Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/19/2005 2:06:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 11:17:25 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 2:08:32 PM EDT
Holy crap! A jail-break?! That's awesome!
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 2:10:53 PM EDT
How the fuck did they get the tank on fire without being shot? Poor guy jumping from the tank. He should have just stayed inside instead of opening the hatch.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 2:12:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 2:13:35 PM EDT by MK4Mod0]
................I hope the Brits get some payback!!!!
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 2:12:13 PM EDT
Should have just spun that turret a few 360s while firing.
If these cockroaches cannot be tamed they must be exterminated.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 2:15:15 PM EDT
I wonder how those rag heads would like a couple of Tornados to come by and drop some cluster munitions on them?
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 2:21:46 PM EDT




Im speechless...

gotta love those Brits
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 2:23:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SPECTRE:
Should have just spun that turret a few 360s while firing.
If these cockroaches cannot be tamed they must be exterminated.



What he said...
It's proof positive there are some peoples that just ain't quite ready for this whole civilization thing-
Lee
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 2:25:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 2:26:51 PM EDT by Stealth]



British forces using around 10 tanks have broken down the walls of Basra jail to free two service personnel arrested for firing on Iraqi policemen.

Violence erupted earlier in the city after the two men were arrested for allegedly shooting dead one policeman and wounding another.

The MoD refused to comment after officials said that they were undercover officers dressed as Arabs.

British troops had arrived at the police station where the two men were being held and encircled the building, where they were attacked by demonstrators with stones and petrol bombs.



Confusing. Sounds like a clusterfuck that got out of hand.

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 2:58:00 PM EDT
There's a vid on the BBC too. As much as they might have deserved it the crew, esp. the driver showed amazing restraint.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 3:40:25 PM EDT
heh....

I say we back out and bring in the B52s..

Don't know why we bothered to "rebuild" get all US personnel off the ground and away and just carpet bomb the country from one border to the other... see how ready they are to cooperate after we spend a month or two bombing them day and night.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 3:44:13 PM EDT
savages is right, but what about FUCKING SAVAGES
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 3:46:37 PM EDT
I hope we get out of there soon.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 4:30:29 PM EDT
Wow.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:08:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 11:16:09 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:12:49 PM EDT
You know, about a year ago it was the UK that stopped us from attacking Iran over their sending Revolutionary Guards across to reenforce Al Sadr.

May need to rethink that now I bet...
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:14:08 PM EDT
Damn
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:20:38 PM EDT
Dang!

I'm very happy the British got their men back... Bravo Two Zero was too painful so painful to read...

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:24:36 PM EDT
Good on ya, lads. Treachery should be met with immediate and painful death.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:25:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:25:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vanilla_gorilla:
Good on ya, lads. Treachery should be met with immediate and painful death.



Amen!
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:26:10 PM EDT
This is what the British get for having a "hands off" policy in Basra.

They figured if they didnt piss off the insurgents, and let the locals handle things they would be better off.

Guess again.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:28:23 PM EDT
Iran has way too much oil cash- and they don't spend anything on their own people so its all availble for stuff like buying Iraqi police officers.

How much more evidence do we need before invading Iran? There will not be peace in Iraq untill both Iran and Syria have undergone "regime change"- and it behooves us to do it before Iran gets the bomb...
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:29:22 PM EDT
Trying to teach the Iraqi people democracy appears to make as much sense as trying to teach a gorilla calculus. They are nothing but savages.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:31:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
Trying to teach the Iraqi people democracy appears to make as much sense as trying to teach a gorilla calculus. They are nothing but savages.



There is no evidence for that.

There is evidence that Iran is buying up all the people it can, and so is Syria on the other side of the country.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:38:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Iran has way too much oil cash- and they don't spend anything on their own people so its all availble for stuff like buying Iraqi police officers.

How much more evidence do we need before invading Iran? There will not be peace in Iraq untill both Iran and Syria have undergone "regime change"- and it behooves us to do it before Iran gets the bomb...



Yes... because the first regime change went so well.... let's do another
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:40:18 PM EDT
It appears that the Iraqi public is not aware of this yet. The Iraqi goverment must of imposed some sort of gag on the local media. But of course its on the international press so that will only last till tomorrow morning...

Still there is no one blogging about it yet. Which group is to blame (Zarqawi, Sadir ect) for buying the police.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:43:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Iran has way too much oil cash- and they don't spend anything on their own people so its all availble for stuff like buying Iraqi police officers.

How much more evidence do we need before invading Iran? There will not be peace in Iraq untill both Iran and Syria have undergone "regime change"- and it behooves us to do it before Iran gets the bomb...



Yes... because the first regime change went so well.... let's do another



"Regime change" as a cure for the region will ONLY work if ALL the goverments in the region undergo it. It was the only way this would work from the start. Iraq was far less involved in terror than Syria and Iran- but it was politically isolated and militarily weak, and it was much easier to enter. And since its geographically between the two and US troops there would be ideally positioned to invade either of the stronger countries.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:47:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Iran has way too much oil cash- and they don't spend anything on their own people so its all availble for stuff like buying Iraqi police officers.

How much more evidence do we need before invading Iran? There will not be peace in Iraq untill both Iran and Syria have undergone "regime change"- and it behooves us to do it before Iran gets the bomb...



Yes... because the first regime change went so well.... let's do another




Lol, glockguy40, you're funny. I think I'm going to to a search for your past posts, just for a laugh... I mean, ignorance at your level just has to be more than natural talent. You must've been working at it for years!
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:47:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Iran has way too much oil cash- and they don't spend anything on their own people so its all availble for stuff like buying Iraqi police officers.

How much more evidence do we need before invading Iran? There will not be peace in Iraq untill both Iran and Syria have undergone "regime change"- and it behooves us to do it before Iran gets the bomb...



Yes... because the first regime change went so well.... let's do another



"Regime change" as a cure for the region will ONLY work if ALL the goverments in the region undergo it. It was the only way this would work from the start. Iraq was far less involved in terror than Syria and Iran- but it was politically isolated and militarily weak, and it was much easier to enter. And since its geographically between the two and US troops there would be ideally positioned to invade either of the stronger countries.



So basically we should use our military to colonize the middle east and install puppet regimes.... yea... that will create democracy.... and I'm sure it will drain the pool of hate for us in the region as well. Yup, that will be sure to dry up and the breeding grounds for terrorists.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:47:48 PM EDT
Haha, I'd just like to note that the "evil liberal" NYT columnist and multiple pulitzer prize winner Thomas Friedman backed going into Iraq 100% because "we could"

I remember he said something along the lines of: for the last 50 years we didn't give a squat about the middle east as long as they gave us oil cheap... we let hatred brew in that region, and now we have to correct it! Attacking Iraq JUST BECAUSE we could is justifiable, because we're sending that region a message: Don't fuck with us!

That was just a paraphrase, please don't quote me

Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:51:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
Haha, I'd just like to note that the "evil liberal" NYT columnist and multiple pulitzer prize winner Thomas Friedman backed going into Iraq 100% because "we could"

I remember he said something along the lines of: for the last 50 years we didn't give a squat about the middle east as long as they gave us oil cheap... we let hatred brew in that region, and now we have to correct it! Attacking Iraq JUST BECAUSE we could is justifiable, because we're sending that region a message: Don't fuck with us!

That was just a paraphrase, please don't quote me




But we also have let ourselves get involved too much in Iraq... was all this really needed to secure the area as a operating base for the next invasion? Did we really have to try and start the conversion to democracy so soon?

Syria and Iran will continue to send terrorists and fund warring factons in Iraq in order to keep us there wasting time and money untill they have acquired enough atom bombs to hold us off for ever.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:52:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 12:19:02 AM EDT by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By Gunbert:

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Iran has way too much oil cash- and they don't spend anything on their own people so its all availble for stuff like buying Iraqi police officers.

How much more evidence do we need before invading Iran? There will not be peace in Iraq untill both Iran and Syria have undergone "regime change"- and it behooves us to do it before Iran gets the bomb...



Yes... because the first regime change went so well.... let's do another




Lol, glockguy40, you're funny. I think I'm going to to a search for your past posts, just for a laugh... I mean, ignorance at your level just has to be more than natural talent. You must've been working at it for years!



It is you who are the fool... not I. You see what you want to see... and you see only what the media shows you.

On 9/11 you saw some palestinians in the streets jumping for joy, maybe a couple hundred. But you didn't see the tens of thousands of muslims in Iran and elsewhere who were crying in a candle light vigil in support of the U.S.

There have been statements that muslims have made against terrorism... but people here have always wrote them off as self-serving or as lies to mask people's "true feelings".

Muslims are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they speak out against terrorism, you discount it; and if they say nothing, you criticism them for it. They can't win with people like you, and they never will.... you're too naive and ignorant.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:54:21 PM EDT
Is that guy okay? Man I hope so.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:54:26 PM EDT
Thats crazy. Atleast Saddam kept these bastards under control. I dont know what the hell is going on there now.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:54:56 PM EDT
Well, from what I can gather

1. Not all Muslims are evil
2. The invasion of Iraq: maybe it was nessecary? Yes/No. Was it well planned and thought out? No.

No reason to cry over spilled milk, now that we are there, what are the options? Withdrawal? No way! We'll just have to let messy democracy work its way into that region... And I have a feeling EVERYONE in American can agree on how messy democracy is!
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:57:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 11:58:40 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By Gunbert:

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Iran has way too much oil cash- and they don't spend anything on their own people so its all availble for stuff like buying Iraqi police officers.

How much more evidence do we need before invading Iran? There will not be peace in Iraq untill both Iran and Syria have undergone "regime change"- and it behooves us to do it before Iran gets the bomb...



Yes... because the first regime change went so well.... let's do another




Lol, glockguy40, you're funny. I think I'm going to to a search for your past posts, just for a laugh... I mean, ignorance at your level just has to be more than natural talent. You must've been working at it for years!



It is you who are the fool... not I. You see what you want to see... and you see only what the media shows you.

On 9/11 you saw some palestinians in the streets jumping for joy, maybe a couple hundred. But you didn't see the thousands of muslim in Iran and elsewhere who were crying in a candle light vigil in support of the U.S.

There have been statement that muslims have made against terrorism... but people here have always wrote them off as self-serving of as lies to mask people's true feeling.

Muslims are damn if they do and damn if they don't. If they speak out against terrorism, you discount it; and if they say nothing, you criticism them for it. They can't we with people like you, and they never will.



I have seen pleanty of evidence that the Iranians for one would gladly support removal of the Ayatollah.

But even if 90 percent of the population does that still leaves a million or more ready to die for the regime, that means a lot of suicide bombers for years to come either way.

The Iranians are not going to come out and cheer for us because they saw what Saddam did to the Kurds and Shiia in 1991 and they know their army will do the same.

Our failure in 1991 has insured that in every one of these countries we will NOT see public support untill US troops roll in and set up camp. Even then the presence of die-hards who will go around at night and kill anyone who is seen working with us will keep many from getting close for fear of their and their families lives.

It is never going to look like WWII France or Holland in any of these countries due to the nature of the enemy.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:01:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 12:01:54 AM EDT by glockguy40]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By Gunbert:

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Iran has way too much oil cash- and they don't spend anything on their own people so its all availble for stuff like buying Iraqi police officers.

How much more evidence do we need before invading Iran? There will not be peace in Iraq untill both Iran and Syria have undergone "regime change"- and it behooves us to do it before Iran gets the bomb...



Yes... because the first regime change went so well.... let's do another




Lol, glockguy40, you're funny. I think I'm going to to a search for your past posts, just for a laugh... I mean, ignorance at your level just has to be more than natural talent. You must've been working at it for years!



It is you who are the fool... not I. You see what you want to see... and you see only what the media shows you.

On 9/11 you saw some palestinians in the streets jumping for joy, maybe a couple hundred. But you didn't see the thousands of muslim in Iran and elsewhere who were crying in a candle light vigil in support of the U.S.

There have been statement that muslims have made against terrorism... but people here have always wrote them off as self-serving of as lies to mask people's true feeling.

Muslims are damn if they do and damn if they don't. If they speak out against terrorism, you discount it; and if they say nothing, you criticism them for it. They can't we with people like you, and they never will.



I have seen pleanty of evidence that the Iranians for one would gladly support removal of the Ayatollah.

But even if 90 percent of the population does that still leaves a million or more ready to die for the regime, that means a lot of suicide bombers for years to come either way.

The Iranians are not going to come out and cheer for us because they saw what Saddam did to the Kurds and Shiia in 1991 and they know their army will do the same.

Our failure in 1991 has insured that in every one of these countries we will NOT see public support untill US troops roll in and set up camp. Even then the presence of die-hards who will go around at night and kill anyone who is seen working with us will keep many from getting close for fear of their and their families lives.

It is never going to look like WWII France or Holland in any of these countries due to the nature of the enemy.



Do they want the Ayatollahs gone, yes... but not by any means.

After the steady dose of images they have seen coming out of Iraq, Iranians, even the ones that want nothing but democracy, don't want us anywhere near their country. They don't want Iran to become another Iraq... they want slow gradual change from within, not by force from the outside. The people would not support us....
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:02:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 12:04:44 AM EDT by napalm]



What. The. Fuck.





I definitely agree that those guys acted with a lot of restraint. More restraint than I would've shown.



If I was the driver of that Warrior I would've been greasing my sprockets with the guts of those bastards.

"Crunch, crunch, what's that sound...?"
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:04:45 AM EDT
Iraq is a hopeless shithole.

Anyone expecting Democracy to gain a foothhold there is on crack. A vast majority of Iraqi's wanted Saddam gone. Now that he is, they desire nothing more than to continue the savagery that Saddam
spent years committing. The fundamentalists want an Islamic Theocracy and there is no shortage of
scumbags who are willing and able to aid the insurgency by any means necessary.

I have no doubt that Civil War is on the menu. These people strive for nothing more than to live in a society where one religion is practiced and accepted. The Government they desire is rooted in the Middle Ages. Barbarism and savagery is all they know and I don't see anything changing that fact.
These people are hopeless and the minority who desire Democracy won't stand up to fight the extremist ideology for fear of reprisals. Nobody can be protected and watched 24-7.

The meltdown is forthcoming.

HS1
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:06:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
Trying to teach the Iraqi people democracy appears to make as much sense as trying to teach a gorilla calculus. They are nothing but savages.



There is no evidence for that.

There is evidence that Iran is buying up all the people it can, and so is Syria on the other side of the country.



I agree. Iran and Syria are targeting corruptible people in power. The solution is to find those people and execute them.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:07:02 AM EDT
Well, I'm ready to pull out of Iraq.
Why the hell are we wasting our time there?

The whole damn thing stinks.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:13:25 AM EDT
I love it when soldiers look out for their own.

Good job on getting them back!
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:16:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By Gunbert:

Originally Posted By glockguy40:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
Iran has way too much oil cash- and they don't spend anything on their own people so its all availble for stuff like buying Iraqi police officers.

How much more evidence do we need before invading Iran? There will not be peace in Iraq untill both Iran and Syria have undergone "regime change"- and it behooves us to do it before Iran gets the bomb...



Yes... because the first regime change went so well.... let's do another




Lol, glockguy40, you're funny. I think I'm going to to a search for your past posts, just for a laugh... I mean, ignorance at your level just has to be more than natural talent. You must've been working at it for years!



It is you who are the fool... not I. You see what you want to see... and you see only what the media shows you.

On 9/11 you saw some palestinians in the streets jumping for joy, maybe a couple hundred. But you didn't see the tens of thousands of muslims in Iran and elsewhere who were crying in a candle light vigil in support of the U.S.

There have been statements that muslims have made against terrorism... but people here have always wrote them off as self-serving or as lies to mask people's "true feelings".

Muslims are damn if they do and damn if they don't. If they speak out against terrorism, you discount it; and if they say nothing, you criticism them for it. They can't we with people like you, and they never will.... you're too naive and ignorant.




hehe, whatever you say buddy. You keep pandering to them, that'll make it all be fine. We'll all sing kumbya someday thanks to guys like you who understand what us little people cannot.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:20:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 12:24:58 AM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Except there is no evidence of Iraqis as a whole being hostile to the Americans, to democracy, or wishing for civil war. Example:


Monday, September 19, 2005
The Road to Karbala

Although it is an article of faith in certain circles that Iraq was better off under Saddam Hussein, some of the Shi'ite pilgrims headed for Karbala don't think so. According to the Courier Mail:

"It doesn't matter if we are attacked. We want to receive martyrdom ... to go on such a pilgrimage at this time is a response to Zarqawi's threats. He will not stop us from observing our rituals. The situation under ... Hussein was worse and more dangerous. ... But even under Saddam, this didn't stop us from going."

Wearing a white shroud over his clothes as a symbol of his readiness to die, Hussein Nuthair, 22, marched with 10 friends from a Baghdad neighbourhood. "We have no fear and do not worry about Zarqawi or his followers. We carry no weapons and have no fear of dying," he said.

Surely these pilgrims have it wrong. George Galloway, who knew both Saddam and the insurgents, likes both. The Telegraph recalls:

Mr. Galloway described the insurgents as "ragged people, with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest and most basic of weapons ... These poor Iraqis… are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars. With 145 military operations every day, they have made the country ungovernable by the people who occupy it. ... But they decided, when the foreign invaders came, to defend their country, to defend their honour, to defend their families, their religion, their way of life from a military superpower which landed amongst them. And they are winning the war. America is losing the war in Iraq and even the Americans now admit it."

This is the sophisticated, educated and nuanced point of view. Believe it.

Update
Apart from its symbolic significance to the Shi'ites, the pilgrimage to Karbala must constitute a prime target in a month full of prime targets for the insurgency. In a period when Iraq is preparing to hold a plebiscite on its constitution and the insurgents seek revenge for Tal-Afar, the pilgrimage is like a cherry sitting on whipped-cream topped fudge. Not only that, but as Bill Roggio points out, there is a whole slew of offensive activity against insurgents in Anbar, Haditha and Qaim and even Samarra and Ramadi. The enemy must react. Some sources have warned of a Great Ramadan Offensive aimed at getting back at the Coalition for all the knocks the invincible (are you listening George Galloway?) insurgency has received.

Al Qaeda's plans for a series of spectacular terrorist strikes in October, targeting American interests as well as U.S. allies in Europe and the Middle East and said to be coordinated by Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenant in Iraq - Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- are the subject of a non-public report issued by terrorism experts this week.

The next two weeks are a clear test of the insurgency's strength. But apart from the massacre of unemployed construction workers and unarmed civilians, the insurgents who "are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars" are having a surprisingly poor showing. US casualties for September up to the 18th stand at 14 KIA. Colonel Robert Brown, Commander of The 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, Multinational Force-Northwest gave a briefing on September 14 and described the change in quality of the enemy in his area of operations. It is so packed with detail it deserves an extended quote:

Q How is the state of the insurgency different today than when you arrived to start your mission?

COL. BROWN: There's a significant difference from when we got here last October. Last October, we faced a foreign fighter that was very well-trained. I remember watching attacks out -- we had an attack that involved about 60 foreign fighters in a pretty complex ambush. By complex I mean three or four forms of engagement. They'll hit you with an IED, small arms, mortars -- a very complex attack. We saw that regularly in November and December. We also defeated -- in one of those fights, we killed 40 terrorists, and we did not lose anybody, and we defeated them every time they tried to do that against us. We really worked hard and aggressively at getting out. I mean, we conducted some 2,100 cordon and searches, and thousands of aggressive offensive operations -- 18 attacks a day against the insurgents back in that time period. I remember watching an attack and seeing the insurgents move against us, and I had to look and say, gee, are those our guys or their guys because they're moving very well around buildings. Now, that was November and December. What we saw is that that's faded away very quickly, as we captured and killed. And we killed some 550 enemy and captured over 3,000.

And as we got to February and March, we saw a completely different foreign fighter. We've captured Libyans. We've captured Saudi, Yemenis, Algerians. And many of these -- one Libyan that we captured about a month and a half ago -- he was clearly brainwashed. And he was told that, you know, what was going on here and brainwashed to come and be a -- what he thought was -- he was going to be a foreign fighter against this crusade against the Muslim religion. He got here. He saw that was not correct. They told he was going to be a suicide martyr. He said he didn't want to do that. When we happened to capture him, several other foreign fighters and the cell leader that was orchestrating them, he was very happy to talk to us about what he had seen and what they had done.

And very interesting that younger foreign fighter that we're seeing now -- very poorly trained. We would call them more like RPGs for hire. And we believe it's the -- we know that the leadership is severely disrupted. Again, from -- about 25 percent of the attacks were very complex prior to elections, as I described. Now we're down to five percent are complex. And we're at the lowest number of attacks by far over the last three months. And that is -- clearly the foreign network is disrupted. The leadership is severely disrupted. We captured Abu Talha, the number-two al Qaeda leader in the north of Iraq. And right after that we got Abu Bara, Madhi Musa (sp), Abu Zab (sp), the next six leaders that would step up and take over. Nobody's taken over now. It's not a very popular position because if they step up, they get captured or killed. And so they're really disrupted, totally different.

The other thing -- the other huge change is the population. And in a counterinsurgency, of course, the terrorists don't have to -- the people don't have to love them; they just have to remain neutral and not turn them in. And when we got here, the people were intimidated, and they were neutral. Now they are turning them in. We'd like to call it, you know, the terrorists swim in a sea of anonymity, and that sea has been taken away from them.

And for example, when we got here, they could fire mortars, and they did that. Three hundred mortar attacks a month was the average for the six months prior to us getting here. As we got the population more and more on the side of their government and their security forces, as they saw how the terrorists offered no hope for the future and their government did, they started turning these guys in. And in the beginning, a guy would fire a mortar; in a city of 2 million, it's pretty hard to track him down. Well, we've captured over 142 mortar systems, and now the average is six attacks a month in the entire province, from 300 to six.

And just a couple of weeks ago, when they did fire a mortar, the people told what they looked like, what their license plate was. In one case, they knew one of the individuals. The Iraqi army went out, tracked them right down, arrested them, and there you have it -- much different from that prior to elections, when, you know, they wouldn't say anything. It was -- we didn't see anything, and it was very hard to stop this.


Now some will argue that the enemy is shamming or that Colonel Brown is not being forthright. But the critical nature of the coming weeks means that the enemy must show his true strength -- or the lack of it -- soon.


posted by wretchard at 12:36 AM | 55 comments



If you would bother to go read the blogs from people actually in the country instead of listening to the TV news networks you would know this.

iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:24:43 AM EDT
Well, i'm very dissapointed! Everyone seemed to be in support of going to war on this forum, and support President Bush for his war on terror, but now everyone wants to leave?!

If you can't finish the job THEN DON'T FUCKING START IT. If we leave now it'll be worse then if we had never went into that country anyway. Leaving Iraq now would be... catastrophic! If you are upset over the situation, well you better hope our government and military can fix it, because without our support for this democracy that place will become 1000X times worse then it was under Saddam's brutal rule and that was pretty effing bad.

I say, don't be so negative, regime changes are messy (and usually fail) so lets hope this one goes a little bit better. I may not be a hard line right winger, but i think the only choice right now is to support Bush regardless of your political affiliation... IT'S YOUR ONLY CHOICE NOW!

haha, i'd draw a game theory matrix and explain it to you but that's what I do everyday now.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:30:58 AM EDT
So far the only thing I have seen us do wrong is assume that somehow Syria and Iran would NOT do everything they could to bring Iraq to a state of anarchy, expessly to assure that they themselves would not be our next targets.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:40:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 12:47:29 AM EDT by AROptics]

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
So far the only thing I have seen us do wrong is assume that somehow Syria and Iran would NOT do everything they could to bring Iraq to a state of anarchy, expessly to assure that they themselves would not be our next targets.



"Next targets"?

Clone Army nearly ready?
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:55:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
So far the only thing I have seen us do wrong is assume that somehow Syria and Iran would NOT do everything they could to bring Iraq to a state of anarchy, expessly to assure that they themselves would not be our next targets.



"Next targets"?

Clone Army nearly ready?



You must be one of those mentioned at the end of this next piece:

Heads You Win, Tails I Lose

Readers may want to read Col HR McMaster's description of the operation in Tal-Afar of September verbatim. There's too much in it to meaningfully summarize in a few short paragraphs. Several things stand out. The first is that despite the enemy's use of IEDs, snipers, mortar teams, boob-trapped buildings and the fortification of a dense urban area, Coalition forces swept through it like s..t through a goose. And this appears to be due, in part, to a creative form of battlefield shaping founded on unspecified and better sources of human and technical intelligence. Enemy delaying actions did not work. Attempts to evade and relocate did not work. Traps were sprung. Fighters trying to blend into the crowd were found. The enemy decided to defend its remaining enclaves in the city because they were out of moves.

We operated in other outlying communities and captured many more of the enemy. So now, the enemy had that option taken away from them, and they resolved then to defend this safe haven in Sarai. I had a chance to walk downtown today and found a lot of their propaganda in their abandoned fighting positions. And this propaganda was: we cannot afford to lose Tall Afar; we're going to defeat, you know, the coalition forces and Iraqi security forces here. It was exhorting their forces to defend Tall Afar at all costs. ...

These were very complex defenses in neighborhoods outside of the Sarai neighborhood, which was the center of the enemy's safe haven here. They had their command and control in a safe house in the center that was very heavily defended. Outside of that, they had defensive positions with RPG and machine gun positions. Surrounding those positions, they had homes that were rigged to be demolished by munitions as U.S. and Iraqi soldiers entered them, and then, outside of those, they had Improvised Explosive Devices, roadside bombs, implanted, buried into the roads. ...

But our forces aggressively pursued the enemy in these areas. They were able to defeat these IEDs based on the human intelligence we developed. We exploded many of them with attack helicopter fire or detonated them with our engineers. We penetrated that defense. Our tanks led with our Iraqi infantry in support. We absorbed any energy from their rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns, continued the assault into these safe havens and destroyed their leadership throughout the city. ... the most dense urban terrain you can imagine, there was a very complex defense prepared there, with, again, these roadside bombs, buildings rigged for demolition, machine gun positions, sniper positions, and mortars integrated into this. But with our intelligence, our precision fires capability, we were able to severely disrupt that defense and really collapse it all around the enemy.

We had some very heavy fighting on the 5th and 6th of September, during which we killed many of the enemy, who engaged us from their forward defensive positions. And it was at that point that the enemy shifted their approach again to essentially running away from the area. They gave the word to retreat. They did everything they could to blend in with the civilians who were evacuating from this dense urban area to protect them, and we caught them. We were integrated with the population. The people were pointing out who the enemy was. We had Iraqi army who was very good at sensing something isn't quite right when this man is walking down the street with children, and the children look very nervous. This one man in particular was a beheader who had beheaded over 20 people. And we were able to capture him as the children fled, as we came up to talk to this individual, and the children related to us this man said that they had to walk with him or he would kill them. We captured five of the enemy dressed as women, trying desperately to get out of the area. Just yesterday we captured 104 of the enemy in these outlying areas.


Yet of course it was a US defeat -- how could it be otherwise? -- because Tal-Afar is now being described in the press as a fatal step on the road to Iraqi Civil War. A catastrophe. A former British officer in Iraq, Tim Collins, writes in the Telegraph about how the political meaning of military acts are sometimes beyond the control of soldiers without someone else to provide the political aspect of the solution.

The impact on the Sunni insurgents of the victory in Tal Afar must not be underestimated. With a reported 200 militants killed and a further 300 captured, this defeat is a significant setback for the extremists. Perhaps it should not be surprising that the US forces who backed the assault, 3,500 men of the US Army's 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, led by Colonel H R McMaster, were extremely conscious of the complex make-up of the -population of the area they were fighting to control. ... The extent of his success is, I believe, reflected in the high numbers of extremists accounted for, both killed and captured, despite an elaborate system of tunnels under their positions that led out to the countryside and should, theoretically, have -enabled even more to escape. It must come as a bitter pill to men such as Col McMaster to have their victory dismissed as a point scored in a sectarian contest.

Yet "the fact is that the Iraqi army that took Tal Afar is predominately Shia in composition; the force it routed, predominately Sunni" and this, Collins argues, makes Tal-Afar double-edged. The heart of the problem, he believes, is that actions are now perceived in terms defined by the insurgents and there are no moderate Sunni leaders who can provide an alternative narrative.

Civil war in Iraq is not yet inevitable, I believe, but with each new crisis its likelihood increases. The constitutional referendum on October 15, for instance, is being denounced in Sunni quarters as a charter for Shias and Kurds to divide the nation's wealth and power. ... Like the loyalists of Northern Ireland, what the Sunni moderates lack is any substantial leadership - and therefore any hope of involvement in the country's decision--making process. Let us hope a leader emerges soon, or a descent into open and unambiguous civil war is, I fear, a distinct possibility.

Of all the weapons of the insurgency, it is their ability to set the public terms of the debate that has proven the most powerful. Their model of fighting a combined media-arms campaign has created an alternative reality which Western opinion-makers unconsciously inhabit. The questions asked by a New York Times of Condoleeza Rice in a recent interview speak directly from this point of view.

Q: Can you make the case that international terror, global terror, is less of a threat now than it was four years ago?

Q: If you take a snapshot right now, is the world more dangerous than it was before?

Q: How can you look at Iraq and continue to feel that the trend lines are moving in the direction that you want to see?


posted by wretchard at 5:34 AM | 91 comments


Link Posted: 9/20/2005 1:02:33 AM EDT
Armed Liberal? I heard you Neocons went both ways.

Read the posts on THIS board and DESPAIR.

No Iran war for you. No Syria. No megalomaniacal scheme will be achieved unless YOU do it. America can be fooled once but not twice (though I know you'll try).
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 1:24:56 AM EDT
F'em.

The Kurds in the North are our only "friends" there. Coincidently that's where the oil is too.

Let's keep them well-armed and fuck the rest of the place.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top