I Can't Wait To Go To Iraq

[Lord Merciless]

The neighborhood these 2 soldiers drove through has always been a Saddam stronghold. Our units conducted many raids there and are thus thouroughly hated.

Despite lying very close to Kurdish controlled territories, Mosul is an Arab city and its big population are very much due to Saddam's colonization efforts.

Also please remember that his two sons were killed there in July.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by orange
Not all Iraqis are like this, and I still believe that most of these overzealous types have been brought to this kind of hysteria by war.

According to Saddam himself, 100% of the Iraqi people voted "yes" on the yes-no ballot as to whether the people wanted Saddam to remain their leader until whenever he felt like having another 100% vote. Most of the people who jumped up and down didn't do it out of enthusiasm for Saddam, they did it out of enthusiasm for their own survival of a vain egomaniac responsible for killing tens of thousands without the slightest interest in legal process.

What bothers me about this kind of logic is that we have our own problems in the US. While I would never assert that there are 'persecuted' minorities, I would argue that there are groups that are consistantly stiffed by our laws. Should someone use this as a valid reason to invade our country?

If they want to try, let 'em. Getting air superiority will be a bit tough, though.

If you want to change people's minds about how they govern their country, you don't do it by invading and forcing change on them. That's how you get reactionary movements and fundamentalism.

Ah, so the governance of Iraq was a result of the "people's minds" and represented their preferred method of governance? If we had even ten percent of the population actively opposed to us, our situation their would be untenable - you'd have a month's worth of casualties every day, all US forces continuously engaged, etc. What we have is still very isolated, and a very small minority of the population, but insurgent warfare techniques always give disproportionate advantages to the insurgents - Wendell Fertig demonstrated that in the Phillipines very well.

Oh well isn't that insightful. Sorry, but I'd rather not forget what got us to this point so that, hopefully, we don't do it again.

Remember it all you want. Just keep in mind once you've painted yourself into a corner, analyzing why won't get you out of that corner.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Hey,

What gets me is that all the activists out there that constantly talk about freedom and humanity and what not should be happy Saddam is gone. So we didn't go in for the ideological reason you wanted, the end will be the same; The removal of an oppressive, racist, genecidal war criminal and his followers. How can you be against that? Alot of you are getting lost in sematics. Did you think it would be easy?

And another thing, people are complaining about casualties (this has been the one least costly military campaigns in history, given scale) but it is their idealogical sensativities that restrict the military from conducting operations to end them. It is a never ending circle, stemming from the fact that most activists live in the world they want to, rather than the world that is, and then wonder why things don't work.

This isn't another Somalia, Vietnam, or whatever. Imagine what would have happened if the newspapers ran a story for EVERY soldier that died in WWI or WWII. Civilians lack the capacity for perspective in military operations, they are not used to people dieing (because the military allows their fantacy world to exist at home) nor understand that sometimes it is nessecary to kill and die. That is fine, they are not supposed to because they are in fact civilians and that is why we have militaries, to make sure they don't have to know these horrors. Vietnam and Somalia all stem at their root civilian intervention as the cause for failure. It is like letting the military run the treasury department. If Iraq is going to turn into one of those conflicts it is because of activists, just as before. It is really very ironic.

So when I am over there next deployment, I will "happy" (as much as one can going to war and all) as I like oil, dropping hammer on mass murderers, and helping people that have been brutalized for decades.

-Pat

Let me try to speak to you through reason, rather than your method of blaming whole groups of people who have varying political ideologies but are united in their opposition to this war.

1) Saddam Insane committed many crimes against humanity, as I have well been aware of. I agree that he needed to be overthrown, and we neeed to invade Iraq to do so. But Caveman Bush did the right thing for the wrong reasons.

2) It's a given that there will be casualties in any conflict mission or war -- whether it's justified or not. Yes, in comparison, the casaulties are very low compared to that of Vietnam and so on. And I also agree that we need to distinguish between "post-war" casualties from actual combat deaths, and those of accidents. So no, it would not make sense to call off operations because one or more soldier got killed -- that is part of warfare.

3) I am not eager for this to become something horrible like Vietnam was, just so I can lord it over war-supporters. I do NOT want thousands of American casualties to further my own argument and position.

4) As for Bush saying that he has nothing more in mind than the interests of the common Iraqi -- that is utterly naive and childish to believe such propaganda. Bush, like all political leaders, carrying out foreign policy decisions for their own interests -- not to promote democracy. This applies to Democrats and Republicans. So I will only believe it when I see it -- until then, Bush's public claims only panders to naive, simple-minded Americans.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by techumseh
Hey,

What gets me about all those illegal war apologists out there is that they really think they're doing the Iraqi people a favour. They're lost in a patriotic haze, not seeing the real world. Saddam ISN'T gone. Neither is Bin Laden. And they've awakened a dragon which will terrorize and destablize the world for a generation. It can't be beaten with all the Abrahms tanks and all the stealth bombers in the US arsenal.

It's a legal war. Like everyone else, we only pay real attention to international law if and when convenient, otherwise, we know that nobody is principled enough to try to make an issue of it.

It will consume their precious freedom, too. Basic civil liberties will be under constant pressure from those in authority trying to "root out terrorism". And many people will go along, hoping to trade freedoms for "security". They'll end up with neither.

Actually, under the rhetoric, very little of anything has really changed. Bureaucratic intertia and all that.

It's ironic isn't it, that a war to find weapons of mass destruction, found none. A war to liberate the Iraqi people resulted in a popular insurrection against the "liberators". A war against terrorism multiplied it tenfold. A war for freedom eroded freedom.

But it kept Brittney Spears' personal life out of the headlines for the most part. And maybe people should wonder how terrorism would be multiplying if we hadn't struck back in Afghanistan, and given them a convenient place to play in Iraq. Read al Qutb and al Maududi - they're AAZ and OBL's inspiration, and the goals they advocated are nothing less than the forcible conversion of the entire world to their brand of salafist Islam. Unlike, say, Jehovah's Witnesses, they ain't about to go away just because you tell them you're not interested.

And what's left? Just the oil.

But not for long.

Several decades worth, at least.

[orange]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
According to Saddam himself, 100% of the Iraqi people voted "yes" on the yes-no ballot as to whether the people wanted Saddam to remain their leader until whenever he felt like having another 100% vote.

Cute. Really.

Most of the people who jumped up and down didn't do it out of enthusiasm for Saddam, they did it out of enthusiasm for their own survival of a vain egomaniac responsible for killing tens of thousands without the slightest interest in legal process.

I highly doubt that. The people 'jumping up and down' are filled with fervor, not relief.

If they want to try, let 'em. Getting air superiority will be a bit tough, though.

Ah, so might makes right?

Ah, so the governance of Iraq was a result of the "people's minds" and represented their preferred method of governance? If we had even ten percent of the population actively opposed to us, our situation their would be untenable - you'd have a month's worth of casualties every day, all US forces continuously engaged, etc. What we have is still very isolated, and a very small minority of the population, but insurgent warfare techniques always give disproportionate advantages to the insurgents - Wendell Fertig demonstrated that in the Phillipines very well.

Egads man, take a stand. One minute all Iraqis are monstrous Saddam supporters, the next they're all freedom loving secularists given a bad rap by a few rotten apples.

Remember it all you want. Just keep in mind once you've painted yourself into a corner, analyzing why won't get you out of that corner.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by techumseh


Or maybe you should just cut your losses, lest you get a little more of what the Viet Cong gave you.

We're here, and they're gone. Unless Iraq intends to get billions in military aid from the USSR (ooops, they're gone too) and China (ooops, they've gone capitalist and like our money), Iraq is SOL.

[MrFun]

** waits for Patroklos to respond **

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by orange
Cute. Really.

It was right in his interview with Dan Rather. And it was cute. Last time, Saddam only got 99.96% of the vote. This second time, he got 100% and he was quite proud of that.

I highly doubt that. The people 'jumping up and down' are filled with fervor, not relief.

Of course - with ISSS agents in the crowd and Iraqi cameras filming their faces, wouldn't you be fervorous? Considering the alternatives? Just like all those Iraqi conscripts in their regular army - committed supporters of the regime, all of them.

Ah, so might makes right?

It's the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. And you're only now figuring out this is how the world works?

Egads man, take a stand. One minute all Iraqis are monstrous Saddam supporters, the next they're all freedom loving secularists given a bad rap by a few rotten apples.

Egads man, learn to read. Have I ever said they were all real Saddam supporters? When Saddam ran things, if he wanted a demonstration of half a million in victory square, he got it. Everybody got the day off work, got transported over, and then got monitored to make sure they displayed sufficient enthusiasm. If someone was willing, capable, and had a history of state mass murder (because you were dealing with a cult of personality where he was essentially the state), and your and your families lives were on the line, wouldn't you jump up and down with enthusiasm?

They're two different problems.

[Oerdin]

This reminds me of a book Walter Cronkite wrote about the Vietnam war. In 1967 Walter attended a press confrence by the American General in charge of US forces in Vietnam (I forget his name). In this confrence the General sounds very upbeat and declares that currently they control 80% of the country and that things are getting better all the time. One year latter, in 1968, Walter attends another press confrence where the same General gets up declaring things are constinently getting better and that they now control 70% of the country.

Walter Cronkit flips out on the General and asks him how can things be constinently getting better if they now control less of the country then they did one year ago? The same sort of situation seems to be happening in Iraq where the officers in charge continue to spout the party line yet ignore all the evidience which shows the party line is false.

That said I'm still going to be in Iraq after New Year's day but if the situation arises I think I will shoot first and ask questions later. If an Arab has a gun which I see or if someone fails to stop at a check point or doesn't follow a command told to him in Arabic then it is simply safer to shoot him then to let him get close and hope he isn't a suicide bomer.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
MTG: you're a mod. please act like one. Some of your comments are overly rude, inapropriate and racist.

(a) Grand Executioner is a much better title, and more fitting to the job. This isn't a hoity-toity private prep school debate club.

(b) There's nothing quite as rude as being shot at. Been there. Have you? If people are eggshells about opinions on a screen not even directed at them, God help 'em when they encounter a real crisis.

(c) What's "appropriate?" - there's a ****ing war on, in case you hadn't noticed.

(d) All Somalis aren't skinnies, so I'm more "clannist" than racist. Only the Habr Gidr and allied *******s shooting at us (and stealing famine relief from starving Somalis who happened to not belong to the right clans) qualified as "skinnies"

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by techumseh


Or maybe you should just cut your losses, lest you get a little more of what the Viet Cong gave you.

Pulling out would be the worst possible thing to do to those people.

What gets me about all those illegal war apologists out there is that they really think they're doing the Iraqi people a favour. They're lost in a patriotic haze, not seeing the real world. Saddam ISN'T gone. Neither is Bin Laden. And they've awakened a dragon which will terrorize and destablize the world for a generation. It can't be beaten with all the Abrahms tanks and all the stealth bombers in the US arsenal.

lol

OUR DOOM IS NIGH! THE FOUR HORSEMEN ARE UPON US!

bin ladden and saddam were always there, buddy. nobody was awakened, or spontaneously appeared. We've been at war with saddam since 1991, and we finally went in and kicked his ass for good instead of just tolerating the incessant **** he puts out and constant games he played. As for bin Laden, he inherently hates the US at a fundamental level, we did not go out of our way to get his hate. On the contrary we actually helped him once upon a time to fight a common enemy.

Iraq is an as of yet indecisive attempt at attacking US and world threats that were there all along. I hope no one is calling it a failure, as it is waaaaaaaaaaay to early to say anything. Much has yet to be done, not to mention the affter effects that will come of those and all actions thus far.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Walter Cronkit flips out on the General and asks him how can things be constinently getting better if they now control less of the country then they did one year ago? The same sort of situation seems to be happening in Iraq where the officers in charge continue to spout the party line yet ignore all the evidience which shows the party line is false.

Spouting the party line is one of the unfortunate conditions of command.

That said I'm still going to be in Iraq after New Year's day but if the situation arises I think I will shoot first and ask questions later. If an Arab has a gun which I see or if someone fails to stop at a check point or doesn't follow a command told to him in Arabic then it is simply safer to shoot him then to let him get close and hope he isn't a suicide bomer.

When in doubt, wipe 'em out. Although, I'd personally make allowances for confusion and the tactical situation. i.e. get a sight picture on 'em, and maybe, depending on circumstances, give 'em a tenth of a second or so to get the message, then send 'em to Allah if they don't get the hint. Or (b) if there's a thousand of 'em, get the **** out of Dodge.

Are you supposed to ever get your equipment issue situation squared away? i.e. ditching the M16's and getting your issue weapons? This is the Army, what what was I thinking?

[Tripledoc]

0peration Meat Grinder

There are currently around 150.000 troops in Iraq. Of these only 28.000 are frontline troops involved in fighting. So far 510 coalition troops have died (432 US), while 2401 have been wounded. Coalition losses averages 1 to 3 a day.

Pre- and post-invasion civilian iraqi deaths number between 7898-9729. Ca. 20,000 Iraqi civilians have been injured so far. Iraqi combatant fatalities during invasion numbers around 9,200.

So the question is: how many Iraqi combatants have been killed after the war? 1000 Iraqi combatant deaths?
This is number grabbed from thin air, but no official number have been forthcoming.

Nevertheless it is safe to say that while coalition fatalities have gone up since the end of the invasion, Iraqi combatant losses have gone down significantly.

U.S. General Abizaid have stated that the insurgents number about 5,000 fighters. All frontline. Compare to frontline coalition forces of 28.000.

So it has taken 7 months to kill 1000 out of 5000. However recent reports have said that there are going to be 100,000 US troops in Iraq to 2006. So to smash the insurgents presuming they stay at 5000 would take around the time what you would extrapolate from 1000 killed per 7 months equals 5000 killed in 35 months. That is 3 years minus one month. The math works out.

Around 300 Coalition forces killed in 7 months equals 1500 killed in 35 months.

Problem is that there has been a recent escalation in fatalities on the coalition side.

[DanS]

Much of the problem is that during the late 80s and the 90s, parts of the muslim world (the vicious parts that wish us ill) could say that the the US was weak-willed in certain aspects. Short of showing that we aren't weak-willed by taking casualties "with a smile" when push comes to shove, how do you prove that this is false? Or maybe it isn't false, and we need to discredit this notion by other means?

This event is shocking and disgusting. Positively barbaric. On the other hand, the other casualties that we have experienced represent no less of a loss.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Some fights you can't back out of. The only way through is forwar

I know that. It just gets frustrating when you have something like that happen and people either gloat and say its proof against what is happening or others use it to make even more stupid mistakes trying to get past the bad PR. Either way its never about **** up that lead to the deaths but how each side can put their ****ing spin on it. Some people in this thread are prime examples of it. To me its not about the damn Iraqi people. They will continue to be the way they are regardless of what we or anyone else does. If we are going to be there we should dispense with the nice talk about collitions and who gets to be the head white guy. We need to do what we have to do and get out.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Are you supposed to ever get your equipment issue situation squared away? i.e. ditching the M16's and getting your issue weapons? This is the Army, what what was I thinking?

You mean have what we need? That would be an interesting turn of events.

On an annual training excercise in Italy a few years ago the state and the feds had an interesting dispute while we were there over who would pick up the tab for us to get back to the United States. It's always a warm fuzzy feeling when you feel that you are wanted. I dont know who ended up paying for it but we did get home.

[Sarxis]

I just heard on Fox News that this story was not true. That the soldiers were shot and killed in their car, and had some personal items stolen, but they were not dragged from the car.

No explanation why they were driving an unmarked car was given.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

...FOX reported that?

How out of character

[Patroklos]

Hello,

1.) I fail to see his wrong reason. YOU may not think econimics is a good thing to initiate conflict over, but that is after all just you. Oil econimics have alot more importance than what the US citizen pays for gas at the pumps. It effects the level of life sustained by populations worldwide. Oil price fluctuations mean I pay .03 cents more at the pumps for my trip to Atlantic City, in other places it means a country's economy fails and 1 million people starve to death. Not that I think Bush grabed for oil out of pity for the world, but national interests, especially economic, are and always have been accepted catalysts for armed conflict, despite what the self-deluding out of work acting students think (not nessecarily you MrFun, I don't know anything about you personally). And while you might think Mr Bush's only reason to attack Saddam was oil, I would contend that the attrocities of his regime oiled his thought processes more than a little bit. And remember the "allies" of Europe were not outraged because Bush attacked Iraq for oil, but because the attack canceled all the UN sanctions violating buisness deals they had there.

2.) We seen to be in agreement.

3.) I would never say that that is what you want, but that will be the effect none the less, only civilians can create a Vietnam era catastrophy. The American military can only do what they are told to, so their atrocities are YOUR attrocities (not that any have happened in Iraq). I think you understand this MrFun, but most of your activist counterparts parading in the streets do not. And becasue they don't I wouldn't be suprised if they begin to demand the restraints on the military that were in place in Vietnam, and thus a repeat.

4.) No it is not his only reason, but unfortunety he does have to cater to the throngs of dimwits that populate the country. So he chose the most popular reason and ran with it. Some things that have to be done are unpopular, and in a democracy you have to convice people to go with it. It is much like trying to get your kids to eat their vegtables.

-Pat

Oerdin, Military officers do not have the luxury of telling you the truth, what you want to here, or what they think. They tell you what they are told to say by your elected officials. Some do not believe in the fact that the officer corps at large does not have its own political motivations. As one of them I assure you of this fact, mostly because we are too busy shaking our heads at the ridculous opinions of the people we are fighting for. I don't think you really want us telling you what we truly think (officially), because such actions open the door for us to do much more.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Oerdin

...I think I will shoot first and ask questions later. If an Arab has a gun which I see or if someone fails to stop at a check point or doesn't follow a command told to him in Arabic then it is simply safer to shoot him then to let him get close and hope he isn't a suicide bomer.

That behaviour of American soldiers has repeatedly been reported in Swedish media and I personally think it will lose you the war. You might bag a few bad guys and possibly even save your own ass, but most of those you shoot will be innocent. You (Oerdin) are perhaps a little smarter and more open-minded than the average soldier and actually learn the basics of the local language, so you can make yourself understood at checkpoints, but most others don't even bother, do they? For every innocent civilian you kill, his 13 brothers and all their cousins will ask for revenge.

What's the mission of this war? According to your admin, it's not about oil. And it's not about weapons of mass destruction, as there aren't any. So the hawks have changed their mind and now call it a humanitarian mission, to establish freedom and democracy in a region totally depraved of it.

If the American mission is to liberate the Iraqi people, kicking their ass is directly counter-productive. It shows that your first priority is saving your own ass and the actual mission is only second. If saving your own ass is more important than the mission, what are you (USA) doing there in the first place?

This is of course easy for me to say, in my comfortable armchair behind my computer screen, but I was not the one who asked for this war in the first place.

[Chemical Ollie]

.

[Chemical Ollie]

Americans tend to compare Iraq with their own historic wars, but I would compare it with Afghanistan - The Sovjet invasion, that is. Both were easy military victories, followed by occupation and long, grinding guerilla wars. In the Sovjet case, it eventually drove the aggressors out. In the American case, we don't know the outcome yet.

The Russians lost about five KIA per day during ten years. The Americans have lost a little more than one soldier per day so far, but the daily average seems to increase rather than decrease. And Sovjet Union had a political system and a culture that could absorb much more casualties than USA.

[rev]

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
I just heard on Fox News that this story was not true. That the soldiers were shot and killed in their car, and had some personal items stolen, but they were not dragged from the car.

Fox's source is presumably the Pentagon, so this is a COMPLETE reversal of their stance just 24 hours ago of never commenting on the specifics of fatalities such as these. Yesterday, they were trying to spin the reports by saying they never comment and, for that reason neither should the media. It sounds to me that all they were doing was trying to avoid another Somalia situation, in which American soldiers' bodies were dragged through the streets to the delight of international television cameras.

[Chemical Ollie]

For (supposedly) neutral reporting in English, I prefer the BBC.

... upsurge in violence in the north of the country, in which two US troops were reportedly killed on Sunday by an angry lynch mob.

Eyewitnesses in Mosul, said two US soldiers were shot, then dragged from their car in broad daylight and beaten with bricks and stabbed by a group of young Iraqi men.

Some witnesses said the two soldiers had had their throats cut, but the US military would not confirm this.


"We will not be ghoulish about this," Brigadier General Kimmitt told reporters in Baghdad.

"We have an ongoing investigation. It is not our policy to discuss the specifics of injuries sustained by soldiers and this is not a good place to discuss these kind of things."

The dead men, from the 101st Airborne Division, had been on patrol in Mosul, 400 kilometres (250 miles) north of Baghdad.

The town had been considered fairly peaceful. But there are fears that the Iraqi insurgency is spreading northwards, widening from its stronghold in the so-called Sunni Triangle in central Iraq.

[Patroklos]

This is an active subject, so many posts before I even finished typing my last one. If I repeated anything up there sorry

-pat

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Hello,

1.) I fail to see his wrong reason. YOU may not think econimics is a good thing to initiate conflict over, but that is after all just you. Oil econimics have alot more importance than what the US citizen pays for gas at the pumps. It effects the level of life sustained by populations worldwide. Oil price fluctuations mean I pay .03 cents more at the pumps for my trip to Atlantic City, in other places it means a country's economy fails and 1 million people starve to death. Not that I think Bush grabed for oil out of pity for the world, but national interests, especially economic, are and always have been accepted catalysts for armed conflict, despite what the self-deluding out of work acting students think (not nessecarily you MrFun, I don't know anything about you personally). And while you might think Mr Bush's only reason to attack Saddam was oil, I would contend that the attrocities of his regime oiled his thought processes more than a little bit. And remember the "allies" of Europe were not outraged because Bush attacked Iraq for oil, but because the attack canceled all the UN sanctions violating buisness deals they had there.

2.) We seen to be in agreement.

3.) I would never say that that is what you want, but that will be the effect none the less, only civilians can create a Vietnam era catastrophy. The American military can only do what they are told to, so their atrocities are YOUR attrocities (not that any have happened in Iraq). I think you understand this MrFun, but most of your activist counterparts parading in the streets do not. And becasue they don't I wouldn't be suprised if they begin to demand the restraints on the military that were in place in Vietnam, and thus a repeat.

4.) No it is not his only reason, but unfortunety he does have to cater to the throngs of dimwits that populate the country. So he chose the most popular reason and ran with it. Some things that have to be done are unpopular, and in a democracy you have to convice people to go with it. It is much like trying to get your kids to eat their vegtables.

-Pat

The wrong reason that I am talking about, is the delusion that Saddam Insance actually had WMDs.

We had what -- only almost a year now, to have obtained evidence of WMDs in Iraq??

[Chemical Ollie]

Here's the last checkpoint f*ckup, fresh from BBC today. If you shoot someone in this way, Oerdin, his ghost will come back to haunt you in your nightmares.

A Hungarian man has been shot dead by US troops west of Baghdad, the Hungarian foreign ministry has said.
A statement quoted US sources as saying troops opened fire after the man drove his car towards a US checkpoint at high speed.

The victim had been working in Iraq for a firm of US subcontractors, the statement said.

He was the first Hungarian casualty in Iraq since the US-led war was launched in March this year.

"US sources informed the ministry that the car driven by Peter Varga-Balazs approached a checkpoint at high speed... he failed to slow down despite calls to stop and warning shots," the ministry said in a statement.

"Therefore, US troops fired aimed shots at him, causing his death."

Hungary has about 300 soldiers, mostly logistics experts, serving in Iraq.

[MrFun]

The guy failed to slow down for a checkpoint inspection, so the US soldiers decided to be better safe than sorry.

[Chemical Ollie]

Safe AND sorry

[MrFun]

The US soldiers are grappling with guerrilla forces day and day out -- did you expect those soldiers to ask nicely for this person -- whom they could not identity as friend or foe yet -- to stop???