I Can't Wait To Go To Iraq

[lord of the mark]

Heres a blog from Iraq

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/arch...51683594145261

Like most Iraqis, he has no use for the so-called "insurgents" who are actually counter-revolutionairies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie

If the American mission is to liberate the Iraqi people, kicking their ass is directly counter-productive.

Not entirely clear that this is the case. You assume a homogeneous Iraqi people. Everything I have read indicates that the Kurds and Shiites are pissed that we havent kicked ENOUGH Sunni Arab ass.

And even the Sunni arab areas are divided by local interest and tribe, as well as by political loyalty. Saw article today on resentment of Samarrah against Tikrit. We're finally starting to play this up - Ramadi is quiet, we get out of Ramadi. Cant get out of Falujah till Fallujah is quiet.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Safe AND sorry

I would have blown his ass away too - everyone KNOWS there are ****ing checkpoints, it's not like they showed up unannounced last night. Let's see, they tried warning him, he saw the checkpoint, he approached at high speed anyway, despite the warnings, then he ignored warning shots, and still kept coming at high speed, what the **** are you gonna let him do?

"Hey, it might not be a suicide bomber, it might just be a stupid, blind and deaf moron in a hurry, better run and let him go, and oh, hope he doesn't drive a carload of explosives into us or some building while we have our heads up our asses?"

There's no choice, except to willingly risk many more lives than the driver's, to accomodate the driver's non-compliance. Sucks to be him.

[Patroklos]

Chemical Ollie

Iraqs know what is going on, They know they shouldn't speed through ckeckpoints. I have no sympathy for those who try, and I blame no US soldier for reacting in the correct, yes correct, way by shooting violators of established rules that have been made more than adaquately public. If they are speeding through checkpoints at this point, they are doing something they shouldn't.

I would like to hear you exact procedures for conducting checkpoints that would lead to no US or Iraq casualties, but would still be effective. It should be very funny.

MrFun: I was equally dismayed at the lack of WMD, but that was just ONE (albiet the most hyped) of the reasons listed for going in, the rest are still valid. And while we may have been wrong about WMD, there was more than enough evidence to give someone the opposite idea. Can't be right all the time.

-Pat

[GePap]

Oh lord, at least we know Iraq will give us lots to talk about for decades to come..lets see it the issue outlives Poly (hope not..)

The admin. is caught in a very simple bind- for all our firepower we lack the intelliegence to battle the insurgency as is, and the more firepower we use, the worse this gets.

It's all a matter of percentages. Lets say the US comes into a town that is rebellious and says: you guys don;t cut it out, inform on all the rebels and end this insurgency, we will literally decimate the town! And we can! Well, that means there is a 10% chance of death if no one opens their yap.. and a 90% chance of survival. Now, the day before the rebels came and said to everyone..even if we are killed, we have secret informants who will tell those who come after us who spoke...and those people will die. That is much closer to 100% chance of death if you do speak, and a 2000 lb bomb and a knive both kill you equally as well. So even if they are immensely weaker, knowing more, the rebels have the ability to keep the people quiet. Now, if the governemnt starts saying the chance of non-complience is higher and higher, lest say not 10% die, but 80% will, well, then you get more people speaking.

Sadly, that road is NOT available to the US: the US can not put down revolts like, well, Saddam did. Not if we claim to be there for DemocracyTM. Which is were better services, more aid, and greater political autonomy come in..all the things this admin. seems horribly incapable of providing to the areas were it would make the biggest difference. And now the CIA is saying the average Iraqi is loosing faith in the ability of the US to get a handle on things..which bodes very badly for this whole operation.

This is what we get with a tainted operation, and why this admin. can not be allowed in power much longer..loosing the peace, much like they have allowed things to detriorate in Afghanistan.

[Tripledoc]

Anyone know the precise statistics for friendly fire incidents post-invasion? There has been a lot of incidents. See for yourself by searching google. However I have not been able to find the accumulated number.

[child of Thor]

I find it difficult to be too sympathetic to a soldier that dies in a war. After all i would hope that when you sign that line you should atleast expect that you may well die in a battle zone. Its what being a warrior is about.

On the other hand i have complete sympathy for a young child sliced in half while sleeping by a 1000lb bomb, that may or may not have gone astray.

So my thoughts will be with those soldiers families,and the family(if there are any left) of the civilian casualty.

[Oerdin]

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?

The Issue situation is as follows. We will be getting IBA (Interceptor body armor; an improved version of Ranger Body Armor [RBA]), we will all recieve M-16 though these may or may not (stress not) be upgraded to M-4 assualt rifles when we are in country, we have requested M-9 (Berretta 9mm pistols) though it seems unlikely we will recieve these items, one man (in this case me) will be issued a Squad Assualt Weapon (S.A.W.) [a hand held fully automatic belt feed machine gun], and one man [the second in command of my three man team] will get an M-16 equiped with an M203 granade launcher. I really, really want to have each of my men issued a side arm as a back up weapon but my driver needs one more then anyone since it is not possible to fire an M-16 rifle and drive a humvee at the same time. If he had a M-9 he might at least be able to fire back while driving.

Another huge issue with me is that we will not be given an uparmored humvee. That means we will not be protected from any RPGs or I.E.D. (Improvized Explosive Devices) which are so common amoung the Ba'athist & Fundimentalist fighters in Iraq. The Army tells us this is no big deal but I find it to be a very big deal because it puts my life and the lives of the men under my command in danger. I will but sandbags on the floors and do what I can to improve the situation but the truth is most ambushes take vehicles from the side and I will have no protection from the sides. That pisses me off especislly bercause every vehicle in Bosnia & Kosovo is uparmored yet virtuallt none of the vehicles in Iraq are uparmored.

[child of Thor]

Oerdin, good luck mate - when you get back come visit the CPT2 forums - the game may be real cool by then

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by 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.

If i was Hungarian, i wouldnt be mad at the US for this persons irregard for safety and his own life. That could be a Darwin Award right there

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Heres a blog from Iraq

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/arch...51683594145261

Like most Iraqis, he has no use for the so-called "insurgents" who are actually counter-revolutionairies.

Hmm, I wonder what kind of iraqis make blogs?

Most Iraqis probalby do not have any use for the current bunch of rebels, but the more incapable the US shows itself to put an end to this, the more they will have no use for the US either.

[Kramerman]

Oerdin, what exactly is uparmored? Is it just added armor plating or kevlar 'padding'?

[Pekka]

I think he meant the humvee, not personal armor..

[GePap]

What Kramerman was asking was whether uparmoring means added meal armor, or putting Kevlar padding on the Humvee (not on Oerdin or any men)

[Saint Marcus]

(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.

you've banned people for lesser offenses, so please.

(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.

They get what they signed up for.

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

Your CiC told us the war was over. Also, since it's a war, would it be ok for me to glorify on Poly the sept 11th attacks and wishing for a second such attack without getting banned? Course not. Eventhough there's a war going on.

(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"

Oh please! that's like saying that not all Japanese are Japs, just the bad ones in WW2. And not all Chinese are chinks, just the bad ones. And not all blacks are niggers, just the bad ones. It's racist wheter you like it or not! And as I recall, there were some issues in the first gulf war involving American GIs refering to Iraqis as Sand Niggers, which led to protests from the African American GIs and community at large.

So please restrain yourself. Trolling is one thing, being overly offensive is quite another.

[Pekka]

GePap, oh my bad..

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Patroklos

...
I would like to hear you exact procedures for conducting checkpoints that would lead to no US or Iraq casualties, but would still be effective. It should be very funny.
...
-Pat

The Brits must be doing something right, as we almost never hear about them getting killed or shooting any civilians, journalists or allies. And it can't be fully explained by "Basra is a friendly town", even if that probably has something to do with it too. I don't know what they do, but it seems to work better.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Another huge issue with me is that we will not be given an uparmored humvee.

Man, that sucks. Didn't you (your generals, that is) learn anything from Mogadishu?

And can't you bring a civilian side arm from home?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by GePap
What Kramerman was asking was whether uparmoring means added meal armor, or putting Kevlar padding on the Humvee (not on Oerdin or any men)

that is correct

[Thoth]

Originally posted by Kramerman

That could be a Darwin Award right there

Damn straight. This fool drove at high speed towards a checkpoint in a country that has seen multiple suicide car bombings? A checkpoint manned by notoriously trigger-happy troops? He wasn't murdered by the US soldiers, he commited suicide.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


I would have blown his ass away too - everyone KNOWS there are ****ing checkpoints, it's not like they showed up unannounced last night. Let's see, they tried warning him, he saw the checkpoint, he approached at high speed anyway, despite the warnings, then he ignored warning shots, and still kept coming at high speed, what the **** are you gonna let him do?

"Hey, it might not be a suicide bomber, it might just be a stupid, blind and deaf moron in a hurry, better run and let him go, and oh, hope he doesn't drive a carload of explosives into us or some building while we have our heads up our asses?"

There's no choice, except to willingly risk many more lives than the driver's, to accomodate the driver's non-compliance. Sucks to be him.

I think I need to reexamine myself to make sure I'm not becoming a cold-blooded conservative if I am agreeing with MTG.

[orange]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat 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.

Give me some credit. I don't actually take those figures at face value

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.

Sorry, but it seems to me that there's quite a few of them who aren't looking down the barrel of a gun and still feel the urge to support Saddam to the death. After all, Saddam is out of the picture, and we still have reactionary episodes in the country...do we not?

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?

Well I'm so glad that you're familiar with clever anecdotes, MtG. I find it disturbing, however, that you base your opinions of proper foreign policy around them. Have you phoned Saddam yet to inform him that his pants are on fire?

Egads man, learn to read. Have I ever said they were all real Saddam supporters?

You never really take a stance on the issue. In fact, you do quite a good job of flip-flopping. Either they're all Saddam supporters and they all deserve to die, or they're all innocent and we're liberating them from oppression. So which is it, already? I'm dying to hear the opinion of someone far more noble than I, seeing as how he's 'been shot at'.

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?

Wouldn't you expect that, once the man loses control of 99% of the country, that there would be no one left asking "How High?"

They're two different problems.

You're right. They are. Doesn't change the fact that we never should have been there in the first place.

Kramerman

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.

We didn't go out of our way to get bin Laden's hate? Hahaha, no really, tell me another one. I hate the guy as much as the next, but let's not kid ourselves. He didn't throw darts at a map and decide that for his lifetime he'd be hating the United States. It's not about fundamental hatred. It's about history and some pretty bad decisions on our part.

Oh wait, you already told me another one. "We even helped Saddam against a common enemy" Yeah, we helped and supported a million people to their deaths. The Iran-Iraq war was just an enjoyable way of saying "Let them kill each other off, what do we care". We constantly play nations in this region off against each other. And for what? Has it gained us anything at all? A hostage crisis, a failed invasion, a major coalition war, a rather nasty run in with terrorism on quite a few occasions, a prolonged wild goose chase in the middle of a ****in' wasteland, and an unparalleled hatred of our nation on every continent, including our own.

I'm personally calling this a failure because it could NEVER accomplish what it set out to, by design. It was doomed to failure from the start. It is flawed on so many levels that I shudder to think that United States citizens actually allowed it to happen. It makes me ashamed to be an American.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun




I think I need to reexamine myself to make sure I'm not becoming a cold-blooded conservative if I am agreeing with MTG.

It just shows that maybe, occasionally, deep down when you reach for it, you have a little glimmer of common sense.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by orange

Give me some credit. I don't actually take those figures at face value

The operative question is how much. Of course any dictator has his supporters, or he wouldn't retain power. The number of "real" Saddam supporters in Iraq was never very high.

Sorry, but it seems to me that there's quite a few of them who aren't looking down the barrel of a gun and still feel the urge to support Saddam to the death. After all, Saddam is out of the picture, and we still have reactionary episodes in the country...do we not?

There are some thousands - definitely more than CentCom is allowed to admit too, but not a credible percentage of the overall population, who have their own agenda with or without Saddam - as they had power (and no accountability) under Saddam, but they will have no power (and may have a lot of accountability) under any successor government. That doesn't make for a popular rebellion.

Well I'm so glad that you're familiar with clever anecdotes, MtG. I find it disturbing, however, that you base your opinions of proper foreign policy around them.

Who said anything about "proper" policy? I'm talking about actual policy, i.e. reality, not some noble ideal of how things should be. The simple fact is that the strong dictate to the weak. Look at all the Eurolefty handwringing about the horrible US and the poor Saddamites and the illegal war - yet not one country has the balls to take a principled stand on the issue.

You never really take a stance on the issue. In fact, you do quite a good job of flip-flopping. Either they're all Saddam supporters and they all deserve to die, or they're all innocent and we're liberating them from oppression. So which is it, already? I'm dying to hear the opinion of someone far more noble than I, seeing as how he's 'been shot at'.

Perhaps you need to work on reading comprehension. Or at the minimum, not read into things what isn't written. I'm not flip-flopping, so that's your problem of interpretation.

Wouldn't you expect that, once the man loses control of 99% of the country, that there would be no one left asking "How High?"

Did he ever really lose 99% of the country - the Iraqis know what happens when their forces engage ours in anything resembling a standup fight. They die, we barely break a sweat. So a portion of the hard core supporters and enforcers of the regime opted to fight it out this way, instead.

You're right. They are. Doesn't change the fact that we never should have been there in the first place.

Should have beens are nothing more than academic exercises. I'm more interested in the "WTF do we do now?" category of questions.

[techumseh]

Originally posted by orange
Well I'm so glad that you're familiar with clever anecdotes, MtG. I find it disturbing, however, that you base your opinions of proper foreign policy around them. Have you phoned Saddam yet to inform him that his pants are on fire?

[techumseh]

I saw a US general on the news yesterday, bragging about American military superiority over the Iraqi resistance. I'm old enough to remember the talking heads during Vietnam. It's very similar, except now it's in color. These brass hats just don't get it.

OF COURSE they're militarily superior in every respect. In Vietnam the kill ratio was 10-1 in the American favour. And when the American KIA nosed up to 50,000, they had to get the hell out anyway.

People started to realize that they didn't really know what they were fighting for. And they were losing friends and family members. So they started to demand to know what they were fighting for. And then they began to realize that they were being lied to. They had already figured out that the generals were lying about the success of the military operations. So finally they had enough and insisted that the government end the war.

It's the same here. The war will drag on until enough Americans have been killed so that enough Americans demand that enough politicians vote to cut off funding for the Bush (or Dean, or whoever) administration's war. And that'll be it. The American military will have totaly outperformed the Iraqi resistance by every measure. But the Americans will have lost, and the Iraqis will have won.

Too bad that each generation must relearn the same lesson the same way.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


It just shows that maybe, occasionally, deep down when you reach for it, you have a little glimmer of common sense.

I have always had common sense.




But I got myself a question -- those who keep crying bad wolf over the low number of American casualties (400+ casualties is low compared to our past conflicts in history) -- do those people bother to distinguish between combat deaths and deaths from accidents??


I don't know -- maybe I have a little bit more of understanding the perspective of those who have actual military experience and talk about the complexities of this war.

But of course, I still disagree with them on certain points.

[Ned]

Originally posted by techumseh
I saw a US general on the news yesterday, bragging about American military superiority over the Iraqi resistance. I'm old enough to remember the talking heads during Vietnam. It's very similar, except now it's in color. These brass hats just don't get it.

OF COURSE they're militarily superior in every respect. In Vietnam the kill ratio was 10-1 in the American favour. And when the American KIA nosed up to 50,000, they had to get the hell out anyway.

People started to realize that they didn't really know what they were fighting for. And they were losing friends and family members. So they started to demand to know what they were fighting for. And then they began to realize that they were being lied to. They had already figured out that the generals were lying about the success of the military operations. So finally they had enough and insisted that the government end the war.

It's the same here. The war will drag on until enough Americans have been killed so that enough Americans demand that enough politicians vote to cut off funding for the Bush (or Dean, or whoever) administration's war. And that'll be it. The American military will have totaly outperformed the Iraqi resistance by every measure. But the Americans will have lost, and the Iraqis will have won.

Too bad that each generation must relearn the same lesson the same way.

Ditto.

That is why I have been arguing for Vietnamization II ASAP.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Hmm, I wonder what kind of iraqis make blogs?

.

Ones with access to the internet, technologically proficient, young. Not impoverished shiite youth in Sadr city, not Islamists in Fallujah, not Marsh arabs. Mainly Baghdad types. Ive read three - the one I cited (healingIraq) is very pro-American, and very anti-Baathist hes a dentist, and i think hes Shiite. Riverbend is anti-Coalition. Salaam Pax, though originally anti-war (and published in the Guardian) has come around to the idea that the war was a good idea, and that its better that the US stay for now, although he continues to be skeptical of specific coalition policies, and generally unsympathetic to the Buch admin. A fourth Im aware of Messopotamian, is I think, similar to healingiraq.

Not representative - but if balanced by other data can add some insight.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh lord, at least we know Iraq will give us lots to talk about for decades to come..lets see it the issue outlives Poly (hope not..)

The admin. is caught in a very simple bind- for all our firepower we lack the intelliegence to battle the insurgency as is, and the more firepower we use, the worse this gets.

It's all a matter of percentages. Lets say the US comes into a town that is rebellious and says: you guys don;t cut it out, inform on all the rebels and end this insurgency, we will literally decimate the town! And we can! Well, that means there is a 10% chance of death if no one opens their yap.. and a 90% chance of survival. Now, the day before the rebels came and said to everyone..even if we are killed, we have secret informants who will tell those who come after us who spoke...and those people will die. That is much closer to 100% chance of death if you do speak, and a 2000 lb bomb and a knive both kill you equally as well. So even if they are immensely weaker, knowing more, the rebels have the ability to keep the people quiet. Now, if the governemnt starts saying the chance of non-complience is higher and higher, lest say not 10% die, but 80% will, well, then you get more people speaking.

.

Nice analysis.

But - you assume the only chance of death is from US action. Quite a few Iraqis know that they have a chance of death of if the Baath takeover whether they cooperate or not. So they have more incentive to cooperate. Granted though, not too many of those people in Baiji, Tikrit or Fallujah.

Even more people who have cooperated with the coalition since April. They also are goners if the Baathists return. And we have such people almost everywhere.

Also, they have to evaluate the odds of the Baathists being able to carry out their threats. As a a guerrilla organization its far from foolproof - every attack on a collaborator exposes them, to yet other informants. If they can come back into complete control they can kill every informant - at least every informant they KNOW about.