US tactics condemned by British officers

[Chasseur_Alpin]

US tactics condemned by British officers By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent (11/04/2004)

Senior British commanders have condemned American military tactics in Iraq as heavy-handed and disproportionate.

One senior Army officer told The Telegraph that America's aggressive methods were causing friction among allied commanders and that there was a growing sense of "unease and frustration" among the British high command.

The officer, who agreed to the interview on the condition of anonymity, said that part of the problem was that American troops viewed Iraqis as untermenschen - the Nazi expression for "sub-humans".

Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, the officer said: "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are. Their attitude towards the Iraqis is tragic, it's awful.

"The US troops view things in very simplistic terms. It seems hard for them to reconcile subtleties between who supports what and who doesn't in Iraq. It's easier for their soldiers to group all Iraqis as the bad guys. As far as they are concerned Iraq is bandit country and everybody is out to kill them."

The phrase untermenschen - literally "under-people" - was brought to prominence by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf, published in 1925. He used the term to describe those he regarded as racially inferior: Jews, Slaves and gipsies.

Although no formal complaints have as yet been made to their American counterparts, the officer said the British Government was aware of its commanders' "concerns and fears".

The officer explained that, under British military rules of war, British troops would never be given clearance to carry out attacks similar to those being conducted by the US military, in which helicopter gunships have been used to fire on targets in urban areas.

British rules of engagement only allow troops to open fire when attacked, using the minimum force necessary and only at identified targets.

The American approach was markedly different: "When US troops are attacked with mortars in Baghdad, they use mortar-locating radar to find the firing point and then attack the general area with artillery, even though the area they are attacking may be in the middle of a densely populated residential area.

"They may well kill the terrorists in the barrage but they will also kill and maim innocent civilians. That has been their response on a number of occasions. It is trite, but American troops do shoot first and ask questions later. They are very concerned about taking casualties and have even trained their guns on British troops, which has led to some confrontations between soldiers.

"The British response in Iraq has been much softer. During and after the war the British set about trying to win the confidence of the local population. There have been problems, it hasn't been easy but on the whole it was succeeding."

The officer believed that America had now lost the military initiative in Iraq, and it could only be regained with carefully planned, precision attacks against the "terrorists".

"The US will have to abandon the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut approach - it has failed," he said. "They need to stop viewing every Iraqi, every Arab as the enemy and attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people.

"Our objective is to create a stable, democratic and safe Iraq. That's achievable but not in the short term. It is going to take up to 10 years."

[tacticalmanta]

Yes.. let's not forget how well the Bristish do with surpressing the Islamic militants.. the Arabs threw feces at the British as they fled Egypt with their tails between their legs.


Posted by a French guy..

France *cough*

Algeria *cough*

[Brozozo]

No official condemnation of Iraqi kidnapping and mutilation tactics by the west yet... :|

[radon]

:bash: no more this s#i#... Remember the Americans in Somalia. Please do not only think who posted it but also what was posted.

[tacticalmanta]

:bash: no more this s#i#... Remember the Americans in Somalia. Please do not only think who posted it but also what was posted.

Yeah, the US was WAY too gentle in Somalia.. so your point is lost.

[MaDuce]

Now now kids play nice.

[American Patriot]

Helicopter gunships firing into urban areas? Is that all they got?

No rapes or mass graves? Pffffft. Try again bitches.

[LordHalbert]

I don't think the Americans are being "heavy handed". Remember, none of this would be necessary if the rebels stopped harassing the U.S. troops. Fullujah is a rat’s nest of thugs and bandits that should’ve been cleaned up earlier. The idea of warfare is to crush your enemies absolutely and impart your will on the one’s still alive. The current “negotiations” are stupid and will only result in more coalition deaths. If I was the general, I would order at least 2 more battalions and storm the city – preferably at night backed up with AC-130s, Apaches, A-10s and F-16s. I don’t really understand why there are currently negotiations with these terrorists - they only understand violence and death.

[Gordon]

Yes.. let's not forget how well the Bristish do with surpressing the Islamic militants.. the Arabs threw feces at the British as they fled Egypt with their tails between their legs.


Posted by a French guy..

France *cough*

Algeria *cough*

Of course, we have the many examples of successful American anti-insurgency campaigns. Want a few British examples, check out Oman and Malaya ... hearts and minds man, took a while but was ultimately very successful and didn't take all that many people either.

[American Patriot]

I don't think the Americans are being "heavy handed". Remember, none of this would be necessary if the rebels stopped harassing the U.S. troops. Fullujah is a rat’s nest of thugs and bandits that should’ve been cleaned up earlier. The idea of warfare is to crush your enemies absolutely and impart your will on the one’s still alive. The current “negotiations” are stupid and will only result in more coalition deaths. If I was the general, I would order at least 2 more battalions and storm the city – preferably at night backed up with AC-130s, Apaches, A-10s and F-16s. I don’t really understand why there are currently negotiations with these terrorists - they only understand violence and death.

If the Marines storm the city they will have to level every building or face hundreds of casualties. The best chance is to negotiate with insurgents to try to quell their anger.

[BlackRain]

All I determined from this story is that Telegraph sourced one "senior" British military member.

Again, the same story. Americans are buffoons and see the world in over simplistic terms (i.e. all Iraqi's are bad guys). Its amazing that Americans even know how to walk erect according to this story.

If you publish stuff like this, name names. If the British senior leadership really believes this, (I doubt it) then be man enough to identify yourselves.

Otherwise, most people would view your statements as petty sniping and professional jealousy.

[Brozozo]

All I determined from this story is that Telegraph sourced one "senior" British military member.

Again, the same story. Americans are buffoons and see the world in over simplistic terms (i.e. all Iraqi's are bad guys). Its amazing that Americans even know how to walk erect according to this story.

If you publish stuff like this, name names. If the British senior leadership really believes this, (I doubt it) then be man enough to identify yourselves.

Otherwise, most people would view your statements as petty sniping and professional jealousy.

Great post!

[Gordon]

I don't think the Americans are being "heavy handed". Remember, none of this would be necessary if the rebels stopped harassing the U.S. troops. Fullujah is a rat’s nest of thugs and bandits that should’ve been cleaned up earlier. The idea of warfare is to crush your enemies absolutely and impart your will on the one’s still alive. The current “negotiations” are stupid and will only result in more coalition deaths. If I was the general, I would order at least 2 more battalions and storm the city – preferably at night backed up with AC-130s, Apaches, A-10s and F-16s. I don’t really understand why there are currently negotiations with these terrorists - they only understand violence and death.

To start with, that maybe the idea of warfare but this aint a war no more man, this is the building of a democracy where none was before. The people who are fighting the coalition aren't soldiers, they're civilians or insurgents, and probably a few terrorists mixed in, but don't make the mistake of lumping them all into the terrorist group ... 'cos they're not.

Your recommendations are not totally intelligent, you reckon we should send in bunch of troops to wipe out the city, sounds kinda nazi'ish to me but anyway. If you're trying to rebuild this country and turn it into a democracy don't you think it would be good to leave some people to actually populate this place after you're done?

[MaDuce]

Iraq will never become a democracy it doesn't fit in with the arab mentality.

[Brozozo]

Iraq will never become a democracy it doesn't fit in with the arab mentality.

The Arab mentality doesn't really embrace democracy...

[American Patriot]

Remember Muqtard al-Sadr started this, not us. The Arab mentality is to always blame the Americans, even when we try to help their country.

[American Patriot]

The solution is to wipe out those who have crossed the rubicon and pledged to fight and die for Allah or whatever. There is no other solution.

[SeanAshi]

When will people start to condemn the Iraqis?

[tacticalmanta]

remember to smother them in pig guts first so they may not enter paradise

[Gordon]

All I determined from this story is that Telegraph sourced one "senior" British military member.

Again, the same story. Americans are buffoons and see the world in over simplistic terms (i.e. all Iraqi's are bad guys). Its amazing that Americans even know how to walk erect according to this story.

If you publish stuff like this, name names. If the British senior leadership really believes this, (I doubt it) then be man enough to identify yourselves.

Otherwise, most people would view your statements as petty sniping and professional jealousy.

Would be a great post if you had a leg to stand on here. Sounds all nice and fluffy and aint you a proud guy. I would be with you here but i've read stuff coming from an "unidentified, high ranking official in the American military / administration", that's been posted on this site, so many times. Basically the post may be petty sniping and professional jealousy, the guy was just posting an article, but your points about what makes it so are invalid and happen on both sides of the Atlantic.

[MaDuce]

I'm talking in a more deeper anthrapological sense. Arabs are taped back in the glory days of the Islamic empire streched from the middle east to Spain. They long to restre that glory at any cost. Many western raised well educated arabs who are other wise good people priase jihad and suicide bombing. They also are reluctent to trust anyone outside their tribe a tradition that has existed since they where nomads.

[Gordon]

Iraq will never become a democracy it doesn't fit in with the arab mentality.

Nice to know, maybe you should let GW know about this because if you haven't noticed that's his plan of what's meant to happen.

[Brozozo]

remember to smother them in pig guts first so they may not enter paradise

A very important point to remember!

[Chasseur_Alpin]

Remember Muqtard al-Sadr started this, not us. The Arab mentality is to always blame the Americans, even when we try to help their country.

They need to stop viewing every Iraqi, every Arab as the enemy and attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people.

no comment...

I'm not anti-american or anti-war.
I just think US soldiers are making some errors and need change their attitude with iraqi people.

[HELEX]

There is a german Source with the same Story, their source is a british General... but also no name.

But when you read some american Posts in this Forum, its not very hard to believe the Iraqis are seen as "untermenschen" by them.

My 2c...

[MaDuce]

Remember Muqtard al-Sadr started this, not us. The Arab mentality is to always blame the Americans, even when we try to help their country.

They need to stop viewing every Iraqi, every Arab as the enemy and attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people.

no comment...

I'm not anti-american or anti-war.
I just think US soldiers are making some errors and need change their attitude with iraqi people.

Juedao-Christen culture is compatibal with the Islamic world its that simple.

[Trident-za]

But when you read some american Posts in this Forum, its not very hard to believe the Iraqis are seen as "untermenschen" by them.

My 2c...

I was thinking the same thing......

[Trident-za]

Iraq will never become a democracy it doesn't fit in with the arab mentality.

Well, what the hell is the coalition doing then - wasting their time? I was under the impression the coalition was aiming at building a democratic, stable Iraq. Now you say it can't be done?

By the way, I don't entirely diasagree with you. I think a democratic Iraq is possible, but it will take decades to achieve.... not just because of cultural differences though.

Edit: I know there are some guys on this forum who have worked and lived with "arab or iraqi people" (Beowulf is one, I think?). I'd love to hear their thoughts on the matter... I personally don't know much about them.

[cut]

Iraq will never become a democracy it doesn't fit in with the arab mentality.

:roll:

What are our soldiers dying for then?

[Spearin]

The United States will never win this campaign in Iraq by leveling Fallujah.

Yes, they need to defeat those who are rising up against them, but at the same time should have a heavy concentratration on 'Hearts and Minds.' I think that is what this British General is saying.

You're not going to destroy these insurgents by killing innocent civilians. They should be more careful or else there will be a rise in Anti-American mentality among a larger number of Iraqis.

If a house gets blown up accidentally or a mosque is destroyed... those who are affected by it will further dislike the Americans and join in the insurgency.

There is also the possibility of the Sunnis and Shi'ites joining together to fight the Americans. Once they have rid their common enemy, they would most likely turn on each other in Civil War to determine who would become the ruling power... then it would be back to before the war.

I do tend to agree with this British Officer in concentrating on the 'Hearts and Minds' and less on the heavy firepower. You need precision and there is nothing more precise than the Infantry. They will not make as big amount of collaterol damage than Tanks or Helicopters or Artillery, which is more essential in such a crucial time. Soldiers will die, but they took that risk when they swore their allegiance to their country. It has to be done in order to be successful in this campaign.

[MaDuce]

They went in with all good intentions and all. At first I thouaght it could be done becuase I thoaught Iraq was realativly secular. Who knows myabe it will happen it won't happen over night.

[cut]

Yes.. let's not forget how well the Bristish do with surpressing the Islamic militants.. the Arabs threw feces at the British as they fled Egypt with their tails between their legs.


Suez? or colonial times?

[chauncy republicans]

There is a german Source with the same Story, their source is a british General... but also no name.

But when you read some american Posts in this Forum, its not very hard to believe the Iraqis are seen as "untermenschen" by them.

My 2c...
Yeah! Americans love Iraqi's. We only want to make their lives better. I dont understand... why the dont they want Wal-Mart or why dont they want McDonalds on every corner? Are they crazy!? They dont like McDonalds! They must be sub-human...what kind of person doesnt like McDonalds!!?? And not to mention they shoot at us! What kind of person defends his lifestyle in the face of a foreign invader!!?? Thay are barbarians! To try and protect their culture...how dare them...dirty dogs!
Yeah! Americans just want to help Iraqi's... :oops: :roll: :oops:

[Korth]

:bash: no more this s#i#... Remember the Americans in Somalia. Please do not only think who posted it but also what was posted.

You forget to mention that it was Bill Clinton, a former hippie, that was in the white house.

A republican administration would have be much stronger.

[radon]

I dont think it matters, you said it yourself , another administration would have possibly been stronger and all

[cut]

:bash: no more this s#i#... Remember the Americans in Somalia. Please do not only think who posted it but also what was posted.

You forget to mention that it was Bill Clinton, a former hippie, that was in the white house.

A republican administration would have be much stronger.

thick-headed is more appropriate, there was a choice to pull out in somalia, it would be much harder to do that in Iraq.

[Trident-za]

The United States will never win this campaign in Iraq by leveling Fallujah.

Yes, they need to defeat those who are rising up against them, but at the same time should have a heavy concentratration on 'Hearts and Minds.' I think that is what this British General is saying.

You're not going to destroy these insurgents by killing innocent civilians. They should be more careful or else there will be a rise in Anti-American mentality among a larger number of Iraqis.

If a house gets blown up accidentally or a mosque is destroyed... those who are affected by it will further dislike the Americans and join in the insurgency.

There is also the possibility of the Sunnis and Shi'ites joining together to fight the Americans. Once they have rid their common enemy, they would most likely turn on each other in Civil War to determine who would become the ruling power... then it would be back to before the war.

I do tend to agree with this British Officer in concentrating on the 'Hearts and Minds' and less on the heavy firepower. You need precision and there is nothing more precise than the Infantry. They will not make as big amount of collaterol damage than Tanks or Helicopters or Artillery, which is more essential in such a crucial time. Soldiers will die, but they took that risk when they swore their allegiance to their country. It has to be done in order to be successful in this campaign.

These are all good points.

The problem, I think, is that Iraq is not purely a military campaign - it has several political and military components : the war on terror, destroying the bad guys etc AND making sure that Iraq is a stable, democratic and pro-western country. In addition, there are the "political issues at home" for the military to consider.... too many body bags and Bush looks bad.

This causes problems because what makes sense from a military point of view often screws up the political objectives. From a purely military point of view (and ignoring moral debates), wiping out Falluja makes sense. From a "politics at home" point of view, low casaulties make sense, which kinda ties in with the military objectives. But .... this approach would, in my opinion, completely and utterly screw up any chance of achieving the primary political objectives. If they level Falluja, they might as well pack up and go home.

So.... in the grand scheme of things, the military is treading a tightrope. In order to achieve political objectives, they have to put up with less than satisfactory "working conditions". Casaulties will be higher, but you might then actually achieve the objectives...

As ever, the men on the sharp end suffer for the politics.... has it ever been different?

[Saranof]

I don't think the Americans are being "heavy handed". Remember, none of this would be necessary if the rebels stopped harassing the U.S. troops. Fullujah is a rat’s nest of thugs and bandits that should’ve been cleaned up earlier. The idea of warfare is to crush your enemies absolutely and impart your will on the one’s still alive. The current “negotiations” are stupid and will only result in more coalition deaths. If I was the general, I would order at least 2 more battalions and storm the city – preferably at night backed up with AC-130s, Apaches, A-10s and F-16s. I don’t really understand why there are currently negotiations with these terrorists - they only understand violence and death.

You forget that many of these people are pissed of at the US because the US army did nasty things to them/ someone they knew. Blasting the crap out of some more of thier innocent relatives (to get at the bad guys) will just be contra productive. You'll just create more terrorists. Remember the old saying, you can kill the guy, but you can't kill the idea.
I say you kill terorism with a combination of bombs and aid. Bomb Saddam out- fine. If yeh don't do what you promised to do afer that, people are gonna get pissed.
It helps that a rather sinister cleric yells abuse and works people up.. :|

[Trident-za]

They dont like McDonalds! They must be sub-human...what kind of person doesnt like McDonalds!!?? And not to mention they shoot at us! What kind of person defends his lifestyle in the face of a foreign invader!!?? Thay are barbarians! To try and protect their culture...how dare them...dirty dogs!


These are good points all too often overlooked....

[Sergeant]

I think the problem is that these insurgents and other combatants enjoy too much acceptance amongst Iraqi civilians. It's a difficult thing to beat, you can never kill every enemy. The biggest problem is, that many Iraqi civilians see the rebels actions acceptable and not as keeping their country back.

Being heavy handed is a small problem for sure, but I think what we should concentrate on is how to, yes, win those hearts and minds. That would start from thinking how can we make Iraqis really condemn the actions of resistance. They must not see it as patriotic, or defending them from infidels.

The resistance will never stop, not while coalition forces are in Iraqi soil. If not Iraqis, international terrorism groups will infiltrate as long as coalition forces are in the country. They can be only stopped, like terrorism, by killing the support. Everyone must come to the winning team, and not have any sympathies for the rebels. Once they lack support, they are beaten. Mission impossible? I don't know. But that's the key in my opinion, and only way to achieve victory.

Small steps has been taken. Building their own police force and army is the way to go. With propaganda.

[One?]

Helicopter gunships firing into urban areas? Is that all they got?

No rapes or mass graves? Pffffft. Try again bitches.

so its ok to kill, but killing and raping is wrong. Oh wait thats democracy i forgot :cantbeli:

[One?]

Iraq will never become a democracy it doesn't fit in with the arab mentality.

The Arab mentality doesn't really embrace democracy...

but somehow lebanon is a democracy....



Remember Muqtard al-Sadr started this, not us. The Arab mentality is to always blame the Americans, even when we try to help their country.

no the US started it when they closed down his newspaper, shot the protestors, and arrested someone from his office.

[IDFM203]

Iraq will never become a democracy it doesn't fit in with the arab mentality.

The Arab mentality doesn't really embrace democracy...

but somehow lebanon is a democracy....

what? :roll: No they are a show of a democracy that is it

Syria pulls all the real strings there.

Hell the Lebanese “president” takes his real orders from assad and you know it as well as I do.

I mean for example, didn’t Syria in the ealy 90’s kill off a lot of christian politicians and even now if anyone talks out, well lets say that doesnt happne that often there!

Also while certainly Muslims have some representation there, Christians do not or not as much as the Muslims there.

I mean its not like anyone can get elected there, not at all unless of course Syria approves of their nomination.

But yes Lebanon is the closest thing to any democracy in the middle east (even though it isn’t any real democracy).

Shalom :D

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

but somehow lebanon is a democracy....

Yeah, whatever. The twenty thousand Syrian troops stationed there define the 'democratic process' in that country. Check your facts before talking through your arse.

[Korth]

Your recommendations are not totally intelligent, you reckon we should send in bunch of troops to wipe out the city, sounds kinda nazi'ish to me

You forget that it was the British (like yourself) that firebombed Dresden with the intention of wiping out all of the people that lived there.

[foxtrot023]

I'm talking in a more deeper anthrapological sense. Arabs are taped back in the glory days of the Islamic empire streched from the middle east to Spain.

Make that Southern Spain. Thank you.

[Korth]

:bash: no more this s#i#... Remember the Americans in Somalia. Please do not only think who posted it but also what was posted.

You forget to mention that it was Bill Clinton, a former hippie, that was in the white house.

A republican administration would have be much stronger.

thick-headed is more appropriate, there was a choice to pull out in somalia, it would be much harder to do that in Iraq.


It was Bill Clinton that was thick headed. My information is that he ordered the US military to not use armor, nor the AC-130 gunships. Which is why they had to use the Pakistani M-113's to rescue their own troops.

Pulling out of Somalia gave Al Qaida a victory as they were supporting the Somalian warlords against Western forces there. That victory made the Islamic terrorists bolder, thus bringing on more Islamic terrorism against Western targets.

[Korth]

Iraq will never become a democracy it doesn't fit in with the arab mentality.

The Arab mentality doesn't really embrace democracy...

but somehow lebanon is a democracy....



Remember Muqtard al-Sadr started this, not us. The Arab mentality is to always blame the Americans, even when we try to help their country.

no the US started it when they closed down his newspaper, shot the protestors, and arrested someone from his office.

You are so ignorant and stupid. Here are the facts, read and learn.

The Lebanese government is more or less controlled by Syria.

This religious fanatic is wanted for murder and his newspaper was calling for violence. That **** would not even be allowed in Canada.

[cut]

:bash: no more this s#i#... Remember the Americans in Somalia. Please do not only think who posted it but also what was posted.

You forget to mention that it was Bill Clinton, a former hippie, that was in the white house.

A republican administration would have be much stronger.

thick-headed is more appropriate, there was a choice to pull out in somalia, it would be much harder to do that in Iraq.


It was Bill Clinton that was thick headed. My information is that he ordered the US military to not use armor, nor the AC-130 gunships. Which is why they had to use the Pakistani M-113's to rescue their own troops.

Pulling out of Somalia gave Al Qaida a victory as they were supporting the Somalian warlords against Western forces there. That victory made the Islamic terrorists bolder, thus bringing on more Islamic terrorism against Western targets.

What was the point of being in Somalia the only reason why you are against it is because you are american or the kind of scum that prefers another country over their own. The only reason why conservative minded people have a problem with a withdrawl from somalia, is national pride, having to give up against some petty somalian warlords, is an embaressment. That is true but the war itself was a liberalist-idealist war, i.e. a "let's make the world a happy place" war, not a realist war. Iraq is a realist war, real targets, realistic objects, and most important of all from a realist point of view, REAL GAINS.

If you are a realist there was no point to the war in somalia, make the area more stable, lessen the need for aid in the area perhaps, but those are minor, they are not real gains. And GWB knows that, he would have pulled out of Somalia too, or even better not gone ther in the first place. So stop whinging about Clinton, who was a lot less anal lefty than he could have been.

[ogukuo72]

The Brits are right - the tactics employed by US forces are NOT working. Instead, the tactics are alienating the Iraqis and the world.

A comparison to Vietnam is irresistable here, but not for the reasons liberal press is hyping upon. In order for the US to win, it must adopt tactics that not only guarantee military victory, but also win over the local population - AND maintain a political consensus in the US to remain committed to see the war till its end.

At the moment, this is not happening. The tactics are not creating a situation that will pacify the population - instead, it is inflaming opinions on the ground. Even more crucially, the fragile consensus in the US is fraying.

My worst fear is that the US will repeat what it did in Vietnam. In its desperation to win the war by Christmas (or, rather, by 4th Nov), it will pull out all the stops and go in blasting. Just as in Vietnam, this will produce precisely the opposite effect of alienating the population and breaking the consensus back home.

Tread carefully.

[Fox2]

I'm talking in a more deeper anthrapological sense. Arabs are taped back in the glory days of the Islamic empire streched from the middle east to Spain. They long to restre that glory at any cost. Many western raised well educated arabs who are other wise good people priase jihad and suicide bombing. They also are reluctent to trust anyone outside their tribe a tradition that has existed since they where nomads.

That is one of the most unintelligent posts I've read on this forum, and that is saying something.

That is like writing;


Caucasians, always reminiscing of the past, long to restore the glory of their Nazi empire, at any cost. Many well-educated Caucasians who are otherwise good people praise Hitler's reign and genocide.

It makes no sense.

I thought that, as a society, we had learned that generalizations based on the color of one's skin do not work. Guess not. :roll:

[Korth]

The point is that you don't run from an enemy. It makes you look weak and that brings more contempt from you enemies, thus inviting more attacks.

These attacks come against all Westerners and not just the USA.

[cut]

I'm talking in a more deeper anthrapological sense. Arabs are taped back in the glory days of the Islamic empire streched from the middle east to Spain. They long to restre that glory at any cost. Many western raised well educated arabs who are other wise good people priase jihad and suicide bombing. They also are reluctent to trust anyone outside their tribe a tradition that has existed since they where nomads.

That is one of the most unintelligent posts I've read on this forum, and that is saying something.

That is like writing;


Caucasians, always reminiscing of the past, long to restore the glory of their Nazi empire, at any cost. Many well-educated Caucasians who are otherwise good people praise Hitler's reign and genocide.

It makes no sense.

I thought that, as a society, we had learned that generalizations based on the color of one's skin do not work. Guess not. :roll:

absolutely right, MaDuce is a serial offender when it comes to this his posts claim an arab genetic/cultural problem everytime. I find it disgusting.

[cut]

The point is that you don't run from an enemy. It makes you look weak and that brings more contempt from you enemies, thus inviting more attacks.

These attacks come against all Westerners and not just the USA.

Somalis are not worth beating, it makes no difference here nor there.

[Korth]

The Arabs are caucasion, just been out in the sun long enough to get dark is all. This is true for India too.

The war is cultural, a clash of civilizations rather than race.

[ibstolidude]

Iraq will never become a democracy it doesn't fit in with the arab mentality.

:roll:

What are our soldiers dying for then?

Why are yours?

Tacky question isn't it?

[Korth]

The point is that you don't run from an enemy. It makes you look weak and that brings more contempt from you enemies, thus inviting more attacks.

These attacks come against all Westerners and not just the USA.

Somalis are not worth beating, it makes no difference here nor there.

You mean that the Somali's are not worth helping, which is why international forces went over there in the first place.

Regardless, the Somali warlords had to be beaten when the fight was on. One must be strong against ones enemies. If you show weakness, they will be all over you like a pack of wolves.

[cut]

The point is that you don't run from an enemy. It makes you look weak and that brings more contempt from you enemies, thus inviting more attacks.

These attacks come against all Westerners and not just the USA.

Somalis are not worth beating, it makes no difference here nor there.

They are not worth helping, which is why international forces went over there in the first place. BTW, this is what your post really means about not going over there.

Regardless, the Somalis had to be beaten when the fight was on. One must be strong against ones enemies. If you show weakness, they will be all over you like a pack of wolves.

they are not worth helping, in terms of $$$ but I'm only a partial realist, not helping them would be hardcore realism, the neo-cons are the closest US administration to hardcore realism, it's what happens when you are the undisputed at the top of the pile, think Roman empire, British empire and now US "NWO".

[Korth]

Neo-Cons are idealists, remember that it was a neo-con administration (Bush Sr.) that got the US over there in the first place.

The hardnosed realists are the traditional conservatives, who loathe the neo-cons as being too liberal and internationalist.

[cut]

Neo-Cons are idealists, remember that it was a neo-con administration (Bush Sr.) that got the US over there in the first place.

The hardnosed realists are the traditional conservatives, who loathe the neo-cons as being too liberal and internationalist.

That makes sense, but dubya is hardly following what Bush snr set out in his NWO speach to the UN in 1990, is he?

So I was wrong saying that neo-cons are a close hardcore realist, what I meant was the current Bush administration. I'm confused by people calling this administration neo-con, it doesn't make sense.

[usa320]

This will make the liberals here throw a **** fit, but if you ask me we arent being heavy handed enough...

THis whole hearts and minds thing worked in most of the country, but in Fallujah the only way to take control is with force. Its all brutal people like them understand.

Also- in regards to the insurgents in fallujah- could it be possible that all the elements of Fedayeen Saddam that disappeared after the war have ALL regrouped in Fallujah, aided by forgeign terrorists and Iranian specials...to make a sorta last stand.

[Korth]

The neo-cons are not as starry eyed idealists as the liberal democrats, but they are much more liberal and internationalist than the traditional conservatives who were isolationists before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.

[usa320]

It was Bill Clinton that was thick headed. My information is that he ordered the US military to not use armor, nor the AC-130 gunships. Which is why they had to use the Pakistani M-113's to rescue their own troops.

Pulling out of Somalia gave Al Qaida a victory as they were supporting the Somalian warlords against Western forces there. That victory made the Islamic terrorists bolder, thus bringing on more Islamic terrorism against Western targets.

Pulling out of Somalia showed the militants that we didnt have the stomache for casualties, the legs for long missions, or the balls to fight where the hide. More or less it showed them that they could get away with an attack on the US, and the attack on the Cole and African Embassies only confirmed that belief that we wouldnt do anything about it.

[cut]

This will make the liberals here throw a **** fit, but if you ask me we arent being heavy handed enough...

THis whole hearts and minds thing worked in most of the country, but in Fallujah the only way to take control is with force. Its all brutal people like them understand.

Also- in regards to the insurgents in fallujah- could it be possible that all the elements of Fedayeen Saddam that disappeared after the war have ALL regrouped in Fallujah, aided by forgeign terrorists and Iranian specials...to make a sorta last stand.

Why don't you try it out, if you like a gamble that is, but frankly, the coaltion don't stand to gain much, from this so it isn't worth the risk, try it if you are happy being the only army in Iraq. The US government would never do that because as soon as the rest of the coalition leaves, the risk is too high for the US.

[WolverineBlue]

Winning hearts and minds -- for those who doubt the capability of the USA to accomplish WHAM, look at Japan.

[Spearin]

The thing is that the America doesn't like the casualties; they must understand that does happen. The Politicians and Higher ups are no help, calling these insurgents 'thugs and criminals' or whatever the lingo of the day is.

I with you, usa320, when you say that the Fedayeen Saddam are probably regrouping in Fallujah and I also agree that they should be taken out with force because there is no other way.

However, it is to what degree of force is used. I don't think America needs to use all this high-tech expensive and powerful kit to do it either. They need the individual soldiers there to take out the insurgents and not try to blow them all up and take out civilians in the process.

It costs American lives, but in the long run provides a better chance at winning the valuable 'Hearts and Minds' of the Iraqis because you wouldn't be as destructive in the process.

Unfortunately, politics comes into the matter. I think it was a mistake that G.W. Bush announced major hostilities to be over in Iraq and the war to be 'over,' because in reality, it is still going. It never ended and it will last. If they are going to go on with the political process, they must deal with the military side first, then make promises.

[tacticalmanta]

Yes.. let's not forget how well the Bristish do with surpressing the Islamic militants.. the Arabs threw feces at the British as they fled Egypt with their tails between their legs.


Suez? or colonial times?

After WWII

[Ichhabe]

Yes.. let's not forget how well the Bristish do with surpressing the Islamic militants.. the Arabs threw feces at the British as they fled Egypt with their tails between their legs.


Suez? or colonial times?

After WWII

I hope it is not the Suez war of 1956 he is talking about.

[Spearin]

I hope he has done some research before posting.

[tacticalmanta]

no, before Suez... After WW2.. as in AFTER WW2 many foreigners were expelled from Egypt. Don't need to do secondary research, I have primary sources.. both from the flingers and from the expelled.

WTF!

It is quite clear the British Empire failed miserably concerning the Arabs. Churchill was a moron for ripping-up the Balfour Decree. It was fun to see spitfire wreckage in Israel.

[DPGLAW]

"Heavy-Handed".....that has to be the one of the most ridiculous comments I have heard about the war to date. We (the United States) have been very careful in tageting those who wish to harm us, which unfortunately in some cases happens to be entire towns, using percision strikes, targeted raids, the surgical applications of our Special Operations Forces, highly advanced technoogy (ie. sensors. "Gunshot Locaters").

If anything we have been too easy on those who commit these acts as well as those who support them. Perhaps if we hit back with spectacular violence, speed, and overwhelming firepower the enemy will see how easy it is for us to eradicate them and will realize the futility of their actions..in otherwords, beat them into submission.

I know that this may be an unpopular opinion with many on here but the lighter, easier (for lack of a better word) responses have not been working and our soldiers keep dying, we need to try something else.

[usa320]

What DPGLAW is very true. We arent heavy handed in General. We arent some Rambo cowboys blowing up everything. We are heavy handed with precision when necessary.

[Milkman]

Yeah! Americans love Iraqi's. We only want to make their lives better. I dont understand... why the dont they want Wal-Mart or why dont they want McDonalds on every corner? Are they crazy!? They dont like McDonalds! They must be sub-human...what kind of person doesnt like McDonalds!!?? And not to mention they shoot at us! What kind of person defends his lifestyle in the face of a foreign invader!!?? Thay are barbarians! To try and protect their culture...how dare them...dirty dogs!
Yeah! Americans just want to help Iraqi's... :oops: :roll: :oops:
Dude... McDonalds sucks. Whataburger owns them anyday. ;)

[obd]

"Americans seem to think of Iraq as a bandit country where everyone is out to kill them" according to anonymous British officer.

Hmm well maybe that because we have the lions share of the most hositle patrol duties in Iraq... I'd seriously like to see how British troops feel towards Iraqi's after 600 of them are killed by roadside bombs and ambushes..............

Jeez, I hate it when people who have the luxury of saying they can do things better say so but then dont back it up... Maybe the Brits should take over duties in the "Triangle" and see how the average British trooper feels about Iraqis after 6 months duty getting sniped at and bombed every day.......

Im not even sure if this "anonymous Officer" but is real. You know how the papers are about getting stories these days...... I have a hard time thinking a British officer would be so stupid...

[WolverineBlue]

David Beckham is laying some serious pipe in Madrid though.

[Uncle Chô]

What DPGLAW is very true. We arent heavy handed in General. We arent some Rambo cowboys blowing up everything. We are heavy handed with precision when necessary.
rofl rofl

USA 320, this is History. It is the way the American Army fights since WWII. There are countless examples. You could agree or not, these are facts.

You guys are unbelievable :D

[Mike 1-3]

From what I have seen, heard and read, I tend to agree with this "anonymous British officer".

I beg you all not to take this in a wrong way. I'm not opposed to the U.S., and neither am I any "typical anti-war hippie leftist Euro". And I must apologize in advance for my insufficient command of English language and for possible misunderstandings caused by it.

Most certainly, by virtue of your equipment, size and training (ie your funding), your armed forces are without equal in conventional warfare, as your drive to Baghdad demonstrated.

But I do think that in general, the U.S. armed forces of today are not the best peace-keepers and nation builders, which incidentally is precisely what is required in Iraq.

I wish the "war on terror" would be so simple a matter as to just blow all those resisting into tiny pieces. But it is not. This war has very little in common to any world wars and oft-seen allegories don't work. There is no nation-state to batter into submission, only so-called non-state actors like insurgents, terrorist groups and ordinary people caught in the events.

In this fourth generation warfare, image is everything and tactical decisions can and do have strategic and political consequences.

For example, use of heavy fire support in build-up areas (a common thing in WW2) will today undoubtedly cause unrest in Iraq and even abroad. Note that I don't judge whether it is right or wrong; in terms of protecting your soldier's lives it is most likely the right thing to do, but winning a battle - however decisively - may ultimately lose a war as TET offensive and Somalia demonstrated. Body count means nothing, only the end results do.

This is just an example. Intelligent readers can undoubtedly come up with other examples.

A civilian who loses his property or relatives to an American bomb or even to a bomb meant to kill Americans (since that, in a quite understandable twist of logic, wouldn't have happened if there were no Americans around) is rather more likely to support terrorists and insurgents. I think that point many people don't realize is that terrorism cannot be fought with terror, if any enduring results are to be achieved.

A child of one killed by foreigners is not likely to put aside her hate just because his mom or dad was "unfortunate but acceptable collateral damage". And more people one kills, more hate one breeds.

Terrorism grows from political and economic despair and is fuelled by stories - true or false - of Western arrogance and hostility. When the first two factors can be remedied, the third´s effect will most likely diminish.

For further reading, I recommend the excellent book "Shield of Achilles" by Philip Bobbitt, and a net search on "fourth-generation warfare".

But what are my reasons to criticize the U.S, you may ask?

I do care about Iraqi civilians' lives as I do care about any human being's.

But the main reason I'm worried about recent events is because I have sworn to protect the citizens of my country. Based on evidence on hand I do honestly believe that

a) situation in Iraq and its current treatment incites more terrorism and makes the world a little less secure and
b) an U.S. attack and occupation of an Middle-Eastern country is almost exactly what I would have wanted to achieve with 9/11 attacks, were I this elusive Osama Bin Laden (I think that the only thing better suited to his plans would have been an invasion of Saudi Arabia with its holy places etc).

Yet now that the forces are committed, there should be no turning back. The U.S. should not pull out of Iraq by any means, although I fear they in effect if not officially do so too soon in the future. I can only hope that your (and our) cause prevails, although I believe it would have better odds if the methods used were a tad different.

Remember, my American friends, that true friend is not the one who agrees with everything you say. That is called a sycophant or brown-tongue, I believe.

True friend is one who has courage to say it aloud if she thinks that you are making a mistake.

Although I agree, there is too much gloating and told-you-sos around.

In any case, good luck to all those in harm's way or heading there. Stay safe, Mike 1-3 signing off for now.

[grendel]

Interesting discussion. There is a similar discussion going on in another forum. (http://63.99.108.76/ubb/Forum2/HTML/005915.html)
It's worth having a look-see ;) .

[tacticalmanta]

It's going to be funny when Europe will be conquered by Islam. I am sure their fear of being heavy-handed has already ensure their fate.


I give you the international symbol of Europe (should be pink): (|)

[Gringo]

Th thing is Britain has learned a lot of these kind of situations in the 20th century. Malaya, Borneo, Northern Ireland are prime examples of fighting off the enemy using the minimum of force.

British forces used hearts and minds tactics in Malaya and Borneo so the communist terrorists and indonesians lost all support from the local people. And if I remember correctly, not a bomb was dropped from the RAF in the Borneo conflict (I could be wrong).
Northern Ireland was most difficult, the ROE was very strict. British Soldiers would had been up for murder if they shot a terrorist dead if they didn't follow the correct ROE procedure.
I do condemn 'Bloody Sunday', and to some extent the incident in Gibralter.

tacticalmanta, u are obviously just looking for every excuse to bash Brits.

I do condemn some tactics that are being used by the US in Falluja. And I do condemn the insurgents tactics also.

The US and UK have some very different tactics in war:
US fight wars with the maximum of force
UK fight wars with the minimum of force

When the British surrounded Basra and waited for the right moment to strike. While the US did a 'Blitzkrieg' type assault.

oh and chauncy republicans; I hate McDonalds :P , so that would make me sub-human?

[big_les]

It is quite clear the British Empire failed miserably concerning the Arabs. Churchill was a moron for ripping-up the Balfour Decree. It was fun to see spitfire wreckage in Israel.

&

It's going to be funny when Europe will be conquered by Islam. I am sure their fear of being heavy-handed has already ensure their fate.


I give you the international symbol of Europe (should be pink): (|)

What exactly is your major malfunction?

[California Joe]

There is a point that everyone seems to be missing, no matter how "Heavy Handed" the US is we will never be as heavy handed as Saddam was. That's a fact. Maybe Iraqis were willing to accept brutality of an infinitly higher level from another Iraqi than a western occupying force. I may be wrong but pacifying the Sunni Triangle is going to take a healthy amount of instilling fear in the insurgents and we aren't up to it. They know that we are not going to rape the population and throw prisoners into wood chippers. They aren't likely to fear or respect us anytime soon. There is a disconnect. These are people are used to fearing someone far more evil than we are likely to be.

[-Max2-]

It's going to be funny when Europe will be conquered by Islam. I am sure their fear of being heavy-handed has already ensure their fate.


I give you the international symbol of Europe (should be pink): (|)

Wow, what an intelligent comment... :roll:

http://www.polarbaer.org/stfu.jpg

[wiking]

All i have to say is that i completely agree with mike 1-3 and i would like to point out that the americans has asked Norway, who is considered to have the best training aimed at minimum force peace keeping, to help train american soldiers in peace keeping.

And to all you who make fun of the British Army, have you ever heard of something called the Battle of Omdurman.

In 1881 the Dervish army seized Sudan from the British.
In 1898 an British expeditionary force of some 25 000 men entered Sudan to retake it from the Dervish.
The final battle of this war was fought outside the city of Omdurman, and among many famouse men Winston chuchill fought here.

After the battle the statistics was the folowing:

The Dervish:
10 000 Dead
15 000 wounded
5 000 taken prisoner

The British:
48 Dead
382 wounded

you can read it for yourself at
http://pw1.netcom.com/~reincke/omdurman.html

And to those who say Europe will be taken over by the Muslims;
**** you!
Only way that's gonna happen is if America funds them, like you did to the Russians in Afghanistan.

I have guns and i know how to use them and no one's gonna take over my country as long as i'm alive.

[martinexsquaddie]

responding to a few mortar rounds with artillery is doing the terrorists jobs for them.
if you fighting terrorists in an urban enviroment your going to get the balme for any collaterial damage

[Trident-za]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8403432.htm

Something to think about.....


On television, the children are unmoving, dead in the streets, blood pooling and spreading underneath them.


On radio, announcers accuse Americans of attacking helpless civilians, not even allowing them to move for treatment of their bullet wounds.


In newspapers, the stories ask if the deaths of perhaps hundreds of innocent civilians is not a greater crime than the horrific deaths and mutilations of four Americans.


For the past week, those have been the images, sounds and words that Iraqis have been taking in as everything here has focused on Fallujah.


In this one week, Fallujah has come to symbolize for Iraqis everything that is wrong with the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.


"When the four Americans were murdered, almost all Iraqis were horrified, and understood that the reaction must be strong," said Iraqi journalist Dhrgam Mohammed Ali, referring to the killing March 31 of four private security guards whose bodies were then mutilated, dragged through Fallujah and hung from a bridge.


"But now, we see women and children dying, trying to escape and not being allowed to, and many stop remembering the dead Americans. Instead, they wonder why four dead Americans are worth so much, while hundreds of dead Iraqis are worth so little."



I realize that many here will dismiss this is crap/irrelevent/propoganda etc. But you know? it doesn't matter what you think - it matters what the average Iraqi thinks.... they are getting bombarded with this stuff day in and day out.

[chauncy republicans]

From what I have seen, heard and read, I tend to agree with this "anonymous British officer".

I beg you all not to take this in a wrong way. I'm not opposed to the U.S., and neither am I any "typical anti-war hippie leftist Euro". And I must apologize in advance for my insufficient command of English language and for possible misunderstandings caused by it.

Most certainly, by virtue of your equipment, size and training (ie your funding), your armed forces are without equal in conventional warfare, as your drive to Baghdad demonstrated.

But I do think that in general, the U.S. armed forces of today are not the best peace-keepers and nation builders, which incidentally is precisely what is required in Iraq.

I wish the "war on terror" would be so simple a matter as to just blow all those resisting into tiny pieces. But it is not. This war has very little in common to any world wars and oft-seen allegories don't work. There is no nation-state to batter into submission, only so-called non-state actors like insurgents, terrorist groups and ordinary people caught in the events.

In this fourth generation warfare, image is everything and tactical decisions can and do have strategic and political consequences.

For example, use of heavy fire support in build-up areas (a common thing in WW2) will today undoubtedly cause unrest in Iraq and even abroad. Note that I don't judge whether it is right or wrong; in terms of protecting your soldier's lives it is most likely the right thing to do, but winning a battle - however decisively - may ultimately lose a war as TET offensive and Somalia demonstrated. Body count means nothing, only the end results do.

This is just an example. Intelligent readers can undoubtedly come up with other examples.

A civilian who loses his property or relatives to an American bomb or even to a bomb meant to kill Americans (since that, in a quite understandable twist of logic, wouldn't have happened if there were no Americans around) is rather more likely to support terrorists and insurgents. I think that point many people don't realize is that terrorism cannot be fought with terror, if any enduring results are to be achieved.

A child of one killed by foreigners is not likely to put aside her hate just because his mom or dad was "unfortunate but acceptable collateral damage". And more people one kills, more hate one breeds.

Terrorism grows from political and economic despair and is fuelled by stories - true or false - of Western arrogance and hostility. When the first two factors can be remedied, the third´s effect will most likely diminish.

For further reading, I recommend the excellent book "Shield of Achilles" by Philip Bobbitt, and a net search on "fourth-generation warfare".

But what are my reasons to criticize the U.S, you may ask?

I do care about Iraqi civilians' lives as I do care about any human being's.

But the main reason I'm worried about recent events is because I have sworn to protect the citizens of my country. Based on evidence on hand I do honestly believe that

a) situation in Iraq and its current treatment incites more terrorism and makes the world a little less secure and
b) an U.S. attack and occupation of an Middle-Eastern country is almost exactly what I would have wanted to achieve with 9/11 attacks, were I this elusive Osama Bin Laden (I think that the only thing better suited to his plans would have been an invasion of Saudi Arabia with its holy places etc).

Yet now that the forces are committed, there should be no turning back. The U.S. should not pull out of Iraq by any means, although I fear they in effect if not officially do so too soon in the future. I can only hope that your (and our) cause prevails, although I believe it would have better odds if the methods used were a tad different.

Remember, my American friends, that true friend is not the one who agrees with everything you say. That is called a sycophant or brown-tongue, I believe.

True friend is one who has courage to say it aloud if she thinks that you are making a mistake.

Although I agree, there is too much gloating and told-you-sos around.

In any case, good luck to all those in harm's way or heading there. Stay safe, Mike 1-3 signing off for now.
Great post man!
Oh, and Gringo, (grinds teeth and clentches fists...) what do you mean you dont like McDonalds...dont you want freedom? :D Let us come give you freedom and Wal-Mart!

[Spearin]

Mike 1-3 summed it up very nicely :) Exactly what I've been trying to get across.

[Gringo]

Oh, and Gringo, (grinds teeth and clentches fists...) what do you mean you dont like McDonalds...dont you want freedom? :D Let us come give you freedom and Wal-Mart!

wtf has McDonalds got to do with freedom? And besides, hasn't Wal-Mart bought Woolworths or Asda now?

[chauncy republicans]

Oh, and Gringo, (grinds teeth and clentches fists...) what do you mean you dont like McDonalds...dont you want freedom? :D Let us come give you freedom and Wal-Mart!

wtf has McDonalds got to do with freedom? And besides, hasn't Wal-Mart bought Woolworths or Asda now?
:D I was being sarcastic :lol: I too hate McDonalds, damn chicken sandwich had a bone in it and chipped my tooth!

[Korth]

There is the typical anti-capitalist rants with the references to McDonald's and Wal-Mart. Yet it is capitalism that will bring this people out of their poverty, a poverty incurred by the corruption, incompetence, and failure of the Baath-Socialist regime.

Now that we got that out of the way, let me point out that the US has done much to avoid casualties and that those who say otherwise do not know what they are talking about.

The US has been minimizing collateral damage by using precision weapons. In Fallujah, they have been sending in Marines without having first prepped the urban battlefield with the usual bombardment. Compare Fallujah to the battle of Stalingrad or the taking of Berlin, the US forces have done alot to avoid collateral damage and have put GI's at risk in doing so.

[Spearin]

The US has been minimizing collateral damage by using precision weapons. In Fallujah, they have been sending in Marines without having first prepped the urban battlefield with the usual bombardment. Compare Fallujah to the battle of Stalingrad or the taking of Berlin, the US forces have done alot to avoid collateral damage and have put GI's at risk in doing so.

Precision weapons don't necessarily reduce collaterol damage. Take a 500lb laser guided bomb dropped by an F-16 or something onto a target building... The effects can cause collaterol damage even if it hits where it is intended to be.

I don't know, maybe it is my conservative views or my Infanteer bias, but I don't like the whole reliance on 'precision' weapons. The most precise weapon on the battlefield is an individual soldier. They have a brain that can think whether their rounds are going to hurt innocents or take out the enemy.

[Trident-za]

Now that we got that out of the way, let me point out that the US has done much to avoid casualties and that those who say otherwise do not know what they are talking about.

The US has been minimizing collateral damage by using precision weapons. In Fallujah, they have been sending in Marines without having first prepped the urban battlefield with the usual bombardment. Compare Fallujah to the battle of Stalingrad or the taking of Berlin, the US forces have done alot to avoid collateral damage and have put GI's at risk in doing so.

Please Sir... enlighten us with your vast experience and know-how.

Precision weapons are a good thing, but that doesn't mean they're a good idea. If we dropped a precision 2000lb bomb on your neighbours house, would your own home be damaged?

The point being made in several places is that it's better (in the long run) to rely on infantry weapons. More dangerous for the guys on the ground, unfortunately, but then you must decide whether the point is to save US lives or win this war..... in the long run, precision weapons may just piss off enough people that more US lives are lost.....

[chauncy republicans]

There is the typical anti-capitalist rants with the references to McDonald's and Wal-Mart. Yet it is capitalism that will bring this people out of their poverty, a poverty incurred by the corruption, incompetence, and failure of the Baath-Socialist regime
So...how about I go to Germany, let say I make it communist then how bout I destroy all your current buildings and replace them with mud-brick,
Oh, and now your secular govornment is now Islamic and I think that all women should have to wear veils. How would you like that? How do you think the Iraqi's like it? We replace their socialist economy with capitalism. We destabilize the country by switching the traditional monarchy/dictatorship with democracy, now civil war is about to break out. We will replace their traditional arcitecture with modern builings and McDonalds and Wall-Mart and many other signs of American Corporatism.
NO KORTH...I am not anti-capitalist! I just point out the Misconceptions about this whole spreading Freedom and democracy crap, And why OF COURSE other countrys without our same culture do not want this

[Korth]

You need to go read my post on the battle of Fallujah.

You also need to look at how cities have been traditionally assaulted. The usual method is a few days or even weeks of heavy bombardment before the infantry goes in.

Again, look at the battles of Stalingrad and Berlin. For that matter, go look at the more recent battle in Chechnia.

[Spearin]

You need to go read my post on the battle of Fallujah.

You also need to look at how cities have been traditionally assaulted. The usual method is a few days or even weeks of heavy bombardment before the infantry goes in.

Again, look at the battles of Stalingrad and Berlin. For that matter, go look at the more recent battle in Chechnia.

You cannot compare the Second World War with a Counter-Insurgency.

How many bloody times do I have to say it??

Now, Chechnya... I am not an expert on the matter as I'm sure there are a few here, but from my understanding the war began in 1994. Judging by what you are saying, they used this tactic of 'heavy bombardment' and I don't think they had much success. I'm not saying that the war there was a failure, but from America's goals, they can't carry out a Counter-Insurgency campaign in Iraq and use the same techniques as the Russians in Chechnya.

[tacticalmanta]

It's going to be funny when Europe will be conquered by Islam. I am sure their fear of being heavy-handed has already ensure their fate.


I give you the international symbol of Europe (should be pink): (|)

Wow, what an intelligent comment... :roll:

http://www.polarbaer.org/stfu.jpg

Belgium.. lol.. the AEL already OWNS your pathetic country.

[-Max2-]

The AEL owns us ? :lol:

Damn, you are even more stupid that i thought...

[cut]

It's going to be funny when Europe will be conquered by Islam. I am sure their fear of being heavy-handed has already ensure their fate.


I give you the international symbol of Europe (should be pink): (|)

Wow, what an intelligent comment... :roll:

http://www.polarbaer.org/stfu.jpg

Belgium.. lol.. the AEL already OWNS your pathetic country.

what is the point in you're posts? you just try an stir up ****.

[tacticalmanta]

I just highlight how vacuous many of our European and Chinese members are.. especially the ones with no service. Though, I used to know a Belgian paratrooper with the integrity of a dog turd.

[cut]

I just highlight how vacuous many of our European and Chinese members are.. especially the ones with no service. Though, I used to know a Belgian paratrooper with the integrity of a dog turd.

What's you're problem?

[Gringo]

Oh, and Gringo, (grinds teeth and clentches fists...) what do you mean you dont like McDonalds...dont you want freedom? :D Let us come give you freedom and Wal-Mart!

wtf has McDonalds got to do with freedom? And besides, hasn't Wal-Mart bought Woolworths or Asda now?
:D I was being sarcastic :lol: I too hate McDonalds, damn chicken sandwich had a bone in it and chipped my tooth!

oh I see. They must train the McDonalds staff to con people out of their money too. I went their a couple of months ago for a drink that was like 70p or something like that, I gave the guy a £5 note and only gave me 30p change, I asked him where the rest of it was, and he said I only gave him a £1 coin. A debate ensued and(finally) got the £4 change.

Just because I don't like capitalism doesn't mean I like communism(hate that too).
Capitalism is sometimes good, but it has to have limitations to what it can do. Someone said capitalism can bring people out of poverty, it depends on how generous the guy in charge is.

[M203]

you must decide whether the point is to save US lives or win this war.....


Right on!

[OldRecon]

you must decide whether the point is to save US lives or win this war.....


Right on!

You shouldn't have gone in in the first place.
Would have saved US a lot of troubles.
If Saddam isn't shot in the meantime, he will be dead from cancer within 2 years or so anyway.
Concerning not much in the way of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq after the US invasion (the original reason given for going in), I think we've been well and truly had by Bush jr.
But anyway as he's finishing "dad's job" (and creating a lot of badwill and waste of streght in the process), I guess he's happy no mather the cost.
Never had high thoughts about the practicality schemes of Rumsfeld & co. before the invasion of Iraq (which shows being well educated is no guarantee against living in cloudland), and that hasn't changed along the way for my part.
Beating an enemy army, with what previously would have been unfavourable numercial odds, through deep battle tactis, is one thing.
Occupying a country with the same minuscle force is quite another.
Guess the Roman COIN option (1. beat the army of the opposing barbarian people on the battlefield, 2. kill 1/3 of the barbarians in cold blood, 3. enslave another 1/3, and 4. replace the enslaved 1/3 with Roman citizens and promote assimilation with Rome among the 1/3 that's left) is the only viable option for "Victory" now. Though, as Iraq isn't a nearby Gaul and no common sensed US citizen without previous family links to the place would enjoy the prospect of having to settle there, I guess that option is out too.
If a new government is to be put in place in Iraq, it needs to be recognized and identified with by a majority of the locals.
And as arabs (from my experience) tend to be very touchy about their own dignity, that would have to be taken into consideration also.
Don't aggree at all with the recent spate of kidnappings, and hope the best for the hostages. That doesn't exactly go down well with our Western code of honour. Though thinking "the West" will give in just because of a few 100 hostages, I think is rather optimistic on the part of the local "baddies" (by comparison, how many casualties did the 8th army endure at El Alamein?).
Looking at the present fracas sort of make me remember the comparison by Machiavelli, between conquering the Empire of the Turkish sultan and conquering the French kingdom, with glee.
One thing's for shure, Machiavelli didn't know too much about the functioning of the power structures in the Middle east.

[tacticalmanta]

American has the right to do what it feels is prudent. Europe is too weak to stop us from doing what we recognise as necessary and it hurts their pride. That's all there is to it.

We need to go after Syria next.

[mocking_loudly_died]

American has the right to do what it feels is prudent. Europe is too weak to stop us from doing what we recognise as necessary and it hurts their pride. That's all there is to it.

We need to go after Syria next.

Close your mouth, the stench of **** is to much.

[wiking]

posts like tacticalmanta's above scares the **** out of me.
Everyone here with a minimum of history knowledge knows that if a country has enough of people thinking like this it is the first step towards a major war. By the way, can we have this bloody ignorante yank (no offence to other americans here) banned.

[tacticalmanta]

Nothing is scarier than people who do not see the need to go after Syria.

[Threelions]

Nothing is scarier than people who do not see the need to go after Syria.

BOO!!!! did that scare you? I'm one of these people who doesnt see why the American Empire needs to invade syria. Is it weapons of mass destruction? Al-queda connections? Oh wait, i know, America wants to bring democracy to an oppressed people. Opperation Syrian Freedom!

This idea that America can invade whomever, whenever, for whatever, is the truely scary part. God help us when you lot find out about Canada's supposed weapons of mass destruction, then come and free us from the oppressive regime of Queen Elizabeth. When we turn our backs on the idea of international law we take one more step towards Empire and tyranical rule.

Cheers

[tacticalmanta]

No..

1. It has some Iraqi WMD
2. Hizbullah
3. It occupies Lebanon
4. It is the home of several terrorist organisations
5. It funds several terrorist organisations
6. It has imperial design for Lebanon and Israel
7. It is supplying Suni fighters in Iraq

[Truthsayer]

Joined: 27 Mar 2004
Total posts: 147
[0.07% of total / 8.65 posts per day]


What rock did you crawl up from under?

(The next time you vote for going to war...make sure you are acctually old enough to vote. I highly doubt you are.)

[tacticalmanta]

Are you on crack? I've been serving for roughly 10 years for two differnt countries! I have more trigger time than you have braincells.

[Truthsayer]

Are you on crack? I've been serving for roughly 10 years for two differnt countries! I have more trigger time than you have braincells.

Then I'm mistaken - you are only a sick ****.

My appologies.

[Threelions]

No..

1. It has some Iraqi WMD
2. Hizbullah
3. It occupies Lebanon
4. It is the home of several terrorist organisations
5. It funds several terrorist organisations
6. It has imperial design for Lebanon and Israel
7. It is supplying Suni fighters in Iraq

1. Ahh yes, the mysterious WMD... Would proof of this "fact" be provided in the same manner as that used to invade iraq?
2. Eire hides PIRA RIRA and IRA members, is Eire next after syria?
3. America is the defender of lebanon now?
4. Columbia is the home of terror organizations, and thats closer to the US then syria.
5. Proof please.
6. Imperial design? There not the ones traveling half way round the world to invade nations.
7. Really?? Proof?

Cheers

[OldRecon]

Are you on crack? I've been serving for roughly 10 years for two differnt countries! I have more trigger time than you have braincells.
Which means you by now have reached an age where someone else have to put their life on the limb for your dream of invading Syria.
Hafes Assad is another old dog soon to die from old age or health problems (like Saddam), so why jump into the **** prematurely?
Don't see much of freedom and democracy in the way you formulate yourself under this thread btw.
As forcing democracy on someone at gunpoint, isn't all that democratic in the first place, the odds for succeeding isn't that good or what?

[tacticalmanta]

No..

1. It has some Iraqi WMD
2. Hizbullah
3. It occupies Lebanon
4. It is the home of several terrorist organisations
5. It funds several terrorist organisations
6. It has imperial design for Lebanon and Israel
7. It is supplying Suni fighters in Iraq

1. Ahh yes, the mysterious WMD... Would proof of this "fact" be provided in the same manner as that used to invade iraq?
2. Eire hides PIRA RIRA and IRA members, is Eire next after syria?
3. America is the defender of lebanon now?
4. Columbia is the home of terror organizations, and thats closer to the US then syria.
5. Proof please.
6. Imperial design? There not the ones traveling half way round the world to invade nations.
7. Really?? Proof?

Cheers


1. Sat. intel shows the transfer of said weapons in ambulances. Do a search on the web, you will even find lots of sworn testomy by Syrians and Iraqis attesting to this.

2. Non-issue

3. It's a threat to Israel and a violation of the UN agreement whereby ISrael withdrew from Lebanon.

4. The US has operations in Colombia. The Colombian government is allied with the US in their fight against terror.

5. It's public record that Syria funds Hizbullah

6. See #3

7. See #7

You kind of have to be pretty ignorant or deaf, dumb, and blind not to know these things

[Korth]

4th Marines In Fallujach, Update from unit commander


Update from Lt Co Kennedy

Friends and Family--------An update you may not get from the media.

The last two days have been the hardest two days this battalion has faced in over 30 years. Within the blink of an eye the situation went form relatively calm to a raging storm. You've known that since arriving there has been violence; attacks have been sporadic and mostly limited to roadside bombs. Your husbands have become experts at recognizing those threats and neutralizing them before we are injured. Up to this point the war has been the purview of corporals and sergeants, and the squad they lead.


Yesterday the enemy upped the ante.


Early in the morning we exchanged gunfire with a group of insurgents without significant loss. As morning progressed, the enemy fed more men into the fight and we responded with stronger force. Unfortunately, this led to injuries as our Marines and sailors started clearing the city block by block. The enemy did not run; they fought us like soldiers. And we destroyed the enemy like only Marines can. By the end of the evening the local hospital was so full of their dead and wounded that they ran out of space to put them. Your husbands were awesome all night they stayed at the job of securing the streets and nobody challenged them as the hours wore on. They did not surrender an inch nor did flinch from the next potential threat. Previous to yesterday the terrorist thought that we were soft enough to challenge. As of tonight the message is loud and clear that the Marines will not be beaten.


Today the enemy started all over again, although with far fewer numbers, only now the rest of the battalion joined the fight. Without elaborating too much, weapons company and Golf crushed their attackers with the vengeance of the righteous. They filled up the hospitals again and we suffered only a few injuries. Echo company dominated the previous day's battlefield. Fox company patrolled with confidence and authority; nobody challenged them. Even Headquarters Company manned their stations and counted far fewer people openly watching us with disdain. If the enemy is foolish enough to try to take your men again they will not survive contact. We are here to win.


The news looks grim from back in the States. We did take losses that, in our hearts, we will always live with. The men we lost were taken within the very opening minutes of the violence. They could not have foreseen the treachery of the enemy and they did not suffer. We can never replace these Marines and Sailors but they will fight on with us in spirit. We are not feeling sorry for ourselves nor do we fear what tomorrow will bring. The battalion has lived up to its reputation as Magnificent Bastards.


Yesterday made everyone here stronger and wiser; it will be a cold day in Hell before we are taken for granted again.

[Threelions]

No..

1. It has some Iraqi WMD
2. Hizbullah
3. It occupies Lebanon
4. It is the home of several terrorist organisations
5. It funds several terrorist organisations
6. It has imperial design for Lebanon and Israel
7. It is supplying Suni fighters in Iraq

1. Ahh yes, the mysterious WMD... Would proof of this "fact" be provided in the same manner as that used to invade iraq?
2. Eire hides PIRA RIRA and IRA members, is Eire next after syria?
3. America is the defender of lebanon now?
4. Columbia is the home of terror organizations, and thats closer to the US then syria.
5. Proof please.
6. Imperial design? There not the ones traveling half way round the world to invade nations.
7. Really?? Proof?

Cheers


1. Sat. intel shows the transfer of said weapons in ambulances. Do a search on the web, you will even find lots of sworn testomy by Syrians and Iraqis attesting to this.

2. Non-issue

3. It's a threat to Israel and a violation of the UN agreement whereby ISrael withdrew from Lebanon.

4. The US has operations in Colombia. The Colombian government is allied with the US in their fight against terror.

5. It's public record that Syria funds Hizbullah

6. See #3

7. See #7

You kind of have to be pretty ignorant or deaf, dumb, and blind not to know these things

1) Wow, you must have access to better info then any Goverment agency around. these Mysterious WMD have certainly never been proven to have existed in the latter stages of Saddams regime, let alone been transfered anywhere. Had this been a proven fact the US administration wouldn't have had to justify the war in Iraq by other means. Had this been the case then america wouldnt be facing so much opposition around the world for its invasion. Ask yourself why would iraq want to give weapons to syria? It makes absolutly no sense. "here, cause i'm (saddam) a nice guy i want you syrians to have some WMD"..

I find it amusing that sworn testimony from Iraqis over the transfer of these mysterious weapons is worth listening to, yet prior to the war sworn testimony that the weapons didnt exist was worth nothing. You should be careful of who you refer to as ignorant, deaf, dumb, and blind when you are taking "theories" and applying them as fact.

2) how is this a non issue? Clearly you are arguing the invasion of syria on the bases of a "war on terror". So, i find this to be quite a critical issue.

3) HaHa!!! Cause isreal totally respects all things passed by the un!! Secondly, since when does the USA give a rats ass about the UN, or what it thinks?

4) The US throws some money and some SF troops into columbia. Its very ineffective, cause last time i checked FARC was doing extremly well for itself.

5) i dont know enough about thgis, so perhaps i will give you way on this point.

6)see #3

7)once again. proof??

Cheers,