I'm shocked and awed.

[Dis]

Plato was just cool

I'm not sure about the torture. The one guy's face was pretty beat up. I'm not sure if that happened while they were trying to take him into custody (he may have resisted) or after he was in custody. The other prisoners look unharmed. And some of the dead soldiers looked executed. I'm not sure if that is against the geneva convention. The U.S. executed suspected viet cong repeatedly in vietnam.

CNN did show the video. While we have seen video of both side's POW's. We have only seen interviews of one side's POW's. And they did look scared.

Can someone please tell me why they are sending a single mother of a 2 year old into a combat zone? WTF!

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Never heard of guerilla warfare before? That fact that the coalition hasn't taken any major cities is a sign of stiff Iraqi resistance.

Apparently, you are not aware that "taking cities" is not part of the coalition's agenda. The coalition forces are not trying to take cities, because they do not want to be seen as an occupying force.

Since taking and holding cities is not a goal of the campaign, it is not a sign of anything, let alone "stiff Iraqi resistance."

[Dis]

yes but if all the enemy soldiers reside in the cities- they will be available for these hit and run attacks. But I still say it would be a mistake to take the cities. We will just have to watch out for the hit and run attacks.

And why was a single mother in a combat zone! I ask this again.

[Spiffor]

Dissident
She was either very nationalist and wanted to fight the Americanskis.
Or she was sent by Baathists to the combat zone, in the hopes to have her killed in the crossfire, to 'proove' how Americans are evil.

Cyclotron
Umm Qasr sure looks like a military target to me. It seems Iraqi soldiers there didn't surrender as massively as planned Their resistance is sadly a way to boost morale of other Iraqi troops, who will be less prone to surrender.

[Dis]

This is a serious question. I thought they had a policy about such things. I think I heard they have removed relatives of the POW's from the combat zone as well.

Who is taking care of her child? I'm not against women in combat, but it sure would be nice if they had a father taking care of the kid or they are single without child.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dissident
Who is taking care of her child? I'm not against women in combat, but it sure would be nice if they had a father taking care of the kid or they are single without child.

Hopefully a neighbour or relative (such things happen in some Arabic countries, I don't know for Iraq). Possibly some Baathisit orphanage .

[Asher]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Apparently, you are not aware that "taking cities" is not part of the coalition's agenda. The coalition forces are not trying to take cities, because they do not want to be seen as an occupying force.

Since taking and holding cities is not a goal of the campaign, it is not a sign of anything, let alone "stiff Iraqi resistance."

He's just not aware that the "major cities" are farther inland, and you don't just take those initially, you go from the outside in...

The strategy appears to be send the Cavalary on a beeline to Baghdad while the infantry and marines secure the cities the Cavalary passed.

Those of us who aren't very astute confuse this with either avoiding the cities or not being able to take cities...

[Asher]

BTW, another possible cause for the cruise missiles going off-course would be the GPS-jamming devices that Russia has been selling Iraq...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
He's just not aware that the "major cities" are farther inland, and you don't just take those initially, you go from the outside in...

I am not going to argue sematics with you, but the point is the coaltion forces have so far failed to take any strategically important locations such as Umm Qasr surely is an indication of stiff Iraqi resistance. What's more, all those "news" of Iraqi soldiers surrendering to the US/UK in large numbers turned out to be false. That means Iraqi morale is higher than anticipated. It's the sixth day and the coalition forces haven't done much in the last two days.

On another front, news of dead, wounded, and captured US soldiers start hitting home. Iraqi refugees in Jordan are returning home to help fight the invaders. It looks like the US/UK is losing the war of propaganda.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I am not going to argue sematics with you, but the point is the coaltion forces have so far failed to take any strategically important locations such as Umm Qasr surely is an indication of stiff Iraqi resistance.

What's been happening in places like Umm Qasr is small, isolated incidents with units pretending to be civilians. They keep popping up and attacking when the troops assume they're civilians. The towns are considered secure, they're just not considered safe yet.

And no military in the world can instantly make it safe, short of slaughtering everyone in the town. Which I really don't think the US is up to doing.

What's more, all those "news" of Iraqi soldiers surrendering to the US/UK in large numbers turned out to be false.

Whoa whoa whoa -- how do you figure? Because Saddam said in a (apparently pre-recorded propaganda message) that the 51st fought bravely, when in reality the vast majority of them deserted or surrendered (the US has 3000 POWs in custody at last count).

It's the sixth day and the coalition forces haven't done much in the last two days.

I have no idea where you're getting this either. The US Cavalary has set a record for how far inland they've moved when invading another country, they're now just 60 miles south of Baghdad. 1,500 sorties were flown recently, 800 of those against Republican Guard locations...

I simply don't understand why you think they haven't done much in the past two days.

On another front, news of dead, wounded, and captured US soldiers start hitting home.

Are you referring to polls showing rising support for the conflict?

It looks like the US/UK is losing the war of propaganda.

Again, I don't see where you're getting this. Support of the war is upwards of 75% in the US now, when it was 70% last week.

I think you're either intentionally spreading incorrect information to try to make a point, or you truly just haven't been kept abreast of recent developments...