Former UK foreign minister - Robin Cook - the war was badly planned!

[Cyclotron]

I wasn't aware of any cuban or zimbabwean (sp?) weapons of mass destruction programs.

Of course, Zimbabwe could use a good invasion.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre


See my previous post: Then why didn't you invade Cuba instead? Or Zimbabwe?

We were going to invade Ivory Coast to get their chocolate but Frenchie already did that so we had to settle for oil.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


We were going to invade Ivory Coast to get their chocolate but Frenchie already did that so we had to settle for oil.

I bought a pineapple from Ivory Coast yesterday, only to find out it was half rotten. Just nuke'm!

If you are after terrorists and WoMD, how about Pakistan? Isn't that the supposed hideout for Osama? I remember a pre-election interview with GWB where a journalist asked if he knew the name of the military dictator of Pakistan, and he failed to find the correct answer (so would I, but I'm not running for president). I guess ol' dubya has found out the hard way by now, hasn't he?

Time for bed soon ...

[Atahualpa]

Pakistan has nukes silly one

[*End Is Forever*]

Latest polls suggest 84% of the British public is now behind the war effort. Cook's now about as far right as anti-war protestors get; we're down to the rump of leftist extremists and lunatics.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


*throws up after doing the search*

You could have been more descriptive you know. Now I too did the search, and BOY was it a mistake

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
The whole stalemate, running out of supplies thing is far fetched.

There is no question that the planners underestimated troop strength. That just makes it take longer is all.

Right, Ted! Of course the coalition has to pause before the final push on Baghdad.

1) There are five Republican Guard heavy divisions ringing the city. They have to be degraded with air bombardments.

2) We've just completed one of the fastest advances in military history. Coalition ground forces need to resupply, reorganize and just plain rest.

3) The Turks sandbagged the coalition by not permitting the 4th Mech Inf. to cross its territory. It's now on its way around the Arabian peninsula. Other reinforcements are also coming. It makes sense to wait for them, because of (1) and (2) above.

The only real surprise, so far, is the Iraqi's wide spread use of irregular thugs to (a) ambush convoys; (b) terrrorize the army into not giving up wholesale; and (c) terrorize the population into not revolting against Saddam.

But the irregulars are only clamping the lid down on a boiling cauldron. As soon as the Iraqis suffer a major military defeat, the hatred of the Iraqis for Saddam is going to explode.

[Urban Ranger]

IIRC, the 4 ID wasn't even in the original plan, it was called up when trouble started brewing.

Anyway, this looks reasonable given Rummy's overly optimistic plan:

Much of the supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles has been expended, aircraft carriers were going to run out of precision guided bombs and there were serious maintenance problems with tanks, armored vehicles and other equipment, the article said.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Latest polls suggest 84% of the British public is now behind the war effort.

What does that mean exactly? Most people I know who are anti-war do support our troops and hope they get the job done with maximal efficiency and minimal casualities... would that make them considered "behind the war effort"?

[Urban Ranger]

Some of the questions are quite badly phrased in these polls.

[Gibsie]

I expect that's intentional.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
IIRC, the 4 ID wasn't even in the original plan, it was called up when trouble started brewing.

Incorrect. We move heavy equipment by ship (normally, 1 ID being an exception ), and personnel by air. 4 ID's heavy equipment had been en route to Turkey since January, but it's personnel were still at Hood. Normal practice is you fly in the troops as their equipment is being offloaded and transfered via equipment transporters to their base camps, so the personnel can inventory the equipment and perform prep and maintenance work on it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre


Hrrrm, I don't think the intention is to decrease the oil price, but to increase it. They don't want the Iraqi oil as such, just to keep it away from the market so that the oil companies in Texas can gain more profit. After all, Bush and his friends would get richer if the oil price was kept at a permanent high level, right?

(BTW, my cousin's husband is an oil millionarie in Dallas. I haven't yet asked him what he thinks of all this. He might have some inside info )

A few things about oil economics.

(a) Iraqi oil is mostly off the market anyway, due to sanctions. We'd have a lot more control of the market, less opposition on the ground, and a more direct link with the whole terrorism business if we splattered Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.

(b) There's more money in refining oil, and in field development for third parties, etc., than there is in actually pumping the **** out of the ground. Cheney's old firm, Halliburton, is an oilfield services company - they make their money from the hardware, etc. involved in producing crude. The well known traditional oil companies make the bulk of their money from refining it and distributing the products.

(c) High sustained prices tank the rest of the economy, and stimulate both conservation and reduced consuption. People in the oil business want the stuff to be used, not sit in the ground.

(d) Overall profit margins are better with relatively low, stable prices. Too low is neither good nor sustainable, as it drives marginal fields out of production once their incremental price per barrel produced gets to or near market levels. If the benchmark prices of Saudi intermediate crude pegged at around $22-24 a barrel and stayed there, we'd all be doing a tap dance.

[sprucemoose3311]

I do not thik the war was badly planned:

What we (media) expected: heavy bombing for a week or two then followed by a ground invasion.

What really happened: Light bombing and decapitation attempt. Shortly followed by ground invasion.

The plan should change everyday based on new intelligence and troop movements. If war plans did not continually change every day than I would be worried.

https://www.brain-terminal.com

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Pakistan has nukes silly one

Yes, but the Pakis help us out from time to time so we're not inclined to go after them. Iraq on the other hand...