I Can't Wait To Go To Iraq

[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.