that I tried to find the story of that Palestine Hotel in the net (it was on Google, but the story had been pulled, strange), however, it was damned hard to find anything (almost all had been pulled). I find that...disturbing. So, we have three different news agencies that were hit, and in a relatively short time-span. Coincidence? Maybe...but if I was commanding troops in house-to-house combat, I'd want to make damned sure, that no information was getting out, that was...unfavorable. Especially considering reports of civilians being gunned down...or the actual fighting. And absolutely no video, of course.

Ok, a couple of hours later, it's all over the place...reports coming in from every direction, about the attack on the Palastinian Hotel. Looks like the Military lost, on this one.

It would also seem like there must be a hell of a battle taking place in Baghdad right now...



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-08-2003).]

Now I feel like a proper silly billy - it appears (at least according to James Woolsey the former director of the CIA) that not only are we in the early stages of a World War but we missed one and this is actually World War IV

Its in today's Guardian but they don't seem to have a copy online but see and indirect mention:
www.theinquirer.net/?article=8783

see also:
www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/

Hmmmm these are older articles:
www.hallindseyoracle.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=1468
www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4718

What worries me is this isn't some extreme conspiracy theorising or wild talk by some right wing nut who has no influence over policy - Woolsey is one of the people who may have a role in rebuilding post-war Iraq.

I do think its ironic that Woolsey talks so much about extending democracy when the US has gone out if its way to disrupt democracies when they happened to be voting for the wrong people.

So one question to those who have been more in favour of this war than myself (and pos. WS): Is extending this war to Syria then Iran then Saudi Arabia acceptable for you?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Interesting question...and I'm just not sure, if 'acceptable' is the right word, here. Maybe 'sane' would be better...

I see no good thing coming out of a full-scale war in the region...in that, I mean to move from country to country, one war after another...I'm very sure that the international community will not support it...meaning it will have to be done alone. Somewhere along the line, people (and countries) are going to wake-up, and really start doing something about it...my $.02 on the subject.

Here's some interesting thoughts on this -

quote:

---

Two top United States Diplomats have resigned from their posts, saying they cannot support the Bush Administration's plans for war. In his resignation letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, John Brady Kiesling, a former U.S. diplomat based in Athens, Greece, said the Bush Administration was involved in, and I quote, "a systematic distortion of intelligence and a systematic manipulation of public opinion not seen since the days of Vietnam."


Kiesling dedicated 20 years of his life to diplomacy and civil debate. He sent his resignation letter to Secretary Powell on February 27. Friday, March 7, was his last day in the Foreign Service.


Another veteran Diplomat, John Brown, joined Kiesling just three days ago. Brown was a senior member of the Foreign Service who also served in the State Department for more than 20 years. He was stationed primarily in Eastern Europe and most recently in Moscow.


In Brown's letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, he said he agreed with John Brady Kiesling. Brown wrote, "The president's disregard for views in other nations borne out by his neglect of public diplomacy is giving birth to an anti-American century."

---

quote:

---

JBK: I'm kind of frightened by the missionary zeal that's going into this. The original American missionaries to the Middle East in the 19th century recognized that they would not be able to convert anyone from Islam to Christianity. So they settled for simply giving people a good education. And that was very useful. It played an enormous role in the economic and political development of the Middle East. Now we seem to think that we can go in and convert people, not necessarily to Christianity, but to a whole different Western ideology. It has not worked, it will not work. The idea that we first take care of Iraq, and then we will civilize Iran, and then we will civilize Syria and then we will civilize everybody else – it's insane. But, there are people who genuinely seem to believe it, and all I can think of is, they are hopeful for the Apocalypse.

---

quote:

---

JB: I just hope that my resignation will underscore the fact that I have extremely strong reservations about our policy, and to get back to the earlier question that Brady answered, a policy that really is based on arrogance, on the notion that we can recreate the world, recreate regions, first by using force. And I think force should be used at the very, very last moment ... if ever ... not to use force ... avoid using it as much as possible. So my concern at this point is really the believing that we, in a sense, are the masters of the universe. I think that's terribly dangerous and that's not of the American spirit.

---

More on this Dissenting Diplomats

So yes, I think the word 'sane' (or insane) fits much better in your question, Emps.



[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-09-2003).]

WS: Thanks for that stuff - very interesting.

I'm not sure sane/insane is quite the right term

There are certain members of the US administration who are frighetningly sane and focused - I'm sure under normal circumstances such a plan would be described as insane (due to the huge scope and the audacity) but they are some of the few people on the planet with the power and will to carry it through. I'm sure in their minds they see it along the lines of a short sharp shock to remove these undemocratic Arabic states will be worth it in the long run. During WWIII the US administrations intervention in other countries had to be more covert (due to the presence of another super power) but this was an awfully drawn out and costly affair and now they can pretty much do what they want it must seem easier to grasp the nettle and get it over with quickly.

Also when we go to war we tend to 'support our boys' more and opinion swings to support the war so it makes sense to keep the war rolling so we don't have any pause where we can criticise things properly without appearing unpatriotic.

I'm just unsure how they can be stopped. There will always be a way to create an arguement for invading another country (and I'm sure it could be done for any country if you put your mind to it) which will rope in a Coalition of the Gullible although they will start to fade away. As long as the electorate supports them then they'll just keep going. They were quite happy to do this without the UK but they stuck around long enough to drag them on board (most other members of the Coalition, except for Oz, are pretty minor participants already) but they appeared not to be bothered either way.

What can the rest of the world do? Bring sanctions against the US? Go to war? Thats not going to happen.

The disapproval of the UN doesn't seem to worry them and their ripping up of virtually every treaty of the last 50 years has already demonstrated what they think of international cooperation.

The only way I can see things changing is through the electorate and that is only going to happen if:

1. The body bags start flooding home - which isn't likely and isn't something I want to hope for.

2. People wake up and smell the coffee - the truth is out there but you can lead a horse to water (and throw in some other cliches).........

It does feel like one of those world record breaking domino setups where it is possible to get an idea of the greater pattern but it won't all be clear until all of the dominos have fallen and I'm afraid the first dominos started falling years ago (which is why they have been so blatant in giving us glimpses of the pattern) and everything is progressing with a kind of scary inevitability. Is the only hope that somewhere a few dominos have been set up wrong and the whole plan will get derailed? I suppose my only hope is that I'm wrong, that there isn't some greater scheme, that hostilities will end now and the Middle East will get back to normal. We'll see.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Ok...been thinking on other things, but let's go down this path for awhile.

There are really two things to consider here - the Political ramifications, and the Military ramifications. I'll start with the military one first.

From a Military point of view, no time in mankind's history was a military better prepared for doing a bit of world beating. The rough edges have been polished, the troops have been 'bloodied', and are now veterans, the command has got into gear, communications have been optimized...and the weaponry works. In short - from a military perspective, it's not only possible, but merely a question of 'May we?'

So, that leaves the Political question. And here is where the main problem lies. You said 'What can the rest of the world do? Bring sanctions against the US? Go to war? Thats not going to happen.' Well, if it doesn't, then there is nothing that will stop it. Point is, something must be done, other countries really do need to wake up, and start taking this 'fantasy scenario' a bit more seriously. However, it could be that you are right, that most (esp. Europe) seems to think it is unthinkable. But we have seen this type of mentality before, as I recall. So, either something will happen, and pressure will increase, or it will continue.

Now, I do believe that the Bush Administration has the will to carry such a thing out. Of that, I have no doubt. I am also certain, that they are not at all worried, or concerned, about possible consequences to doing it. The real question is, whether or not the Bush administration wants to, or not. And I am sure, that in the coming months, we will see if this is indeed the case. I highly suspect, that if one more war is started in the region, that that will be the 'key evidence' that such a plan really is being followed, especially if it is Syria. Of course, Iran also would stand high on any list, I believe. But there are also 'signs' that maybe North Korea is next...I've heard tantalizing 'rumors' that American forces are to be 'moved around' or removed, from South Korea altogether...which may be an attempt to provoke North Korea into invading South Korea...which, of course, would then be a mighty incentive to deal with North Korea once and for all.

Should any of the above scenarios take place (esp. in the Middle-East), then I must say, that sadly, there is really nothing that could be done to stop it - total control over Oil means holding the rest of the world's economies hostage, when it comes down to it (and I'm absolutely sure that the Bush administration wouldn't hesitate to do it). Remember, WWI and WWII hotly contested the region for the natural resource, oil. War machines need lots of it, and so do most modern economies.

I'm also interested in who the 'bad guy' is going to be now, now that Saddam has been 'dealt' with. After all, to keep such a thing rolling, one needs to give the public a face that it can spit on, and really 'love' to hate. Maybe Bin Laden? It would be pretty easy to 'sell' that he is in Syria, or Iran...so, make the demand of handing him over from the said country (which couldn't comply, obviously), and then let them have it. Just keep the public comfortable, and blindly hating and following...and as long as the Networks play along, it's as easy as pie.

Of course, one little trip stone is the coming election...so, in order to accomplish all this, something there will have to be done - you cannot base such a plan on the whim of the voters, after all...too much risk. And because there is really not enough time to take out all these other lands before the election, yes, I believe that something will happen (if this plan is being carried out, that is). Of course, Syria and Iran could be eliminated rather quickly, now that the troops are already in place (they are neighbors of Iraq, after all, and I'm sure that Isreal would be more than happy to help out with Syria, and probably also Iran). That would leave just North Korea, and maybe China...if China is even on the list (it should be, but who knows?). The build up for North Korea would take a bit longer, of course...unless they were enticed into attacking South Korea first. Then you could easily gather an international coalition for that...and a build-up would then be just a matter of logistics. So, under ideal conditions, and with a bit of luck, all this could be accomplished before election time...if everything went well (meaning - quickly). I doubt that Iran and Syria will be serious opponents on the battlefield - especially considering what has happened in Iraq, and the fact that Overwhelming force is a really good strategy (that no-one seems to have a defense for, at this time). North Korea could be a bit different...but with a big enough coalition...who knows?

Since one could describe Iraq as a military 'success', that leads to the open question, 'Why not_____?' (fill in blank with favorite bad guy land).

The other thing (If I was really considering doing the plan) that I would make sure of, is that the UN was busy dealing with the 'fall-out' of the wars I had behind me - get the UN busy with reconstruction, and aid, etc...which would first free my troops up (and money) to do the next job, as well as providing a convinient 'smoke-screen' covering my next actions...as the UN bickers and argues about who is to do what where and which agency, I can go ahead with my plans, confident that the UN will be unable to process everything at once (the weaknesses of a democracy lie in the time it takes to pass resolutions, and voting). However, one could not go through the UN Security Coucil anyway (because the US would veto it, of course), so...any 'resolution' would be harmless, anyway.

In fact, I think this is really the biggest weakness that the Iraq conflict has shown - that the UN is really powerless, when it comes to one of the permanent security council members.

Well, we will see. As I said, should there be another conflict started in the area, then we will know.

There is once other thing to consider - before this conflict, I really didn't think (too idealistic, I guess, even after all that I have experienced) that the American people would go along with such a thing. However, it has become apparent, that as long as the sons and daughters of the middle class and the wealthy are not coming home in body bags (and the Media plays along) that it will be supported . I guess this is the real lesson to be learned from Vietnam. That, combined with the fears from 9/11 (just be sure to 'pop' that out there ever so often), and offer some juicy 'advantages' to certain companies and interest groups, and one can count on the masses to follow (and what are they going to do if they don't? Protest? And who is going to report on these protests?).

Of course, somehwere along the line, the economic situation is going to raise it's ugly head, but I'm sure that dealing with that (in the short term) wouldn't be all that difficult.


[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-09-2003).]

Back to normal? Normal? I just don't get it, Emps. I am quite frankly at a loss for words because you speak as though we were days away from the Apocalypse. Why are you so down about all of this? You said that you had no love for Hussein but you want the Middle East to be back to "normal". What exactly does that mean?

I will address your other question soon, but I just couldn't sit by any longer without asking you this.

WS: I don't think we can believe the scale of the plan and I think most of us would rather tell oursleves that it isn't happening - and there is still time for them to back down.

I really doubt the world will try war or sanctions - it is a little difficult to do as the US is the only superpower and an the engine of global economy. As well as still being oe of the Good Guys.

Syria seems the likely next target as it is the only remaining Ba'Athist party ruled country and is always in disupute with Israel about the Golan Heights, etc. However, alhough Iraq was a much more powerful nation they have been bombed into oblivion over the last decade and had very little left. Syria might be another matter entirely - it doesn't stand a chance but it could put up a better defence.

Yes China is on the list of the extreme elements in the administration (and related think tanks) but that would truly be insane but I could see it stemming from Chinese interference in NK. I would imagine Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt would have to go first.

On a side note I just saw them drag down the statue of Saddam in central Baghdad - a very symbolic moment. They had the US flag over his head like a hood and a hain around his neck like a noose. The Pro_US Iraqi commentator said the use of the US flag filled hi with digust and the commentator on the ground said the people couldn't believe how insensitive it was (they whipped it off quickly once they realised the crowd wasn't very happy).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Bugs: Normal as in not on the brink of going up in flames.

And yes I do have a tendency to get all worried and Apocalyptic - that way when things turn out much better than I think its a good thing.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well, Bugs, maybe he is worried that the US really is planning on doing the Pax Americana plan...if I wasn't American, I'd be damned worried about that right now...hell, I am American, and it does tend to creep under my skin...

However, maybe he has other reasons...I would like to hear them, irregardless, as well.

WS: I'm crapping myself as a concerned citizen of the world

I'm not sure I have too many other reasons (that I'd be prepared to go into).

In some ways I'm not the one who is talking in a Apocalyptic way - the links we dropped in on the subject of Pax Americana show that it is the US administration and closely linked think tanks that are discussing things in such a manner using terms like 'total war', 'creative destruction' and WWIV.

In fact at a recent meeting where Woolsey expounded on WWIV the only arguement seemed to be if we were in the first stages of WWIII or WWIV:
www.spacewar.com/2003/030406200547.2w47gtmr.html

Most Arabs consider this victory another slap in the face for their people and it is brewing considerable resentment. Most commentators I've heard have said that the war with Iraq won't have made the War Against Terror easier and that it has probably just made matters worse.

Its that kind of thing that is making me scared - on one side is the US getting more belligerent and on the other the Arab peoples becoming more and more outspoken and angry.

I'll be happy if things fizzle out but as WS has said we'll have to wait and see,

And yes I do believe Saddam to be a thoroughly unpleasant individual who deserved to be toppled but I don't approve of the way things have been done and this war could easily have reprecussions for decades.

At the moment I'm happy to see the Iraqi people becoming free and I'm glad that none of the WMD have been used against Coalition forces (or the Iraqi people).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well, I am going to take it as consolation that you are happy that they're happy The pictures and video of euphoric Iraqis definitely carries a certain amount of vindication with it. I am not ashamed to admit that I am extremely thrilled to see their reaction now that they know he's gone. There is a time, a pause, for some celebration because this is truly a historic moment.

I am going to do my best to limit my "I told you so" childish thoughts and occasional jabs and move on to the real challenge. We must not have just another thug installed. That would be a disaster and I will condemn that with the core of my being should that be the case.

The larger issue is going to be whether or not democratization is possible there at this point in their history. I seriously hope that it is and I seriously hope that this will mark the beginning of more reform in the Middle East. How many times has the US been criticized by the left for *not* opposing terrible regimes? So presumabely, once we start opposing them the criticism may shift to methods? I suppose that would only be appropriate since our society is based on both sides being presented toward a solution.

I'm blathering now. Time to move on to next topic.

So what are you guys calling people like me now? Is the new term NeoCon? So what shall I call y'all? Progressives? LOL!!!

It's interesting how the labels are all getting a make over lately.

Emps, I found the complete transcript of a teach-in at the University of California Los Angeles where several of these so called "neocons" spoke. http://www.avot.org/stories/storyReader$141

Actually, on my site I've included links to an organization that best defines my views on politics both foreign and domestic.
http://www.empoweramerica.org/

and a couple of sister sites:
http://www.empower.org/ http://www.avot.org/

I hope this doesn't terrify you or anything like that

Bugs: I told you sos? About what? We all knew the US could do it with one hand tied behind their back (which seemed to be Rumsfeld's plan for a while), we all knew the Iraqis would be grateful - what has suprised me is the poor reception the Coalition got until taking Baghdad (although if I'd thought it through I might have done better predicting it) and the lack of evidence for WMD (Jack Straw was being interrviewed on the BBC news and they asked if 'So it really was about regine change?' and he said no it was all about WMD and the interviewer never asked where exactly they were - I expect them to tun up I would have expected them to appear sooner).

quote:

---

The larger issue is going to be whether or not democratization is possible there at this point in their history.

---

Its a pity there is no online version of the Woolsey article as he makes some interesting points about the spread of democracy since the start of the 20th Century (how few there were and how many there are now) and similar arguements were made that the Germans, Japanese, [insert just about any other country]. were also incapable of sustaining a democracy and they all seem to be doing fine - I see no reason why Arabic countries can't (Turkey is doing OK).

What would I call you? I must admit I hadn't given labels much thought - although its probably overused compassionate conservative probably fits you better than 99% of the people the label is applied too. Anyway I'll check out those links later (I'm just passing through).

However, to turn it around what would you call me: lily livered pinko liberal?

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

i've watched that statue fall i don't know how many times now. i almost tear up at the pure joy and new sense of freedom the iraqi people are expressing. our methods, politics, and ideaologies may differ but the amazing realization of a newly liberated people makes me forget all those differences temporarily and just marvel in that moment.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Oh dear, this

quote:

---

Iraq has clear connections with Al-Qaeda.

---

is just not true, Bugs, unless one is speaking in generalities. Al-Qaeda is against regimes like Baghdad, that is well known, and documented. However, that Iraq should have clear ties with Al-Qaeda, is not documented...in fact, the evidence is virtually non-existent. There are cells of Al-Qaeda active in Iraq, that we do know, but not for the purpose of joining forces, but to topple the regime. But this is seemingly ignored in the article, or at least the truth is being distorted.

As for what I call you? That's easy...I call you Bugs, of course! Though I suspect, were I to step on you, then that would have to be changed to Beetlejuice!

But seriously, how would you label yourself? I don't consider myself a progressive...I consider myself a liberal republican...if there is any such animal, then that's me. I support our military, see a need to remove such tyrants as Saddam, it's just that I'm not interested in ruling the world...and I don't support it, either. And I am against the Bush administration, because of that, and because it has attempted to destroy that which took 50 years for us to create - the international community. The Bush administration has also run roughshod over our allies, and basically have made a sham of this whole thing. This is not honorable, nor can such an endeavor be build on such a faulty foundation. Also, where are the WMD? Where are they? Mr. Bush said, on video, before the nation, and the UN, that Saddam has them, so Mr. Bush had better produce them...otherwise, our credibility is shot. Also, it would seem that even if they are found, that they will not be in a form that was readily usable...otherwise, they would have been used. This is proof that the UN inspections did work (for disarmament). Mr. Bush is going to have a really hard time wriggling his way out of this one, if no WMD are found...even Rumsfeld in a press conference had enormous difficulties with this question...and pretty much avoided answering, other than his standard 'We don't know'...well, he seemed to know before...now he doesn't. Aha.

To the Iraqis themselves - yes, some of them do seem to be pleased...but then, some don't. In fact, it is really hard to say, at this point, what the general concensus of the populance feels. Time will tell, in this regards. However, they were not all screaming and cheering like the french were under the Nazis, when we freed them...

I'm also sick and tired of hearing Saddam compared with Hitler...this is just not true, nor is it factual. Not only are they two different people (obviously), but they also came to power much differently. Also, their methods and ideology differ greatly. I don't recall Saddam writing a book. I would call him what he is - a savage dictator. Nothing more, nothing less...history is full with such...but not full with Hitlers. The world is not accepting the label of Hitler on Saddam - so I suspect that this is a 'smoke-screen' designed to help 'smooth-over' the lacking reasons for the conflict.

I already mentioned that Saddams going is a good thing - but not for the reasons that the Bush administration would like us to believe. I truly feel, and believe, that the Bush Administration has severely damaged relations on a global scale, due to his diplomatic and political ineptitude.

An analogy is having 4 aces in a poker hand, and folding. He had all the cards after 9/11...and has misplayed them badly. Well, we will see what happens from this point on.

You say that you would voice disapproval if a democratic system is not set up in Iraq...well, we will see. In what time-frame, do you see this happening? I am curious, as to how long you are willing to wait, to make this decision. 5 years? 10? Or do you think it should be done quicker?

I would say, that we are now at the most dangerous stage of the operation, because most of what is coming, is unknown. We are not sure of how the Iraqis will react, after the initial stage of Saddamism wears off. Or whether or not they are really capable of and want a democratic system. And will it hold? What about the Kurds to the North? How does one get the multiple cultures in Iraq to deal with one another civily? I'm very curious, to see how this shapes up, myself.

Aha! This is very interesting...

quote:

---

The Badr Brigade, with several thousand fighters, is the military wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, part of the Iraqi opposition. Its fighters have long lived in exile in Iran, where they have received training and support. It now has a military force in northern Iraq.

The group has spoken against American military intervention and potential occupation in Iraq, and said it would pursue its own military agenda, independent of Pentagon ambitions.


--The New York Times

---

Full article here

Well, that is something different. Not only do we have a potential problem with out-of-control Kurds (and the possibility of Turkeys intervention), but Iran is now in Iraq...although 'covertly', so to speak. What better way to get something going against Iran...just about any type of terrorist activity could be blamed on them...which would be a great way to justify an attack on Iran.

Looks like the North is just a nest of vipers, waiting to explode...it's going to be fine-going in the next days up there...just hope our troops don't get caught up in any trouble up there.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-10-2003).]

Continued here:
www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000798.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor