More KIAs

[Trident-za]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716

RIP

[George W. Bush]

Damnit!

You can't really protect against this. All the hajjis need is a mortar, mortar rounds, and a map. Probably ex-Iraqi Army.

I wonder what the response will be. We should take a page out of the Russian's book. When attacked, they seal off the nearest villages and search the houses.

[lekomin]

Damnit!

You can't really protect against this. All the hajjis need is a mortar, mortar rounds, and a map. Probably ex-Iraqi Army.

I wonder what the response will be. We should take a page out of the Russian's book. When attacked, they seal off the nearest villages and search the houses.

Look at the bigger picture.. when you look at the coalition casulties numbers they are going down big time. I think that the tide is slowly turning for the Coalition. Catching Saddam was crucial.. he wasn't a tactical leader yet he was an icon worth fighting for (for some lunatics that is). The attacks we see now (for instance the last one "gate crushing" in Bagdad, and the previous ones in Karbala) are not insurgency tactics but terrorist tacticts. Judging from the methods the "popular" uprising is going down (if ever there was a "popular" uprising) wheras the terrorism threat is going up. Terrorists in the longer run will be alienated from the Iraqi society (look at the casulty toll from last attack in Bagdad.. only 2 US servicemen and more then 20 Iraqis) and killed/captured. US of A might actualy win in Iraq :)
take care
lekomin inc

[Rantanplan]

RIP

[mustamato]

Look at the bigger picture.. when you look at the coalition casulties numbers they are going down big time. I think that the tide is slowly turning for the Coalition. Catching Saddam was crucial.. he wasn't a tactical leader yet he was an icon worth fighting for (for some lunatics that is). The attacks we see now (for instance the last one "gate crushing" in Bagdad, and the previous ones in Karbala) are not insurgency tactics but terrorist tacticts. Judging from the methods the "popular" uprising is going down (if ever there was a "popular" uprising) wheras the terrorism threat is going up. Terrorists in the longer run will be alienated from the Iraqi society (look at the casulty toll from last attack in Bagdad.. only 2 US servicemen and more then 20 Iraqis) and killed/captured. US of A might actualy win in Iraq :)
take care
lekomin inc

Probably because the insurgents are not shooting down Chinooks every week. And if you put ICDC-numbers in to the statistics then it´s going up. But maybe a iraqi coalition soldier is not worth even mentioning? But as for the number of daily attacks they are more or less the same. And even if they go down those still remaining will be more sophisticated. In example this mortar attack that was obviously quite accurate. I assume that the americans took cover after the first mortar grenade, so they should have been killed by the first one.

US of A will never win over the Iraqis. But of course you americans will claim that when you pull out, just as you claim that you didn´t loose the war in Vietnam.

[George W. Bush]

We're not trying to win over the Iraqis. We were there to topple Saddam and leave on June 1st after a democratic government is installed. That plan hasn't changed.

[XASA]

US of A will never win over the Iraqis. But of course you americans will claim that when you pull out, just as you claim that you didn´t loose the war in Vietnam.

Mustamato why do you and other Europeans insist on categorizing all Americans as being monolithic in their beliefs, politics and opinions? You seem to be a very bright person, so forgive me for assuming that you are cognizant of the fact that public opinion in the U.S. is perhaps 50-50 pro- and anti-war; in fact, the current voting process elicits anti-war sentiment from several of the Democratic presidential candidates.

Also, the vast majority of Americans, including those who fought there, realize Vietnam wasn't a political or a military victory. But what the hell does a full scale guerilla war supported by communist block nations and fought in Southeast Asia against a proud and motivated Vietnamese enemy more than thirty years ago have to with one being waged in Southwest Asia whose insurgents are mostly former Baathist party members, foreign individuals and criminals intent on creating turmoil

The resentment towards your views on American policy, I believe, stems from the fact that no country likes to be told what is wrong with it by foreign sources, especially when they can hear much better arguments from their own political leaders who have a vested interest in the future of the country as opposed to foreigners who, seemingly, take comfort in any American domestic or international problem.

Admittingly, Iraq is a mess right now, but it was a much more worse mess before. If you want to argue against America, perhaps you should consider at least we have the balls to at least try and rectify a negative situation instead of allowing it to become more disasterous, or take a "wait and see" approach as Europe did with the Balkans before it decided to step in-- with American help-- to stop the atrocities that resulted due to its non-intervention policy of the early 1990s.

Europeans have waged war among themselves for centuries, and its collective colonial past is one of the reasons the world is so screwed up today. Perhaps you could lighten up on your opinion of Americans by looking at your own history.

[Javehn]

RIP to every single warrior , and their families . RIP

[Trident-za]

when you look at the coalition casulties numbers they are going down big time.

I wish to make no political comments here. The above statement is true, but it also avoids the fact that many attacks are not aimed at coalition troops. While US casualties might be down, I'm not sure that Iraq has become a safer place in recent months - certainly not for any of the Iraqi people working with the coalition forces.

[UoUo]

And still more iraqis were murder by sadam then the number of iraqis deads in The last 7 mouth.

Correct me if i wrong.

[Trident-za]

I doubt that you are wrong :) Perhaps you misunderstood my "I wish to make no political comments" statement? I was not saying ANYTHING about Saddam, nor was I saying anything against the US's involvement there. I was merely trying to point out that this current "US casualites are down, so everything must be going well" mindset is not the whole picture. Please note, I am NOT saying that its going badly either. I'm not there, so I'm not drawing any conclusions just yet.

[Maverick77]

Attacks are the same the war continues This has been a quieter month than others but casualties are by no means drastically down.

[lekomin]

Probably because the insurgents are not shooting down Chinooks every week. And if you put ICDC-numbers in to the statistics then it´s going up. But maybe a iraqi coalition soldier is not worth even mentioning? But as for the number of daily attacks they are more or less the same. And even if they go down those still remaining will be more sophisticated. In example this mortar attack that was obviously quite accurate. I assume that the americans took cover after the first mortar grenade, so they should have been killed by the first one.

US of A will never win over the Iraqis. But of course you americans will claim that when you pull out, just as you claim that you didn´t loose the war in Vietnam.
From the beginning I said that the USA would have a problem if they had on average 10 KIAs per day. If you subtract helicopter crashes and shoot downs (which one might say are not everyday occurrence) the average for Coalition (without the iraqi police and military) is lower then 1 KIA per day (both combat and non combat) (with the hello crash losses it is aroung 1,3 per day). For Iraqi forces (police, defence corps, army) the "combat" losses so to speak that IEDs and drive by shootings are not that high. The biggest toll is from strictly "terrorist" (i.e. car bombs) attacks which by any measure kill many more Iraqi civilians then "targets" (i.e. Iraqi policemen). I think the idea of suicide bombers in Iraq is crazy. This might be a potent (albeit completely sick) weapon in Israel, where collateral damage is simply more Israelis getting killed, yet in Iraq collateral damage are Iraqi civilians killed and maimed. I simply cannot see how killing Iraqi civilians may increase support for terrorism in Iraqi society. In the Israeli case, I might understand - "understand" meaning knowing why and not "understanding" meaning approving - why Palestinians might support some idiot who would blow himself or herself up in a bus in Bersheba. They are not getting killed in those suicide attacks!! Imagine supporting an organisation that might blow a bus that YOU are on. Then imagine supporting an organisation that might blow a bus that YOU have no chance of being on. That is the difference between Iraq and Palestine and support for terrorism.
As for mortar, they have tried countless times to actually hit anything with it for months now. If you shoot 100 rounds you would always get lucky some day...
As for USA winning... USA being a "colonialist" and so on. USA already won a war. This war was one of the best warplan execution we have ever seen in history of warfare. One might say that it is easy to beat the weak, but then look at Russians and Chechenya. In no way can you compare conquering a huge country with not being able to conquer a tiny region within your own borders. Moreover in no way can you compare the strength of the Iraqi army with the strength of Chechen fighters. Iraq wasn't weak. It could have hold its own against any other army in the world, except the US military. US of A won whereas Russians lost. I think we the Europeans hardly understand how powerful USA really is. We still learn at schools about our great history (glorious defeats and glorious victories) and we fail to comprehend that Europe lost its position as the ruler of the world at the beginning of the XXth century. Entente and the Allies in the WWII survived because the USA got involved. When it is the last time Europeans won anything on their own? Not counting UK (Falklands, Oman, Malaya) neither France, Germany nor Italy, the great powers of XIXth century won anything in the last 100 years. Well, Italians conquered Abisynia but with great difficulty. I cannot really see a war that the USA lost since Alamo In Vietnam USA didn't lost a war abroad.. they lost a war at home. This times it is different. American society is different after 11/9 and the casualties are nowhere near the Vietnam level. Iraqi insurgents are not supported by the other Great Power, they would lack resources, monies, weapons.. In the war between the shield and the sword, the shield bearing night warfare capable human radar sensing equipped sniper detection system owning personal body armour wearing Yanks have the upper hand. US of A would win. As always.

[Kingpin]

Catching Saddam was crucial.. he wasn't a tactical leader yet he was an icon worth fighting for (for some lunatics that is).

No. Now real resistance free from charges that they fighting for Saddam and they can now receive support from people who didn't like Saddam. Like shia for example.

[lekomin]

No. Now real resistance free from charges that they fighting for Saddam and they can now receive support from people who didn't like Saddam. Like shia for example.
And what it is they are fighting for? Secular state? Nooo. Islamic state? Yesss. How r they fighting? Blowing up cars in the middle of the road full of Iraqis? Yesss. Blowing up water pipes to put even more hardships on Iraqis? Yesss. It is the best way to win hearts and minds of Iraqis for hardcore Islamic state.

[OnTheRocks]

US of A would win. As always.

Yeah, and when was the last time since the Korean war that you guys didnt fight a third world army?

As for comparing O.I.F. to the war in chechnya...well, it s a different war, different strategies and so on, and well ,Russia learned from its arrogance in the first Chechnyan war. Since many of the rebel leaders in chechnya were officers in the red army I think that they have atleast the same level of tactical thinking as the iraqi officers. I mean its not like they're just fighting a bunch og guys that stole their daddys 12 gauge and went out to fight a war. They fight for their freedom, the iraqi army had a ****ty morale, so its hard to compare those two conflicts, I mean even the variations in the terrain in chechnya makes it hard to fight there.

[XASA]

US of A would win. As always.

Yeah, and when was the last time since the Korean war that you guys didnt fight a third world army?



Do you know of any second or first world armies that can defeat the American military today? If so, please share with us ;)

[Loco]

US of A will never win over the Iraqis. But of course you americans will claim that when you pull out, just as you claim that you didn´t loose the war in Vietnam.

Europeans have waged war among themselves for centuries, and its collective colonial past is one of the reasons the world is so screwed up today. Perhaps you could lighten up on your opinion of Americans by looking at your own history.
Being me an european, I don´t agree Mustamato´s paragraph and I hope Irak adventure finish well, that´s, for full satisfaction of Iraqis and Americans & allies, but I don´t agree XASA paragraph too. Please, we´re gonna leave old stereotype statements. European countries don´t have a "warrior" virus, all humankind suffer of a warrior virus, in the case of Europe, Europe only was of world relevance after XV century, before that century European countries alway were victims of Asian or northafrican invaders since the time of caverns. And if we look at short American continent history, well, you aren´t best example of pacifism, not to talk of colonialism, Europe colonized Africa and Asia in the XIX and USA colonized "some" parts of Asia and the most of CentroAmerica through banana-wardens, slightly different methods but same result: misery and wars.

[OnTheRocks]

US of A would win. As always.

Yeah, and when was the last time since the Korean war that you guys didnt fight a third world army?



Do you know of any second or first world armies that can defeat the American military today? If so, please share with us ;)

Canadian :)

No but honestly, I dont think you would be able to beat the Chinese.

[XASA]

US of A would win. As always.

Yeah, and when was the last time since the Korean war that you guys didnt fight a third world army?



Do you know of any second or first world armies that can defeat the American military today? If so, please share with us ;)

Canadian :)

No but honestly, I dont think you would be able to beat the Chinese.

I think a war with China would be horrorific not only for the U.S. and China but for the entire world; however, I think, in the end, the U.S. would prevail militarily due to a vastly superior technological advantage as well as, heaven forbid, the dreaded nuclear option. The resulting political ramifications of such a victory, though, would not be worth the effort. This would make for a good thread on its own, so I start one.

[James]

US of A will never win over the Iraqis. But of course you americans will claim that when you pull out, just as you claim that you didn´t loose the war in Vietnam.

Mustamato why do you and other Europeans insist on categorizing all Americans as being monolithic in their beliefs, politics and opinions? You seem to be a very bright person, so forgive me for assuming that you are cognizant of the fact that public opinion in the U.S. is perhaps 50-50 pro- and anti-war; in fact, the current voting process elicits anti-war sentiment from several of the Democratic presidential candidates.

Also, the vast majority of Americans, including those who fought there, realize Vietnam wasn't a political or a military victory. But what the hell does a full scale guerilla war supported by communist block nations and fought in Southeast Asia against a proud and motivated Vietnamese enemy more than thirty years ago have to with one being waged in Southwest Asia whose insurgents are mostly former Baathist party members, foreign individuals and criminals intent on creating turmoil

The resentment towards your views on American policy, I believe, stems from the fact that no country likes to be told what is wrong with it by foreign sources, especially when they can hear much better arguments from their own political leaders who have a vested interest in the future of the country as opposed to foreigners who, seemingly, take comfort in any American domestic or international problem.

Admittingly, Iraq is a mess right now, but it was a much more worse mess before. If you want to argue against America, perhaps you should consider at least we have the balls to at least try and rectify a negative situation instead of allowing it to become more disasterous, or take a "wait and see" approach as Europe did with the Balkans before it decided to step in-- with American help-- to stop the atrocities that resulted due to its non-intervention policy of the early 1990s.

Europeans have waged war among themselves for centuries, and its collective colonial past is one of the reasons the world is so screwed up today. Perhaps you could lighten up on your opinion of Americans by looking at your own history.

Good statement, XASA.