Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted March 28, 2003 I should say that I am a cynic. Although, it seems that from some reports, the invasion in Iraq is not going well at all. Sure, we're moving towards Baghdad. But, the Coalition hasn't moved into Basra. The coalition is still in battles along the front lines. The supply lines are also being stretched. If we control cities and important areas, then the people fighting us can still attack from other areas, or the 'secure' areas. The commanders are being very stubborn about the fighting of the war. In other words, they will fight it with guys who are out there. Granted, most Iraqis who would fight the US like that will die quickly. With the Iraqis still in the houses, eventually they will have to be flushed out. This pattycake crap is gonna have to be ignored and people who are still firing from a house will eventually get theirs. The ideas of "irregulars" is correct in the sense that these are Iraqi police agencies and the such. Sorta like if the US fought the SS members in Germany. This is Urban Warfare and the US is not looking too impressive in stopping it. Even small groups of people like militiamen are slowing the US advance. The reason our men are in Iraq is WMDs. What have we found so far? a chemical plant. No chemical weapons. We also found biochem suits in a hospital. Gee.. that means they expect it and that they wouldn't be keeping these in case of something where there was a bio/chem attack, right? Not to mention the "Scuds", which are batting .000 at being meaningful, thanks to America's super paranoid Patriot "fire at anything" Missile (The Patriots firing at RAF and US planes is a HUGE fuckup), they've been neutralized. How many missile attacks been launched on Kuwait since the US started moving into Southern Iraq? The evidence is very flaky. Granted, if you had any bioweapons, you'd be taking them and running the fuck away from American troops right now. More troops are being called up to go to Iraq. More tanks and supplies are coming in. Personal opinion: Striking the bunker on Wednesday Night was a mistake in the sense of it rushed the US into a war which could have been prepared for, for another day. Plus, the "Saddam is dead/dying" stuff is speculation. He's certainly gonna have a problem with making any more speeches since Iraqi TV got it's tower bombed. This war will not end with the death of Saddam and his men. This war will simmer on with various resistance and other Iraqis who grow sick of the US forces. I do not expect America to live up to the promises about the Iraqis owning the fate of their natural resources. It'll be tapped and poured. I do not expect "freedom" in a democratic election sense, since there's always the shot of Iraq electing a leader who is Shiite, or symphaizes with Iran. (Although, you never know) It wouldn't be the first time that the US hasn't exactly been eager to deliver on deals. What is the 'end' gonna be here? Killing and arresting leaders in Baghdad? a trial? leading to elections (or maybe not elections) In these times, hope for the best. Don't be too stunned if alot of bad stuff happens. Hopefully our POWs will come home soon. Hopefully this will be a war that is one that results in a better future for Iraq. But, i'm no blind idealist either. Can we please remember one little thing: This war has been going on for EIGHT DAYS. Eight! Good lord. We're only on the outskirts of Baghdad presently. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted March 29, 2003 I'm watching more coverage. Now on FOX with Geraldo on the frontlines. But, now on day nine, the "resistance" in the South is still around. Hopefully, the best will occur. But, something tells me that various "resistance" will still be around. I hope for the best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest goodhelmet Report post Posted March 29, 2003 goddamm people, in the end, you could probably multiply the casualties in this conflict by 50 and it probably wouldn't even be close to any war that America has taken part in in the last 200 years. to be honest, if i had to choose between the life of an Iraqi citizen or an American soldier, i'll choose the American soldier every time... except for that fucker with the grenades in kuwait. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MrRant Report post Posted March 29, 2003 You people don't understand war if you expect it to be over by fucking Day 9. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted March 29, 2003 Latest news: US orders 4-6 day halt in the advance. I'm not sure how legit this is. Although it could be helpful in cleaning up any small messes in Southern Iraq (with rebel fighters) Actually, stalling an advance for a short time is a smart tactic if it's allowing for more troops to come in and some reinforcement of the supply lines. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest goodhelmet Report post Posted March 29, 2003 You people don't understand war if you expect it to be over by fucking Day 9. but rant, if this thing isn't done with by day 12 then we are fucked. then we could be looking at the next vietnam. my oh my, what will the most powerful nation, with the best military, and the most dedicated servicemen on the planet ever do???? disclaimer- this was sarcasm. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted March 29, 2003 Latest news: US orders 4-6 day halt in the advance. I'm not sure how legit this is. Although it could be helpful in cleaning up any small messes in Southern Iraq (with rebel fighters) Actually, stalling an advance for a short time is a smart tactic if it's allowing for more troops to come in and some reinforcement of the supply lines. The halt (if legit) was probably caused due to concerns over resupplying the troops. Let's keep THAT in mind --- we're progressing MUCH faster than we expected to at this point. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted March 30, 2003 Source Report: Rumseld Ignored Pentagon Advice on Iraq Sat March 29, 2003 06:39 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly rejected advice from Pentagon planners that substantially more troops and armor would be needed to fight a war in Iraq, New Yorker Magazine reported. In an article for its April 7 edition, which goes on sale on Monday, the weekly said Rumsfeld insisted at least six times in the run-up to the conflict that the proposed number of ground troops be sharply reduced and got his way. "He thought he knew better. He was the decision-maker at every turn," the article quoted an unidentified senior Pentagon planner as saying. "This is the mess Rummy put himself in because he didn't want a heavy footprint on the ground." It also said Rumsfeld had overruled advice from war commander Gen. Tommy Franks to delay the invasion until troops denied access through Turkey could be brought in by another route and miscalculated the level of Iraqi resistance. "They've got no resources. He was so focused on proving his point -- that the Iraqis were going to fall apart," the article, by veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, cited an unnamed former high-level intelligence official as saying. A spokesman at the Pentagon declined to comment on the article. Rumsfeld is known to have a difficult relationship with the Army's upper echelons while he commands strong loyalty from U.S. special operations forces, a key component in the war. He has insisted the invasion has made good progress since it was launched 10 days ago, with some ground troops 50 miles from the capital, despite unexpected guerrilla-style attacks on long supply lines from Kuwait. Hersh, however, quoted the former intelligence official as saying the war was now a stalemate. Much of the supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles has been expended, aircraft carriers were going to run out of precision guided bombs and there were serious maintenance problems with tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, the article said. "The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements arrive," the former official said. The article quoted the senior planner as saying Rumsfeld had wanted to "do the war on the cheap" and believed that precision bombing would bring victory. Some 125,000 U.S. and British troops are now in Iraq. U.S. officials on Thursday said they planned to bring in another 100,000 U.S. soldiers by the end of April. ----- "Don't worry, it's going fine. Really. It's all right. The Military is very strong under Bush and Rumsfield. Sure. We'll do it. Yeah. Shit, no missiles? FUCKING CLINTON!! SON OF A BITCH CRIPPLED THE ARMY!! We'll still win. Them Iraqis gonna surrender sometime. Or we'll firebomb Baghdad. You're a pussy anyways, it took us four years to win WW2! Just wait four years." (granted, war lasted 11 months from Normandy to VE Day. If we're in Iraq charging towards removing Saddam for anywhere close to 11 months or 4 years, then hell will be raised and people will be removed via democratic elections.) (and sure, it took us a month the first time, and sure we bombed the fuck out of Iraq, swerved them and then took Kuwait in 100 hours, and sure, Kuwait is to Iraq what a toenail is to a foot, but shut up you pussy!) Thanks Secretary Rumsfield! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted March 30, 2003 This story most be true. After all you agree with it. Personally I take what any paper or newstation reports with a grain of salt. I think the military isn't telling the media everything, really only things that aren't of great importance. Some of that has to do with throwing the Iraqi's off guard. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted March 30, 2003 So, we're releasing bad news and news about how we undermanned the invasion to throw the Iraqis off guard? Whaaaaaaaa? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted March 30, 2003 Why not. Make Iraq think there's serious fighting amongst the higher ups. Say the US will be lucky to hang on a month. Saddam Hussein could very easily become overconfident, reading about all the problems we're having. That's just how I look at it. But honestly I don't think anyone knows what's really going on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted March 30, 2003 Vern, somehow I doubt this is a scheme that is meant to make Saddam overconfident. Mainly because this sort of tactic hasn't really been used during wartime by one power ever. Although troops are headed for Iraq right now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest nikowwf Report post Posted March 30, 2003 We're still 6 weeks short of being longer than Gulf War 1, and about 8 weeks being shorter than when Afghanistan could be considered a tactical success (ie, taliban falling) Problem is, is that a short war means charging ahead which means more casualties. So you can have short "succesful" war (by your terms) that kills tons of people, or longer war, which kills less. The media seemingly would like SHORT war with NO casualites, which is more a video game than a war. niko Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vern Gagne Report post Posted March 31, 2003 Vern, somehow I doubt this is a scheme that is meant to make Saddam overconfident. Mainly because this sort of tactic hasn't really been used during wartime by one power ever. Although troops are headed for Iraq right now. Like I said, I really have no idea. I don't watch alot of coverge, because I don't know how accurate any of it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest nikowwf Report post Posted March 31, 2003 The coverage has to be somewhat accurate, because the general gist of it (where the troops are, etc.) is all the same. US news reports don't lie. I read DAWN, YOMIUIRI SHIMBUN, and sometimes israeli news, arab news, some china news. (online) its the same, news is slanted toward the country its in. For some reason, in the US, the fact that news concentrates on the US, the home country gets peoples panties in an uproar. I've been to Japan, the news talks about....GASP SHOCK, JAPAN! And yes, other countries news focuses on the US more than US news focuses on them, but that's because what happens here effects them more. For example, when Japan's economy crashes, its makes our's worse. When our economy is bad, there's is bad. Period. No way to avoid it. So they'd need to cover us more. I think the CNN coverage concentrates on things which are not interesting, and is a little callous at times. But to says its not accurate is wrong. niko Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
