PDA

View Full Version : The War in Iraq



Lancer44
08-22-2006, 06:02 AM
I get some photos from Iraq and want to share them with you.

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/5665/poliraq2th1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/6020/poliraq4cz4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Polish Mi-24 Hind is taking off from Divanyia Base at the sound of explosions nearby.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/8997/poliraq10nc3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Polish BRDM after ambush.

Lancer44
08-22-2006, 06:11 AM
URL=http://imageshack.us]http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/4346/poliraq5xb5.jpg[/URL]
Polish 1-st Field Hospital.

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/2770/poliraq8sb4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/7091/poliraq7zo2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/9149/togetherrp7.png (http://imageshack.us)

Flags on ORP "Xavery Czernicki" - We fight together...

George Eller
08-22-2006, 02:25 PM
-

Great Pics Lancer - good allies to have ;)

-

SS Tiger
08-22-2006, 06:04 PM
Interesting! Thanks for sharing. What is the device that guy in the second last shot is holding? Some sort of detonator?

Lancer44
08-22-2006, 09:50 PM
Interesting! Thanks for sharing. What is the device that guy in the second last shot is holding? Some sort of detonator?

Doesn't look like anything military. I guess improvised detonating switch.

I heard that most of troubles coalition troops have are because of improvised explosive devices set on the side of the road. Terrorists which had car full of unexploded stuff had also this box in their car.
You can imagine what they were planning.

Lancer44

GermanSoldier
03-15-2007, 03:46 PM
Some pics from Iraq
http://i15.tinypic.com/2iav628.jpg

http://i16.tinypic.com/484f0av.jpg

1000ydstare
03-17-2007, 04:25 AM
Not too sure about the tank in the top picture GermanSoldier.

It appears to be a Challenger (1). Chally 2 is in use by the British Army now, and has been for about for about 10 years.

It also appears to be green and black.

Possibly from Granby (Gulf War One), but doubtful given colour scheme, probably taken during the problems in the Former-Yugoslavia.

Where did you get it from?

cam77
04-14-2007, 09:57 PM
Is it just me or were we foolish to believe we could ever successful invade Iraq?

I look at it from a couple of points of view;

1. Suddam needed to be eliminated.
2. Once this happened we should have left and allowed the people to decide their own future

If I were Iraqi i would have cheered the coalition for their help and politely told them to piss off and get out of my country.

I may be over simplifying the matter but I do understand why these people are fighting back. They see us as an occupying force not unlike the Germans in WWII.

If we removed ourselves and looked in on the situation from an outsiders prospective we would possible see these people as freedom fighter or a resistance movement.

Gutkowski
04-14-2007, 10:27 PM
Is it just me or were we foolish to believe we could ever successful invade Iraq?

I look at it from a couple of points of view;

1. Suddam needed to be eliminated.
2. Once this happened we should have left and allowed the people to decide their own future

If I were Iraqi i would have cheered the coalition for their help and politely told them to piss off and get out of my country.

I may be over simplifying the matter but I do understand why these people are fighting back. They see us as an occupying force not unlike the Germans in WWII.


If we removed ourselves and looked in on the situation from an outsiders prospective we would possible see these people as freedom fighter or a resistance movement.

Welcome to corporate America my friend we don't fight wars to gain peace its all about who's going to make the next dollar in which many billion have been made with this war through our political chain that we have in America .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkTmbkYbS60 This is the reason why this man holds a PHD's in many subjects .

Egorka
04-16-2007, 01:33 AM
Is it just me or were we foolish to believe we could ever successful invade Iraq?

I look at it from a couple of points of view;

1. Suddam needed to be eliminated.
2. Once this happened we should have left and allowed the people to decide their own future


Hi Cam77,

Are you aware that you just blue the Mr.Bush's cover up? It is nice to hear that some people openly acknoledge that the official reasons (the Weapons Of Mass Destruction) was a hoax.

At least it is a beginning...

:)

32Bravo
04-16-2007, 02:58 AM
The last thing Syria and Iran want to see in Iraq (or Afghanistan if it comes to that), is a pro-Western constitutional government feeding cheaper oil to the world. They are both vieing for mastery in the region and will continue to use 'puppets' that come in various forms to de-rail any Western initiatives. Once the coalition forces remove themselves from Iraq, the power-vacuum which this creates, will result in a civil war that can only be won by those with backing from their neighbours.

At the moment, it seems the coalition are doing a good job of making themselves unpopular with the local populace. I believe that regardless of the rhetoric from the British government, behind closed doors they are looking for the easiest way out without loosing too much face. If anything, I would say that plans are already in motion.

Rising Sun*
04-16-2007, 06:21 AM
Iraq is now largely irrelevant to the interests of the US led Coalition of the Self-Deluding in Iraq.

It's about Iran, which threatens to link with the Shiite majority and Shiite-dominated government in Iraq to establish and extend Iranian hegemony in the Middle East.

Among other things, this then brings Iran into conflict with the relatively weak Sunni Saudis who to a fair extent rely upon American support for the continuation of their medieval regime which has been busily using its vast petrodollars for decades to export the radical Wahabbe brand of Islam to its Sunni adherents in the West, where they are now encouraged by many Saudi-sponsored imams to pursue a vigorous anti-Western, pro-Islamo-fascist line. Wahabbism is a milder form of intolerant, arrogant and violent Islam than the bin Laden brand which ranks Saudi Arabia No. 2 after America as the enemy of pure Islam because the Saudis, among other things, allowed and indeed invited the American and Western infidels onto the holy soil which contains Mecca in Gulf War 1. Perhaps the most dangerous form of virulent Islam is coming out of the madrassas in Pakistan which lead a charmed life because Musharraf saw which way the wind was blowing after September 11 and promptly switched Pakistan’s support to the West while having done nothing since then to stop the virulent Islam based in Pakistan, which is linked to bin Laden et al. As long as Musharraf keeps supporting the West even though Pakistan still has significant elements actively working against the West, inside and outside Pakistan, America will keep supporting Musharraf. Is this getting a bit confusing? It’s not my fault. That’s what the geniuses running the world have managed to achieve, and I haven’t even scratched the surface of this international and religious idiocy which threatens to take us all into a cataclysmic conflict that will last for decades, perhaps centuries.

Back to Iraq. Having destroyed the bulwark that Saddam's regime presented to Iranian hegemony in the Middle East, the Coalition of the Silly is now left with the problem that it has to contain a virulently anti-Western, anti-Israel, nuclear-ambitious Iran run by an Islamic Hitler to achieve the West's own aims, which don't include Iran being top dog in the Middle East. Not to mention an Iran energised in its anti-Western attitude by the unhelpful comments of Bush the Stupid about it being part of an Axis of Evil, and an Iran made more fearful of being attacked by the US by such comments and the not entirely strategically comforting position of finding itself between Afghanistan and Iraq after US invasions of those countries.

So, like it or not, the Coalition of the We Didn't Think It Through Properly, If At All, Before Starting This Mess is stuck in Iraq to contain Iran. For the foreseeable future. Which will only create more tension with Iran, which has the not unreasonable fear that it is the next target. Which it would be, if America was willing and able to re-introduce conscription, but as long as it has to rely on its badly over-extended volunteer army Iran is reasonably safe. As long as it doesn't do something stupid. Given the Persian Hitler currently running it, it almost certainly will do something stupid sooner or later.

Meanwhile the vast bulk of the killing in Iraq is along sectarian, tribal, vengeance, and political lines by locals and imports, which has absolutely nothing to do with the presence in Iraq of the Coalition of the Wilfully Blind to History and Reality, apart from that Coalition creating the conditions which allowed this misery to be inflicted upon the Iraqi people and being a powerful symbol to rally mujahadeen from elsewhere to join the fight against the evil infidels.

So far as one can deduce from events, it seems that the mujahadeen strategy is to drive the infidels out of Iraq by a novel form of asymmetric warfare based on a cunning plan of Muslims slaughtering other Muslims until the infidels give up. Quite how this could work is unclear, but given growing public and political sentiment in America for cutting and running and leaving the poor bloody Iraqis to wallow and suffer and die in the mess created by the Coalition of International Bastardry, it seems to be working surprisingly well.

None of this makes any sense, but from the perspective of any of the participants it seems to make enough sense to keep pursuing the impossible dream that all participants seem to hold that success can be achieved only by digging the current hole deeper.

32Bravo
04-16-2007, 06:41 AM
Can't speak for the U.S. but in the UK recruiting figures are down as no one wants to volunteer for what is seen to be an unpopular war. Tony (Yo, Blair!) Blair, in particular, has lost all credibility as Prime Minister, hence his imminent resignation. If the labour government wants to win the next eletion (which they do), they had better be getting their backsides out of Iraq ASAP - but they already know that. The war in Iraq might drag on indefinately, but I doubt you'll see British troops participating in that scenario.

As I understand it, the US have extended the tour of their troops from 12 months to 15 months.

The region in question is really that from the Mediteranian coast through to the Pakistani border with India, with certain off-shoots to Arabia (as RS pointed out) and East Africa.

Panzerknacker
04-16-2007, 09:57 AM
If it was an conventional war ( i mean with fronts, people in uniform,etc) the coalition probably won several years ago...but given the guerrilla/terrorist tactics used by the enemy I would say..very hard.

32Bravo
04-16-2007, 11:02 AM
from a link to tuchman on another thread.

The last of Tuchman's studies concerns The United States' involvement in Vietnam. This is, in some ways, the weakest section in The March of Folly, for Tuchman's own biases, for instance in her brusque dismissal of the popular anti-war movement (see p. 366 et al.), do colour it to a certain extent. The author is, however, entirely scathing in her portrayal of high-level American policy-making at that time. There are eerie parallels here with the British actions prior to and during the American War of Independence, for the Americans faced the Viet Cong, once again, through a fog of arrogance and ignorance, refusing to learn the lessons of Dien Bien Phu and grossly understimating the VCs' willingness to fight (There are also, by the way, some similarities between Vietnam and the recent situation in the Persian Gulf, except that whereas Clinton has accepted a U.N.-brokered peace agreement, Johnson refused to go along with the one put together by U Thant in 1964). And, as in the case of the American Revolution, capable military and political men warned those in power about the certain and dreadful consequences of their policies, and yet those policies were still pursued.

Rising Sun*
04-16-2007, 05:40 PM
If it was an conventional war ( i mean with fronts, people in uniform,etc) the coalition probably won several years ago...but given the guerrilla/terrorist tactics used by the enemy I would say..very hard.

The Coalition did win the conventional war several years ago, and very convincingly.

It's the peace that it's losing.

2nd of foot
04-17-2007, 05:02 AM
Can't speak for the U.S. but in the UK recruiting figures are down as no one wants to volunteer for what is seen to be an unpopular war.


This is a media fabrication, working on the assumption that if soldiers are being killed then others will not join.

Shortfall for 2004/2005 was 1197. At the start of the year it was low then it increased to the end with a surplus in the last ¼.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D4C5FC87-61D1-496D-8853-6D0685F7F4F4/0/atra_ara_04_05.pdf

In general the army is down in 05/06 by 1.2% with recruiting at 84% (7770) of the target 9230. Retention has increased with numbers dropping by 1%, which in most cases is better than recruiting increasing. This is born out by my conversations with the local recruiters who are filling their quotas very quickly. Flash to bag for some corps is now taking months to get them in. And unemployment in my area is low.

Page 19

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D3B9236A-D0BC-47E1-9B4E-71758B52C543/0/modannual_report_0506_psas.pdf

32Bravo
04-17-2007, 06:17 AM
This is a media fabrication, working on the assumption that if soldiers are being killed then others will not join.


Perhaps, you are right, but my comments come from a more worthy and better informed source.

Rising Sun*
04-17-2007, 06:21 AM
The Coalition did win the conventional war several years ago, and very convincingly.

It's the peace that it's losing.

I should correct this.

It's the occupation that the Coalition is losing.

It won the war but never achieved peace.

32Bravo
04-17-2007, 12:34 PM
This is a media fabrication, working on the assumption that if soldiers are being killed then others will not join.

Shortfall for 2004/2005 was 1197. At the start of the year it was low then it increased to the end with a surplus in the last ¼.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D4C5FC87-61D1-496D-8853-6D0685F7F4F4/0/atra_ara_04_05.pdf

In general the army is down in 05/06 by 1.2% with recruiting at 84% (7770) of the target 9230. Retention has increased with numbers dropping by 1%, which in most cases is better than recruiting increasing. This is born out by my conversations with the local recruiters who are filling their quotas very quickly. Flash to bag for some corps is now taking months to get them in. And unemployment in my area is low.

Page 19

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D3B9236A-D0BC-47E1-9B4E-71758B52C543/0/modannual_report_0506_psas.pdf

Good links. Will give them a little more study when I can get the time.

regards

BDL
04-26-2007, 12:56 PM
Not too sure about the tank in the top picture GermanSoldier.

It appears to be a Challenger (1). Chally 2 is in use by the British Army now, and has been for about for about 10 years.

It also appears to be green and black.

Possibly from Granby (Gulf War One), but doubtful given colour scheme, probably taken during the problems in the Former-Yugoslavia.

Where did you get it from?

Bit of a late reply this, but it appears to be from the King's Royal Hussars (small flag on the TOGS on the right hand side of the turret). Not done the Balkans but it looks very central European and the KRH completed at least one tour of Bos (not sure about Kosovo).

Firefly
04-26-2007, 08:03 PM
The Challenger looks like its coming up the hill leading out of Pristina in Kosovo. Hard to tell though as that bit of road is dual carrigway and I cant see if the piccie is, it could well be Bosnia but has a definate Balkans look about it.

Sergeant Dorr
09-12-2007, 10:39 AM
To my opinion this war has lasted way to long. It is now getting to the point where we are losing way to many of our soldiers becdause the Iraqi government is too ustable. we shoulod be trying to help them out instead of trying to take out the Shi-ite milita.

Sergeant Dorr
09-12-2007, 10:46 AM
demar me and herman.jpg

Sergeant Dorr
09-12-2007, 12:08 PM
If you look at my Avitar(little picture under my Name) That is my father Sergeant <deleted>. 10th Mountain Division age <deleted> years old and he is stationed there in Iraq right now.

Sergeant Dorr
09-12-2007, 12:11 PM
I am open for opinions on the war in Iraq please if you have somting to say than by all means post. You should also check out my othe thread on The Iraq War.

pdf27
09-12-2007, 12:18 PM
Ummm... two things.
1) It really, really isn't a very bright idea to post personal details of serving personnell on the internet along with photos. There are terrorist nutters out there who will quite happily take all the data they can and use it against coalition forces. There have been a number of cases where families in the UK have got abusive phone calls from Iraq after their loved one used a local mobile phone service and the number he was calling in the UK was leaked to insurgents. Accordingly, I've deleted your father's name and age. I didn't do anything about the avatar as it is impossible to identify him from it.
2) In any case, board rules are that all avatars should be WW2 related. Please change it to a more appropriate one.

Gen. Sandworm
09-12-2007, 01:01 PM
I dont think we should stay there any longer than we must. Help get the Iraqis on their feet and get the hell out.

Dani
09-12-2007, 01:35 PM
Considering pdf's argument, I deleted you avatar.

Kato
09-12-2007, 01:57 PM
The best way for the USA is to divide Iraq into 50-60 zones, and transfer the full authority over these zones with the the right to exploit the local resources and population to private companies or groups of individuals from Christian countries ( and perhaps Israel).

This will enable the US to withdraw its troops from Iraq, make things for Islamists in Iraq much worse, receive its share in profits generated by the owners of the zones, without undertaking any responsabilities. And what's more important Islamists will lose their initiative and be imposed new rules of the game.

pdf27
09-12-2007, 05:45 PM
Errr.... Kato, you're a complete raving lunatic. We aren't facing an existential, religious war right now - but doing that would set one off overnight. We'd win it, but the cost would be horrendous and what we would have to do to win it worse. The death toll would dwarf any previous event in history.

Firefly
09-13-2007, 03:40 PM
Along Katos lines but without the exploitation, GM and Ford should build a few Car Plants, hire the locals and pay them a decent wage. In a few years they would be more interested in Ipods than Insurgents......

Maybe, maybe not......

tankgeezer
09-13-2007, 03:51 PM
General Wal-Mart, and General McDonalds will win the war.

Kato
09-13-2007, 04:23 PM
Errr.... Kato, you're a complete raving lunatic.

How would you call Americans and modern Brits who don't have any idea what to do in Iraq now and what is the aim of waging war there.


We aren't facing an existential, religious war right now

And what are you facing now?


We'd win it, but the cost would be horrendous and what we would have to do to win it worse. The death toll would dwarf any previous event in history.

Iraq was a quiet and boring British colony in past. It became British colony without religious wars or violence.

Firefly
09-13-2007, 04:45 PM
Iraq was a quiet and boring British colony in past. It became British colony without religious wars or violence.

A great misconception is that Britain took the Empire by force. What we did mostly was to move in and use the locals to get what we wanted while giving the local rulers something that they wanted, whether it be power or money etc. That way they would work for themselves but in reality be working for us. It was the classic win-win scenario.

Alas the days of Empire are long gone, the principle however remains the same. We didnt so much conquer an Empire as acquire it by guile, persuasion, economic power and a good bit of luck.

Get the local leaders on your side and the rest will follow.

pdf27
09-13-2007, 05:49 PM
Odd bits and pieces of the empire were however picked up by force - Iraq is an example, we nabbed that by force of arms during WW1 and kept it as part of the informal empire postwar. We certainly kept hold of it by force of arms - reading up on the Iraqi rebellion against the British is rather illuminating, as is reading of the brutality with which we put that rebellion down.

As you may have gathered by now Firefly, I may possibly take some exception to your "Alas the days of Empire are long gone" - personally I'm very glad it's dead and buried. It left a valuable legacy, but the same could have been achieved at far less cost.

Chevan
09-14-2007, 11:47 AM
A great misconception is that Britain took the Empire by force. What we did mostly was to move in and use the locals to get what we wanted while giving the local rulers something that they wanted, whether it be power or money etc. That way they would work for themselves but in reality be working for us. It was the classic win-win scenario.

Alas the days of Empire are long gone, the principle however remains the same. We didnt so much conquer an Empire as acquire it by guile, persuasion, economic power and a good bit of luck.

Get the local leaders on your side and the rest will follow.
Hello Firefly.
Nice to see you again.
Well maybe the Britain has took its colonies without force, however you widelly USED force to hold the Impir's satellites and suppress the National movenment in the all the world ( look for instance the War for Independence with USA) or supressing the rebels in Southern Asia, India and ets.

Sergeant Dorr
09-14-2007, 11:58 AM
I found a list on www.komando.com/operationkomando/ of things that american soldiers over in Iraq what/need you guys should check it out

Panzerknacker
09-15-2007, 02:06 PM
"Ukranian" Topics deleted, that country is not discussed here, Irak war is.

George Eller
09-15-2007, 07:37 PM
I found a list on www.komando.com/operationkomando/ of things that american soldiers over in Iraq what/need you guys should check it out
-

Here is another site with similar purpose to Kim Komando's:

Any Soldier . com
http://www.anysoldier.com/

-

Sergeant Dorr
09-15-2007, 08:35 PM
Thanks

Firefly
09-19-2007, 02:38 AM
As you may have gathered by now Firefly, I may possibly take some exception to your "Alas the days of Empire are long gone" - personally I'm very glad it's dead and buried. It left a valuable legacy, but the same could have been achieved at far less cost.

Alas the days of irony are slipping too in our wonderful PC world. Was the Empire a good thing, probably not, did some good things come out of it, maybe, should it be around today, no.

Sure we did a lot of bad things, but at the time thought they were right. Thats the trouble woth history, we always have to look back and see the past through modern morals.

Cheers

1000ydstare
09-19-2007, 02:56 AM
Nowt wrong with the Empire.

For the wrongs of the Empire, look at the good it did. It brought civilasation, medicine, education, law, and all manner of things to countries that up to that point they may not have had.

Admittedly some countries may have had these things prior.

The Empire also brought about a vast trading system that benefited many (alright fair trade it wasn't but) and pushed the development of new technology to speed such systems up.

The problems we see today, are mainly casued by arbritrational devision of lands (look at the straight line borders of Africa, literally drawn by a ruler) and by the pull out of the Empire Control too quickly, ie India.

As for the bad things...

In perspective (as in our acts in the past) they weren't that bad.

Slavery, for one is a big buzz word at the time, but was practiced by many countries in the world at that time. Other civilised cultures of the time (such as the Persians) practiced it before us, and many slaves were sold to us by the local chieftains.

The African tribes had been swapping slaves and waging war for slaves for centuries.

Without getting too political, slavery didn't just affect those of Black origin. Slaves were also white, inparticular convicts and the Scottish Miners of the 18/19th century were slaves, if not in name.

Rising Sun*
09-19-2007, 04:44 AM
The African tribes had been swapping slaves and waging war for slaves for centuries.

Without getting too political, slavery didn't just affect those of Black origin. Slaves were also white, inparticular convicts and the Scottish Miners of the 18/19th century were slaves, if not in name.

FWIW, slavery was stopped under the Empire, so far as bringing slaves to Britain was concerned, because of initiatives in Britain, not the slave source countries.

It continued in Africa, among other places, and still continues without the Empire.

It's not politically correct to say such things, but it's an unfortunate fact that a lot of places that were European colonies are a lot worse off under local despots and reversion to traditional systems than they were under the colonists, and have suffered a great deal more with internal wars and butchery and exploitation than would ever have happened under a European colonial power during the same period. Just look at Zimbabwe, Angola, and so on.

Or, dare I say it, Iraq.

32Bravo
09-19-2007, 08:11 AM
Wow!!!!

Nickdfresh
09-19-2007, 12:46 PM
The best way for the USA is to divide Iraq into 50-60 zones, and transfer the full authority over these zones with the the right to exploit the local resources and population to private companies or groups of individuals from Christian countries ( and perhaps Israel).

This will enable the US to withdraw its troops from Iraq, make things for Islamists in Iraq much worse, receive its share in profits generated by the owners of the zones, without undertaking any responsabilities. And what's more important Islamists will lose their initiative and be imposed new rules of the game.

This is a borderline psychotic solution...

Actually, we should divide Iraq into three countries along the ethnic make-up and allow them to govern themselves...

Northern Iraq is de facto "Kurdistan" as it is! Keep about 30,000 US soldiers there to guard against Turkish ****-buggery and al Qaeda of Iraq, that is if they survive the withdrawl of American troops whose presence seems to be the only thing keeping them going

Nickdfresh
09-19-2007, 12:51 PM
FWIW, slavery was stopped under the Empire, so far as bringing slaves to Britain was concerned, because of initiatives in Britain, not the slave source countries.

It continued in Africa, among other places, and still continues without the Empire.

It's not politically correct to say such things, but it's an unfortunate fact that a lot of places that were European colonies are a lot worse off under local despots and reversion to traditional systems than they were under the colonists, and have suffered a great deal more with internal wars and butchery and exploitation than would ever have happened under a European colonial power during the same period. Just look at Zimbabwe, Angola, and so on.

Or, dare I say it, Iraq.

Let's not kid ourselves though. These wars are the direct result of the faulty multi-nations/one state that followed arbitrary colonial re-drawings of tribal and ethnic regions based on which power got in which area first. Much of Africa, and Iraq, are prime examples of this, also...

32Bravo
09-20-2007, 02:54 AM
Also, whole regions were put to providing one particualr resource, with no thought as to what would be beneficial to the local population. For example: great swathes of West Africa produced hemp for rope making. Also...

Rising Sun*
09-20-2007, 05:26 AM
Let's not kid ourselves though. These wars are the direct result of the faulty multi-nations/one state that followed arbitrary colonial re-drawings of tribal and ethnic regions based on which power got in which area first. Much of Africa, and Iraq, are prime examples of this, also...

To some extent, but a lot of it is just the usual political bastardry in any dictatorship combined with ancient tribal distinctions corrupted by the colonial powers imposing an unsuitable form of democracy on their colonies before granting independence which produced Darwinian political systems. It crosses a lot of borders. Have a look at New Guinea and some of the Pacific states.

Again, it's politically incorrect to say it, but it's a big ask to expect people whose grandfathers were active tribal and clan headhunters (I'm not talking about WWII Yugoslavia here) and cannibals in very primitive small societies to make the jump to rather more complicated and widely based social, political and economic systems.

Idi Amin wasn't on the same level as Margaret Thatcher.

Upon reflection, there might be some difficulties with pursuing such comparisons as I was going to say that Robert Mugabe isn't on the same level as George Bush. That's undoubtedly true, but it's a matter of opinion which one is dumber and more dangerous. :D

Sergeant Dorr
09-20-2007, 10:09 AM
If anyone has a relitive/freind serving in Iraq or is a veteren of another war I can make a tribute webpage for them. If you want one just send me a private message with the info I need to make the Page. Here is one page I made already http://www.military.com/HomePage/UserCreatedTributePage/0,10980,832791,00.html

Sergeant Dorr
09-24-2007, 11:03 AM
or you can email me at 10mdorr@msad49.org

Sergeant Dorr
09-26-2007, 09:45 AM
Here are some more pictures from Iraq

Sergeant Dorr
09-26-2007, 09:47 AM
Here are some more pictures from Iraq

continued

Sergeant Dorr
09-26-2007, 09:50 AM
continued

I'm not stoping anytime soon

Sergeant Dorr
09-26-2007, 09:54 AM
Still more to come

Sergeant Dorr
09-26-2007, 09:55 AM
does this look familiar

Sergeant Dorr
09-26-2007, 09:58 AM
last ones

Sergeant Dorr
09-26-2007, 10:00 AM
got one more left

Sergeant Dorr
09-26-2007, 11:38 AM
I got more (Alot more)

Sergeant Dorr
09-26-2007, 11:39 AM
_____

Sergeant Dorr
09-26-2007, 11:40 AM
..... I call the guy in the last picture Commando Jack because I have no Idea what his name is

Sergeant Dorr
09-26-2007, 11:41 AM
Last ones for now

Sergeant Dorr
09-26-2007, 11:57 AM
You see the bridge in the background of this first picture they use a mortar(next picture) on that bridge every morning and A National Guard Unit had a weeny roast on that bridge.

Sergeant Dorr
09-26-2007, 11:58 AM
Very last picture

Panzerknacker
10-02-2007, 09:10 PM
Interesting Gallery sargeant. ;)

Chevan
10-03-2007, 12:21 AM
Hi Sergeant Dorr.
Thanks for the photos.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1098&d=1190824683
Who is this guy in black?

Nickdfresh
10-03-2007, 09:20 AM
Hi Sergeant Dorr.
Thanks for the photos.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1098&d=1190824683
Who is this guy in black?

An insurgent that has been captured I presume...

Sergeant Dorr
10-03-2007, 09:29 AM
Hi Sergeant Dorr.
Thanks for the photos.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1098&d=1190824683
Who is this guy in black?

He was actually caught planting IEDs (Improvised Exploading Divice) on the 10th Mountain's Patrol Route.

Sergeant Dorr
10-03-2007, 09:30 AM
An insurgent that has been captured I presume...

That is right

Panzerknacker
10-04-2007, 09:44 AM
Incidentally I was browsing Youtube yesterday and is very impressive the large amount of the so called "Insurgent videos" availables in the U.S.A based website.How intelligent is that ?

I mean provide images of how the US soldier are blasted away by Improvisated Explosives did not encourage the popular support for the War ( politics aside I am not saying that is the best cause) and also encourage other to made similar attacks. Crazy.I think Youtube should erase tose, or in case they didnt The US Goverment should take care.

Nickdfresh
10-04-2007, 11:09 AM
Incidentally I was browsing Youtube yesterday and is very impressive the large amount of the so called &quot;Insurgent videos &quot; availables in the U.S.A based website.How intelligent is that ? I mean provide images of how the US soldier are blasted away by Improvisated Explosives did not encourage the popular support for the War ( politics aside I am not saying that is the best cause) and also encourage other to made similar attacks. Crazy.I think Youtube should erase tose, or in case they didnt The US Goverment should take care.

Well, then we have to delete any pictures of knocked-out Sherman tanks from this forum? ;)

In any case, I think banning video of insurgent attacks while the military propagates "cool rock'in ***!" photos of F-15E's dropping ordinance on Iraqi 'targets' would only lead to a sanitized, fraudulent perception of this war. People should make their own decisions that are imperative for a democracy, especially in light of how sour things have gone there..

Panzerknacker
10-04-2007, 05:50 PM
The WW2 was fought and won by the US. Sherman loses aside.

But this todays conflict ? , I dont know, I am not so convinced that the distribution of such images bring any profit to the democracy of the people in US....but to undermine the support and credibilities of the military in this already extremely difficult conflict.

Rising Sun*
10-04-2007, 11:22 PM
but to undermine the support and credibilities of the military in this already extremely difficult conflict.

The US military leadership and government have been doing a spectacularly good (or perhaps bad) job in that area, all by themselves.

In comparison, YouTube videos are a pin***** on an elephant.

Panzerknacker
10-05-2007, 08:18 AM
Really ?
What was the last time when the US gave completely liberties to the media coverage ?

Vietnam. :rolleyes: ...and it had to withdrawn without being defeated in the battlefield but completely wasted in the political/public opinion arena.

Rising Sun*
10-05-2007, 09:10 AM
Really ?
What was the last time when the US gave completely liberties to the media coverage ?

Vietnam. :rolleyes: ...and it had to withdrawn without being defeated in the battlefield but completely wasted in the political/public opinion arena.

The US still has complete liberties for media coverage, beyond that even dreamt of in most of the rest of the world, even if the US military and the US government try to control it with rubbish like embedded journalists etc and getting wound up about things like unwanted published photos of servicemen's coffins from Iraq in transport planes and revelations about Abu Ghraib.

The point is, unlike most of the world, these things were still published; the editors and journalists weren't killed or disappeared; the papers weren't shut down; and the military and government were and are held to account by a free press, no matter how unbalanced or ill informed the press might be at times.

It's one of the things that makes America a paradox of freedom under the noble principles enshrined in its constitution which, despite the best efforts of American governments and the American military, still leaves America as a shining, if badly tarnished, beacon of freedom of expression and liberty that has no better in the world.

The Yanks are a pain in the arse when they trumpet their constitution and principles of liberty etc and we compare those things with their practices and sympathies in Europe and South America and Asia and the Middle East and Africa and within America over the past century and a half but, by God, I'd rather have a pain in the arse from America than a bullet in the back of the neck from so many of the regimes which exist in much of the rest of the world. Often, alas, with American support.

Rising Sun*
10-05-2007, 09:32 AM
and it had to withdrawn without being defeated in the battlefield but completely wasted in the political/public opinion arena.

America didn't win on the battlefield, either.

Nor was winning ever the strategic objective. Just preserving the SVN crooks in power to frustrate the communists. That was achieved, until the hysterically anti-communist Nixon decided that buddying up to communist China was the way to go.

Too many people forget that the Americans, Koreans and Australians were supplements to the SVN forces, which outnumbered the other forces in both men and casualties, as they should have as it was their war, albeit converted into a proxy war against communism by the Western and Korean governments who sent forces there.

South Vietnam lost the war. On the battlefield. It had bugger all to do with American popular opinion. The South Vietnamese weren't winning when the the Americans were there and they lost when the Americans, Koreans and Australians left.

The reasons the external troops left had to do with popular opinion in those countries, but the reason that South Vietnam fell was because, from day one, it was a corrupt government which lacked sufficient popular support to survive and ran a deficient military system based on nepotism, patronage, and corruption rather than military ability. They deserved to lose. Not that you'll find any of the emigres who'll admit it, moaning about how NVN destroyed their beautiful and privileged lives in a system that offends every Western notion of fairness.

Sergeant Dorr
10-05-2007, 10:33 AM
you know what I have to say about our so called "War on Terror" President "Trashpile" Bush is just a war hungary maniac. We have no reason to go over there of course I have aready been there and It is not like anything the media has ever showed you I'd have more pictures up there but they are to graffic for this forum.

Panzerknacker
10-05-2007, 10:38 AM
Well Sargeant, that is Ok but...

Yo do think showing the attacks of the insurgents to the americas help the U.S.A cause or not ?

Sergeant Dorr
10-05-2007, 03:19 PM
Yo do think showing the attacks of the insurgents to the americas help the U.S.A cause or not ?

You know there are actually a lot of people protesting against the war... and there are rumors of troops being pulled out of Iraq right now. but I just don't want other people to go through the hell I went through.

Nickdfresh
10-05-2007, 03:19 PM
Really ?
What was the last time when the US gave completely liberties to the media coverage ?

Vietnam. :rolleyes: ...and it had to withdrawn without being defeated in the battlefield but completely wasted in the political/public opinion arena.


And complete control of the media helped the Soviets win in Afghanistan?

Nickdfresh
10-05-2007, 03:23 PM
you know what I have to say about our so called "War on Terror" President "Trashpile" Bush is just a war hungary maniac. We have no reason to go over there of course I have aready been there and It is not like anything the media has ever showed you I'd have more pictures up there but they are to graffic for this forum.


I've indeed heard that it is much worse despite the mantra of the gov't and certain partisans about the media "only showing the negative" stuff...

It's hard to be positive about a Shiite ("Iraqi") gov't that refuses to deal with the Sunnis, thus ensuring indefinite civil war.

Nickdfresh
10-05-2007, 03:24 PM
Well Sargeant, that is Ok but...

Yo do think showing the attacks of the insurgents to the americas help the U.S.A cause or not ?

It helps me decide if my f_____ing tax dollars are being well spent, or if I'm being lied too by incompetent leaders!

Sergeant Dorr
10-05-2007, 04:08 PM
It's hard to be positive about a Shiite ("Iraqi") gov't that refuses to deal with the Sunnis, thus ensuring indefinite civil war.

Well think about it... If the Iraqi government was run by Kurds... we dont have to worry about getting blown up every time you step foot outside.

Sergeant Dorr
10-05-2007, 04:12 PM
I've indeed heard that it is much worse despite the mantra of the gov't and certain partisans about the media "only showing the negative" stuff

Negitive Stuff? the stuff they show in the media makes this war look good. most of the time the "negitive" stuff inst as bad as the stuff that really happened. I saw my best freind get blown all to hell by an IED. So if a civilian reads a news paper and sees an overturned humvee and say that is bad. they got problems!

Rising Sun*
10-06-2007, 05:54 AM
Well Sargeant, that is Ok but...

Yo do think showing the attacks of the insurgents to the americas help the U.S.A cause or not ?


What, precisely, is 'the U.S.A. cause'?

The failure to define that from the outset has been one of the reasons Iraq is such a shambles, for America and the poor bloody Iraqis who endure most of the suffering.

How does showing what the enemy does weaken the other party?

If you applied the same approach consistently, there should have been a total media blackout about 9/11, because it showed what the other side was doing.

If anything, showing the other side harming your side is more likely to increase rather than diminish support for the home team.

Anyway, allowing governments to control every aspect of what their people know is a feature of dictatorships of the worst kind, which is not what America is or stands for.

It's a testament to the strength of American democracy that such things are available to their people. If it applied around the rest of the world, we'd have a lot fewer problems.

Panzerknacker
10-06-2007, 08:58 AM
You know there are actually a lot of people protesting against the war... and there are rumors of troops being pulled out of Iraq right now. but I just don't want other people to go through the hell I went through


Thats fine to me.

Unfortunately the internet today is a double edged weapon and served to the foe and friend alike.



What, precisely, is 'the U.S.A. cause'?



I dont know precisely but I am sure that it does not involves the widespread broadcast of his own losses.

I have no time know I will answer the other later.

pdf27
10-06-2007, 10:02 AM
I saw my best freind get blown all to hell by an IED.
Wait a minute here. Didn't you originally say that your father was out in Iraq at the moment, and give an age for him that implies you're most probably in your teens at the moment?

I'm not trying to start a witchhunt here, but if that isn't the truth please edit your post (I'll then delete this one) and move on. Pretending to be something you aren't is totally unacceptable, and can ultimately lead to being banned if you keep it up.

If you really did see that and feel the need to talk about it, the internet is probably not the best place. I'm not sure what the US equivalent to Combat Stress is, but I'm sure we can find out for you.

Nickdfresh
10-06-2007, 11:53 AM
What, precisely, is 'the U.S.A. cause'?
...

It appears to be:

1.) George Bush's (shitty) legacy

2.) Proctoring yet another foreign civil war that we contributed to the making of

3.) Getting out of Iraq without a genocide taking place

Nickdfresh
10-06-2007, 11:56 AM
Thats fine to me.

Unfortunately the internet today is a double edged weapon and served to the foe and friend alike.


That means the "friend" must get off their asses and explain what the purpose is then, doesn't it?

And the internet is far more a weapon of freedom that it is of tyranny. Which is why it is so abominable that Google and others bend-over for the Chinese dictatorship by enabling their censorship...


I dont know precisely but I am sure that it does not involves the widespread broadcast of his own losses.

I have no time know I will answer the other later.

So, not on the internet. Does that mean that newspaper accounts will also be forbidden?

Nickdfresh
10-06-2007, 11:58 AM
Wait a minute here. Didn't you originally say that your father was out in Iraq at the moment, and give an age for him that implies you're most probably in your teens at the moment?

I'm not trying to start a witchhunt here, but if that isn't the truth please edit your post (I'll then delete this one) and move on. Pretending to be something you aren't is totally unacceptable, and can ultimately lead to being banned if you keep it up.

If you really did see that and feel the need to talk about it, the internet is probably not the best place. I'm not sure what the US equivalent to Combat Stress is, but I'm sure we can find out for you.

"Post traumatic stress disorder" or PTSD in the US. I think perhaps we have a case of Preemptive Troll Disorder here though. :p

Panzerknacker
10-06-2007, 07:25 PM
NIck: I agree that is a tool, but I think the right word but you know with terrorism some "special measures " need to be taken , To knock out the pages spreading his videos and allegations would be a good start.And I insist Youtube is not helping.The newspaper account are always lees graphic than a video, so I dont see any trouble with that.The british way, you need to use the british way to deal with this images.

---It appears to be:
1.) George Bush's (shitty) legacy

2.) Proctoring yet another foreign civil war that we contributed to the making of

3.) Getting out of Iraq without a genocide taking place---


That sound like a good explanation, sadly, some years ago one was prepared to believe that with Saddam knock out the all zone in middle east would be more stable...but it was completely the other way.

pdf27
10-07-2007, 04:08 AM
"Post traumatic stress disorder" or PTSD in the US. I think perhaps we have a case of Preemptive Troll Disorder here though. :p
Sorry, should have been clearer. Combat Stress (http://www.combatstress.org.uk/) are a UK charity who help former servicemen with PTSD and similar disorders when the government simply doesn't care. They were set up after WW2 by the families of those still suffering from PTSD, shell shock and the like and have been doing magnificent work ever since.

Sgt Dorr, I'm still waiting for your reply - happy to take it either in the forum or by PM.

Cuts
10-07-2007, 12:40 PM
PDF, I don't think you'll hear any more from Sgt Mitty.

I first noticed his presence yesterday on a wpns thread, and was immediately suspicious of his claim to be in a PMC as he was talking utter bolocks.

The young lad, probably quite correctly, idolises his father for who he is and for doing his duty, it's just a shame that the adolescent imagination got the better of common sense.

Firefly
10-08-2007, 07:11 AM
Ah well, its best to nip these things in the Bud so to speak. Whoever he is/was at least he provided something positive here.

Cheers.

Cuts
10-08-2007, 08:25 AM
Ah well, its best to nip these things in the Bud so to speak. Whoever he is/was at least he provided something positive here.

Cheers.

That warm feeling when you realise: "Ah, WALT !" ?
:D

Nickdfresh
10-08-2007, 08:50 AM
NIck: I agree that is a tool, but I think the right word but you know with terrorism some "special measures " need to be taken ,

Yes well, there's a difference between terrorists attacking your civilians and Iraqi insurgents conducting legitimate military operations against our forces, isn't there?


To knock out the pages spreading his videos and allegations would be a good start.And I insist Youtube is not helping.The newspaper account are always lees graphic than a video, so I dont see any trouble with that.The british way, you need to use the british way to deal with this images.---It appears to be:1.) George Bush's (shitty) legacy2.) Proctoring yet another foreign civil war that we contributed to the making of3.) Getting out of Iraq without a genocide taking place---That sound like a good explanation, sadly, some years ago one was prepared to believe that with Saddam knock out the all zone in middle east would be more stable...but it was completely the other way.

It's not YouTube's job "to help." And taking away the freedom of expression is one of the terrorists key aims.

Rising Sun*
10-08-2007, 09:19 AM
Yes well, there's a difference between terrorists attacking your civilians and Iraqi insurgents conducting legitimate military operations against our forces, isn't there?

Sometimes I despair when clarity of thought challenges emotional attachment to the home team.

Pretty much the opposite of what we've had from Dubya & Co.

What would happen if governments operated on this sort of disturbing clarity of thought?


It's not YouTube's job "to help." And taking away the freedom of expression is one of the terrorists key aims.

In which case Dubya would qualify as a potential terrorist for wanting to bomb al Jazeera for daring to broadcast stuff he doesn't like.

Which is a bit odd, as Dubya's at the forefront of the war against terror. Or is he, as Borat famously said at the rodeo, at the forefront of the war of terror?

Nickdfresh
10-09-2007, 08:12 AM
Sometimes I despair when clarity of thought challenges emotional attachment to the home team.

Pretty much the opposite of what we've had from Dubya & Co.

What would happen if governments operated on this sort of disturbing clarity of thought?



In which case Dubya would qualify as a potential terrorist for wanting to bomb al Jazeera for daring to broadcast stuff he doesn't like.

Which is a bit odd, as Dubya's at the forefront of the war against terror. Or is he, as Borat famously said at the rodeo, at the forefront of the war of terror?

This reminds me of that old lesbian-porn writing hag Lynn Cheney on CNN one day, in which she admonished Wolf Blitzer (in and interview) for CNN's playing of "terrorist propaganda" - showing a US soldier right before he was hit by and Iraqi Sunni insurgent sniper. Of course, this came right after Bill Clinton's interview meltdown where he lashed out at a Fox reporter for insinuating with a question that 9/11 and al Qaeda was all his fault by asking him why he didn't do more or go further in regards to stopping them in what was perceived as an "ambush" interview. It starts at the 4:15 mark of part 1:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBwrqcgfEXI

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rz4OgaVABQ

But what her own idiotic replies indicated semantically were that US Marine and Army snipers were also terrorists" because they were also shooting armed enemy combatants. :rolleyes:

Rising Sun*
10-09-2007, 08:36 AM
This reminds me of that old lesbian-porn writing hag Lynn Cheney on CNN one day, in which she admonished Wolf Blitzer (in and interview) for CNN's playing of "terrorist propaganda" - showing a US soldier right before he was hit by and Iraqi Sunni insurgent sniper. Of course, this came right after Bill Clinton's interview meltdown where he lashed out at a Fox reporter for insinuating with a question that 9/11 and al Qaeda was all his fault by asking him why he didn't do more or go further in regards to stopping them in what was perceived as an "ambush" interview. It starts at the 4:15 mark of part 1:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBwrqcgfEXI

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rz4OgaVABQ

But what her own idiotic replies indicated semantically were that US Marine and Army snipers were also terrorists" because they were also shooting armed enemy combatants. :rolleyes:

Thanks for those links.

It's a refreshing change to see an articulate, intelligent, fully informed American President, even if he's out of office.

Is Chris Wallace a real person, or just a Murdoch crash test dummy put up as a front for the neo-cons?

Nickdfresh
10-09-2007, 08:47 AM
Thanks for those links.

It's a refreshing change to see an articulate, intelligent, fully informed American President, even if he's out of office.

Is Chris Wallace a real person, or just a Murdoch crash test dummy put up as a front for the neo-cons?


Wallace is the idiot son of CBS' 60-Minutes journalist Mike Wallace, who perfected the "ambush interview." The "kid" was just there to leech off his father's reputation and high regard as an actual journalist. LOL I think MSNBC's Keith Olbermann (a respected former sports broadcaster turned liberal media pundit) referred to him as "a monkey posing as a journalist" in a long critical piece on this interview you can probably find on YT as well...

This is the first time I've seen this and I notice that Wallace, looking like a fawn about to be hit after asking what he knew would be inflammatory, asks about five questions, then interrupts Clinton to ask another when he tries to answer them one-by-one...

Firefly
10-09-2007, 10:02 AM
Good links and a very interesting insight into some aspects of US journalism.

Kato
10-17-2007, 10:31 AM
Turkish MPs back attacks in Iraq

Turkey's parliament has given permission for the government to launch military operations into Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish rebels.
The vote was taken in defiance of pressure from the US and Iraq, which have called on Turkey for restraint.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said the motion does not mean a military operation is imminent.

But he said Turkey needed to be able to respond to a recent rise in bomb attacks blamed on PKK rebels from Iraq.

As the vote was being counted, President George W Bush strongly urged America's Turkish ally not to carry out the threatened action.

He said Washington was "making it clear to Turkey it is not in their interest to send more troops in... there is a better way to deal with the issue".

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki had earlier phoned the Turkish prime minister, saying he was "absolutely determined" to remove the PKK from Iraq and pleading for more time, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.

Splinter54
10-17-2007, 12:39 PM
'Yay' for Turkie entering the EU ...

Soldierboy
10-24-2007, 12:22 PM
Ah well, its best to nip these things in the Bud so to speak. Whoever he is/was at least he provided something positive here.

Cheers.

what is that supposed to mean, who are you takling about

Cuts
10-24-2007, 04:24 PM
Ah well, its best to nip these things in the Bud so to speak. Whoever he is/was at least he provided something positive here.

Cheers.


what is that supposed to mean, who are you takling about

You know exactly who he means.
Come on son, you've been given another chance so use it wisely.

pdf27
10-24-2007, 05:13 PM
You know exactly who he means.
Come on son, you've been given another chance so use it wisely.
IPs don't match, but the locations are suspiciously similar.

1) CE3-O-UNET.unet.maine.edu.
2) cpe-74-75-90-206.maine.res.rr.com.

Highly suspect, but I can't quite prove anything yet...

Rising Sun*
10-24-2007, 06:33 PM
maine.res.rr.com.

Doesn't look right, if he's in in San Diego on a Road Runner account. I think it should be san.res.rr.com.

Nickdfresh
10-24-2007, 08:00 PM
IPs don't match, but the locations are suspiciously similar.

1) CE3-O-UNET.unet.maine.edu.
2) cpe-74-75-90-206.maine.res.rr.com.

Highly suspect, but I can't quite prove anything yet...

Same troll, two locations. One's from school, the other's from home...

Road Runner, or Time Warner Cable, is mom and dad's service used at night and the .edu is his public school account (used during the day?)...

Firefly
10-25-2007, 10:02 AM
IPs don't match, but the locations are suspiciously similar.

1) CE3-O-UNET.unet.maine.edu.
2) cpe-74-75-90-206.maine.res.rr.com.

Highly suspect, but I can't quite prove anything yet...

I bet my right Bollock its the same guy. Cant leave his own threads alone etc....

As Mr T would say 'Pity the Fool'.......

Sergeant Dorr
10-26-2007, 12:29 PM
Can we just wipe a clean slate here.
I'll fes up to everything

Sergeant Dorr
10-28-2007, 12:42 PM
I dont see why not...Welcome back

If you look at my profile I fixed everything up to be truthful

Sergeant Dorr
10-28-2007, 12:45 PM
I dont see why not...Welcome back

:mrgreen:Thanks!:mrgreen:

Rising Sun*
10-29-2007, 07:01 AM
I dont see why not...Welcome back

The same.

Sergeant Dorr
10-30-2007, 12:37 PM
The same.

Thanks again

Firefly
10-30-2007, 05:34 PM
Can we just wipe a clean slate here.
I'll fes up to everything

I'm all for a clean slate mate. Kudos to you for being a man about it.

We've all been young and Gods knows what I would have got up to if the Net was around when I was young [apart from the Porn thing that is].

Rising Sun*
10-31-2007, 06:29 AM
Kudos to you for being a man about it.

That too.

A man, painful though it is, should know when he's done wrong and should (at least when sober if not when he committed the offending act, even if relying only only on witness accounts due to a memory blank) know how to right it, if it can be righted.

The foregoing statement excludes upsetting women, as in all such cases it is irrelevant who's wrong. The important thing is that the man apologises to the woman. It's not important to the man, but it's important to the woman, and that's what matters. :D


We've all been young and Gods knows what I would have got up to if the Net was around when I was young [apart from the Porn thing that is.

Mate, if I'd had the net instead of Man Magazine (or the even less erotic Man Junior which we also couldn't afford) with the hint of a distant nipple under a bikini top about the size of a horse blanket, or nudist magazines like Health and Efficiency with their store dummy empty groins that had to be filled in with careful pen or pencil strokes, Vesuvius wouldn't have been noticed.

An ya try ta tell kids these days tha we ad it tough.

Our da used ta ......

Sergeant Dorr
10-31-2007, 09:41 AM
I suppose I could tell what my dad did out in Iraq if it is Okay will everyone here:D

pdf27
10-31-2007, 01:36 PM
I suppose I could tell what my dad did out in Iraq if it is Okay will everyone here:D

Yes, subject to you following the rules of Personal and Operational Security - a number of us on here are serving military and are rather sensitive about such things. Anything I see which might positively identify your father as a serving soldier in Iraq or which gives away anything the army is likely to want to keep secret for operational reasons will be deleted without warning.

Remote as it may seem to you, there are some thoroughly unpleasant jihadi types out there who will make use of any information they can get. I am not about to give them any assistance to do so.

Nickdfresh
11-01-2007, 12:20 AM
I suppose I could tell what my dad did out in Iraq if it is Okay will everyone here:D

Your Dad's in the 10th Mountain light ID?

Sergeant Dorr
11-01-2007, 11:43 AM
Im more interested in knowing what your thinking with your dad in Iraq, what stress you are dealing with. It must be hard for a young man knowing his dad is in harms way. Your dad is a hero to me..thank him for me.

Well the stress really affected my grades in school they droped from Bs and Cs to Ds and Fs. and I missed him Alot:cry:

Sergeant Dorr
11-01-2007, 11:44 AM
Your Dad's in the 10th Mountain light ID?

Yes he is

Panzerknacker
11-13-2007, 09:41 PM
This is not fresh news about the war, however I believe that is a very, very interesting episode of the conflict.

Knife fighting in Irak:


NAJAF, Iraq - One of his friends was dead, 12 others lay wounded and the four soldiers still left standing were surrounded and out of ammunition. So Salvadoran Cpl. Samuel Toloza said a prayer, whipped out his switchblade knife and charged the Iraqi gunmen.

In one of the only known instances of hand-to-hand combat in the Iraq (news - web sites) conflict, Toloza stabbed several attackers who were swarming around a comrade. The stunned assailants backed away momentarily, just as a relief column came to their rescue.

"We never considered surrender. I was trained to fight until the end," said the 25-year-old Toloza, one of 380 El Salvador (news - web sites) soldiers whose heroism is being cited just as criticism is leveled against other members of the multinational force in Iraq.

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said recently the Central American unit has "gained a fantastic reputation among the coalition" and expressed hope that they will stay beyond their scheduled departure.

Phil Kosnett, who heads the Coalition Provisional Authority in this holy Shiite city, says he owes his life to Salvadorans who repelled a well-executed insurgent attack on his three-car convoy in March. He's nominated six of them for the U.S. Army's Bronze Star medal.
"You hear this snotty phrase `coalition of the billing' for some of the smaller contingents," says Kosnett, referring to the apparent eagerness of some nations to charge their Iraq operations to Washington. "The El Sals? No way. These guys are punching way above their weight. They're probably the bravest and most professional troops I've every worked with."

The Salvadorans are eager to stress their role as peacekeepers rather than warriors, perhaps with an eye to public opinion back home. Masked protesters last week seized the cathedral in the capital of San Salvador (news - web sites), demanding that President-elect Tony Saca pull the troops out of Iraq.

Saca, who takes office June 1, has said he will leave the unit in Iraq until August as planned, despite the early departure of the Spanish troops under which they were serving. The other three Central American contingents — from the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Honduras — have already returned home or are scheduled to do so soon.

"We didn't come here to fire a single shot. Our rifles were just part of our equipment and uniforms. But we were prepared to repel an attack," says Col. Hugo Omar Orellana Calidonio, a 27-year army veteran who commands the Cuscatlan Battalion.

The troops, El Salvador's first peacekeepers abroad, conducted a wide range of humanitarian missions in Najaf. They provided books, electricity, playground equipment and other supplies to destitute schools and helped farmers with irrigation works and fertilizer supplies.

"Our country came out of a similar situation as in Iraq 12 years ago, so people in El Salvador can understand what is happening here," said Calidonio, referring to a civil war between the U.S.-backed government and leftist guerrillas that left some 75,000 dead. The military was held responsible for widespread abuses.

"We came here to help and we were helping. Our relationship with the people was excellent. They were happy with what we were doing," Calidonio says.

Then came April 4, when armed followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr seized virtual control of the city and staged attacks on two camps — Baker and Golf — adjacent bases on the fringes of Najaf occupied by the Salvadoran and Spanish units.

When Toloza and 16 other soldiers arrived that morning at a low-walled compound of the Iraqi Civil Defense Corps, about 1.2 miles from their camp, they found its 350 occupants had melted away and themselves trapped by al-Sadr's al-Mahdi militia.
Lt. Col. Francisco Flores, the battalion's operations officer, said the surrounded soldiers held their fire for nearly half an hour, fearful of inflicting civilian casualties, even as 10 of their number were wounded by rocket-propelled grenades and bullets from assault rifles and machine guns.

After several hours of combat, the besieged unit ran out of ammunition, having come with only 300 rounds for each of their M-16 rifles. Pvt. Natividad Mendez, Toloza's friend for three years, lay dead, riddled by two bullets probably fired by a sniper. Two more were wounded as the close-quarters fighting intensified.

"I thought, `This is the end.' But at the same time I asked the Lord to protect and save me," Toloza recalled.
The wounded were placed on a truck while Toloza and the three other soldiers moved on the ground, trying to make their way back to the base. They were soon confronted with al-Sadr's fighters, about 10 of whom tried to seize one of the soldiers.

"My immediate reaction was that I had to defend my friend, and the only thing I had in my hands was a knife," Toloza said.

As reinforcements arrived to save Toloza's unit, the two camps were under attack, with the El Salvadorans and a small U.S. contingent of soldiers and civilian security personnel trying to protect the perimeter and retake an adjoining seven-story hospital captured by the insurgents.

The Spanish didn't fight, and only after a long delay agreed to send out their armored vehicles to help evacuate the wounded. Flores says he cannot question the Spanish decisions that day, but with a slightly sardonic smile adds that they "could have helped us sooner."
U.S. troops have now replaced the Spanish. Salvadoran officers, many of whom were trained at military schools in the United States, say they're pleased to be working with the Americans.



http://images.washtimes.com/photos/web/20040503-104904-9389.jpg


http://www.defensenews.com

Sergeant Dorr
11-29-2007, 10:47 AM
Good news Everyone My Dad is home!:mrgreen:

George Eller
11-29-2007, 12:27 PM
Good news Everyone My Dad is home!:mrgreen:
-

Congratulations :)

And welcome home to your Dad.

-

Sergeant Dorr
11-30-2007, 09:32 AM
This is probably really old but take a look at this article from the Boston Globe! (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/05/29/maine_sergeant_builds_shrine_in_iraq/) It actually might come of interest.

George Eller
12-01-2007, 12:21 PM
This is probably really old but take a look at this article from the Boston Globe! (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2007/05/29/maine_sergeant_builds_shrine_in_iraq/) It actually might come of interest.
-

Thanks for sharing SD, that certainly hits home on a personal level for you...the dangers they face while deployed over there.

-

pdf27
12-01-2007, 12:27 PM
Yeah, it can get rather hot out there...
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/men-of-valor-part-ii.htm

George Eller
12-01-2007, 12:54 PM
Yeah, it can get rather hot out there...
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/men-of-valor-part-ii.htm
-

Thanks for the link PDF...


...In truth, the British have kept faith with their pledge of partnership, and much more because by overstaying, they jeopardized men, women and mission in order to buy us time and keep the exits covered. America has no truer ally, always there, through bad and worse. Of course, almost none of this mattered to the men of 4 Rifles on May 21, who’d been out more than 13 hours in stifling heat...

...Ambient temperature was 46° C [about 115°F] outside the vehicles. There was intelligence that Jaysh-al-Mehdi (the Mehdi Army, or “JAM”) was waiting ahead. In fact, there apparently were about 100 enemy waiting to ambush. The convoy was just near the Martyr Sadr building when the enemy attacked with small arms and RPGs...

...Over later months of fighting, Moger’s Welsh platoon would turn heads due to its extraordinary morale, and today’s performance would be cited as an example of well-trained soldiers in combat...

...But God smiled on Burn; it’s just too bad that nobody back in the U.K. or America would likely ever know what the British mechanics in Basra were made of...

-

pdf27
12-01-2007, 01:06 PM
It's probably worth mentioning at this point that my battalion are Reccy Mechs and use Fodens (although I don't think we had any guys out in Iraq at the time of this article, roughly half the battalion have done either Telic or Herrick). Fodens are very big, obvious targets with no armour protection whatsoever. NOT something you want to drive into a firefight if you have the choice...

George Eller
12-01-2007, 01:23 PM
It's probably worth mentioning at this point that my battalion are Reccy Mechs and use Fodens (although I don't think we had any guys out in Iraq at the time of this article, roughly half the battalion have done either Telic or Herrick). Fodens are very big, obvious targets with no armour protection whatsoever. NOT something you want to drive into a firefight if you have the choice...
-

No, I would think not...

http://www.army.mod.uk/img/royalsignals/38sigregt/foden1.jpg

http://www.army.mod.uk/img/101regtrav/101_wksp_reme/about_us/muv_6b6.jpg

Foden GS 6x6 Recovery Vehicle
http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/ese/muv_6b6.htm

-

alephh
01-19-2008, 10:41 AM
I just saw the No End in Sight - documentary. Very good doc, clearly covering of the reasons leading to the years of chaos in Iraq, no wonder it has gotten so great reviews. Best Iraq doc I have seen.

Mind-numbing mistakes by Paul Bremer. Sometimes the words just fail to describe.


Just hoping that Bush doesn't find a way to disturb David Petraeus and his efforts.

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- Bush discussing the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson.


_

32Bravo
01-19-2008, 12:25 PM
According to Bremer, he has made no mistakes.

I would suppose he will be elected President, one fine day.

Nickdfresh
02-28-2008, 07:35 AM
Bump! Off-topic posts in this thread have been moved here. (http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6374)

Sergeant Dorr
02-29-2008, 07:33 AM
Has anyone seen the documentary Farenhiet 9/11 by Michael Moore? It was good enough to hold my interest. It is basically about the way bush cheated in the elections and possible theorys about why the war is this way. And i read his book "Dude where's my country that is a good one also.

Rising Sun*
02-29-2008, 09:42 AM
Has anyone seen the documentary Farenhiet 9/11 by Michael Moore? It was good enough to hold my interest. It is basically about the way bush cheated in the elections and possible theorys about why the war is this way. And i read his book "Dude where's my country that is a good one also.


Mate, I don't necessarily endorse that film or book as balanced, but at least they balance a lot of other rubbish coming from elsewhere.

I force myself to read columnists I know are idiots and to listen to bigger morons on radio and television, purely because if I don't I'll think the idiots I normally read and listen to aren't idiots.

Gather as much information as you can from people who agree with you and even more from people who don't agree with you, and you might begin to understand what's going on around you. If you do, send me a PM, because most of the time I'm buggered if I understand it.

The fact that you're expanding your horizons shows that you're growing up. It's a shithouse experience, realising that the simple honour and belief you had as a child, and which many service men and women have, isn't returned by the bastards who run any nation.

32Bravo
03-01-2008, 01:32 PM
Mate, I don't necessarily endorse that film or book as balanced, but at least they balance a lot of other rubbish coming from elsewhere.

I force myself to read columnists I know are idiots and to listen to bigger morons on radio and television, purely because if I don't I'll think the idiots I normally read and listen to aren't idiots.

Gather as much information as you can from people who agree with you and even more from people who don't agree with you, and you might begin to understand what's going on around you. If you do, send me a PM, because most of the time I'm buggered if I understand it.

The fact that you're expanding your horizons shows that you're growing up. It's a shithouse experience, realising that the simple honour and belief you had as a child, and which many service men and women have, isn't returned by the bastards who run any nation.

I feel that you ought to receive some form of accolade for those pearls.

Nickdfresh
03-09-2008, 04:50 PM
Friday, Mar. 07, 2008
Ominous Rise in Baghdad Bombings
By Charles Crain/Baghdad

Thursday's double bombing in Baghdad, which killed nearly 70 people and left hundreds more wounded, was the worst attack in Iraq since June 2007. It continues a troubling trend: a slow but steady increase in deadly bombings across the country. The troop surge is ending and the U.S. has begun withdrawing soldiers from Baghdad, but these attacks may indicate that a military or political solution to the Sunni insurgency may be as far off as it was a year ago.

The attacks capped off a violent week. Last Sunday more than 20 people died in bombings across the capital. And last month nearly 100 people were killed when two women detonated suicide vests in a crowded Baghdad market. According to statistics released by the U.S. military such attacks declined sharply for most of 2007, bottoming out in December. Since late last year, though, car bombings and suicide vest bombings have increased steadily.

Despite this week's carnage the absolute number of bombings is still far lower than it was one year ago. The problem, however, is not simply lives lost, but also what the slow increase in attacks says about the resiliency of the Sunni insurgency. Battered by Shi'ite militias, the U.S. military and the defection of more moderate insurgents, al-Qaeda in Iraq and other radical insurgent groups are much weaker now than they were just last summer. But, as U.S. officials are quick to acknowledge, they still have the men, the money and the organization to pose a serious threat.

The question now is how that threat will be kept under control. American troop levels in Baghdad and the rest of Iraq will return this year to about the same level as 2006 — the year that saw the worst of the country's sectarian violence. Helping to fill that void, supposedly, will be former members of the Sunni insurgency: thousands have become U.S.-paid counter-insurgents and, in some cases, members of the Iraqi government security forces. Unlike the mostly Shi'ite Iraqi army and police, these Sunnis have credibility in their towns and neighborhoods and have proven effective in fighting their former insurgent allies.

The trouble is that this ground-level military solution may be in conflict with other government efforts to reduce the violence and foster stability in Iraq. The Karrada bombing came on the heels of a state visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and struck a neighborhood that is home to Iraq's largest Shi'ite political party and many Shi'ite government officials. The timing and location of this bombing may have been a coincidence, but Karrada makes a nice target for Sunni militants who frame their fight as a struggle against Iranian domination.

The long-term difficulty for the United States and the Iraqi government is that this suspicion of Iran is not simply a fantasy of radical Sunni insurgents. It is a very real fear of Sunni former insurgents currently cooperating in the fight against al-Qaeda. Former insurgent leaders routinely scorn the Iraqi government's intentions, casting it as a pawn of the Iranians. So, as the Iraqi government strives to reduce violence by improving its relationship with Iran, it may be setting the stage for continued conflict with disaffected Sunnis.

Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1720477,00.html)

Nickdfresh
03-10-2008, 07:56 AM
Studies: Iraq Costs US $12B Per Month
Studies: Iraq War Will Cost $12 Billion Per Month in 2008, Tripling Rate of War's Early Years
By CHARLES J. HANLEY AP Special Correspondent
The Associated Press (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4417483)
http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/8e45876f-b474-4813-a184-e9578bceb51b_ms.jpg
A US soldier of 3rd Brigade Combat team, 3rd Infantry secures the area as smoke a pall rises from fires in background, during a military operation at Al-leg area about 60 kilometers (40 miles) south of Baghdad, Iraq, on Friday, March 7, 2008. (AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris) (AP)
The flow of blood may be ebbing, but the flood of money into the Iraq war is steadily rising, new analyses show. In 2008, its sixth year, the war will cost approximately $12 billion a month, triple the "burn" rate of its earliest years, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and co-author Linda J. Bilmes report in a new book.

Beyond 2008, working with "best-case" and "realistic-moderate" scenarios, they project the Iraq and Afghan wars, including long-term U.S. military occupations of those countries, will cost the U.S. budget between $1.7 trillion and $2.7 trillion — or more — by 2017.

Interest on money borrowed to pay those costs could alone add $816 billion to that bottom line, they say.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has done its own projections and comes in lower, forecasting a cumulative cost by 2017 of $1.2 trillion to $1.7 trillion for the two wars, with Iraq generally accounting for three-quarters of the costs.

Variations in such estimates stem from the sliding scales of assumptions, scenarios and budget items that are counted. But whatever the estimate, the cost will be huge, the auditors of the Government Accountability Office say.

In a Jan. 30 report to Congress, the GAO observed that the U.S. will be committing "significant" future resources to the wars, "requiring decision makers to consider difficult trade-offs as the nation faces an increasing long-range fiscal challenge."

These numbers don't include the war's cost to the rest of the world. In Iraq itself, the 2003 U.S.-led invasion — with its devastating air bombardments — and the looting and arson that followed, severely damaged electricity and other utilities, the oil industry, countless factories, hospitals, schools and other underpinnings of an economy.

No one has tried to calculate the economic damage done to Iraq, said spokesman Niels Buenemann of the International Monetary Fund, which closely tracks national economies. But millions of Iraqis have been left without jobs, and hundreds of thousands of professionals, managers and other middle-class citizens have fled the country.

In their book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War," Stiglitz, of Columbia University, and Bilmes, of Harvard, report the two wars will have cost the U.S. budget $845 billion in 2007 dollars by next Sept. 30, end of fiscal year 2008, assuming Congress fully funds Bush administration requests. That counts not just military operations, but embassy costs, reconstruction and other war-related expenses.

That total far surpasses the $670 billion in 2007 dollars the Congressional Research Service says was the U.S. price tag for the 12-year Vietnam War.

Although American military and Iraqi civilian casualties have declined in recent months, the rate of spending has shot up. A fully funded 2008 war budget will be 155 percent higher than 2004's, the CBO reports.

The reasons are numerous: the "surge" of additional U.S. units into Iraq; rising fuel costs; fattened bonuses to attract re-enlistments; and particularly the need to "reset," that is, repair or replace worn-out, destroyed or damaged military equipment. Almost $17 billion is appropriated this year for advanced armored vehicles to protect troops against roadside bombs.

Looking ahead, both the CBO and Stiglitz-Bilmes construct two scenarios, one in which U.S. troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan drop sharply and early — to 30,000 by late 2009 for the CBO, and to 55,000 by 2012 for Stiglitz-Bilmes — and a second in which the drawdown is more gradual.

Significantly, the two studies view different time frames, the CBO calculating possible costs met in the next 10 years, while Stiglitz and Bilmes also include costs incurred during that period but paid for later, such as equipment replaced in post-2017 budgets.

This factor figures most in the category of veterans' medical care and disability payments, where the CBO foresees $9 billion to $13 billion in costs by 2017. Stiglitz and Bilmes, meanwhile, project $422 billion to $717 billion in costs over the lifetime of soldiers who by 2017 are wounded or otherwise mentally or physically disabled by the wars.

"The CBO is only looking 10 years out on everything," Bilmes noted in an interview.

For its part, a CBO critique suggested that Bilmes and Stiglitz might be overstating the expense of treating veterans' brain injuries, a costly category.

The two economists say their calculations are conservative, because they don't encompass many "hidden" items in the U.S. budget. Their basic projections also exclude the potentially huge debt-service cost — on which CBO approximately agrees — and the cost to the U.S. economy of global oil prices that have quadrupled since 2003, an increase analysts blame partly on the Iraq upheaval.

Estimating all economic and social costs might push the U.S. war bill up toward $5 trillion by 2017, they say.

Their book already figures in the stay-or-leave debate over Iraq.

When Stiglitz testified on Feb. 28 before the congressional Joint Economic Committee, the ranking Republican, New Jersey's Rep. Jim Saxton, complained that such projections are too imprecise to help determine relative costs and benefits of the Iraq war.

Saxton said a rapid U.S. pullout could lead to full-scale civil war and Iranian domination of Iraq, "enormous costs" that he said should be weighed in any calculation.

Copyright &#169; 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

Gee, I wonder why we're in a recession... :rolleyes:

Well, the Surge (and out $12 billion a month) made Baghdad safe for Ahmadinejad to walk around while throngs of Shiite gov't officials kiss his arse...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/29/ahmadinejad.jpg
Is this your guy, America?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/02/iraq-ahmadineja.html

Nickdfresh
03-17-2008, 07:28 PM
Scions of the Surge

Five years on, the war is transforming the American officer corps.
Babak Dehghanpisheh and Evan Thomas
NEWSWEEK
Updated: 1:00 PM ET Mar 15, 2008

A doctor's son, Tim Wright was a Latin scholar with a 3.8 average in high school. Admitted to Princeton, he chose to go to West Point instead. "People looked at me like I had a third eye," Wright says, but he was drawn to the discipline of the U.S. Military Academy. He became a squared-away soldier, demanding of his troops yet sleeping and eating with them, and sharing their privations and dangers. His gung-ho attitude earned him the nickname "Captain America" from some of his grunts, half in jest, half out of respect.

But Wright is not the warrior he expected to be or that he was first trained to be. When he became a young infantry officer out of West Point in 2000, he entered an Army whose mission was to win wars by overwhelming force. This was the Army that blasted its way into Baghdad in less than three weeks in the spring of 2003. It is also the Army whose guns-blazing tactics helped fuel an angry insurgency, and that quickly became bogged down—worn, bloodied and baffled—by IEDs and street fighting in Iraq.

Wright, 30, was a captain in Baghdad last spring when the situation seemed bleakest. Walking down a street in the tormented neighborhood of Bayaa, chatting with a private named Oscar Sauceda,

Wright watched as Sauceda was hit in the head by a sniper's bullet. "He was dead before he hit the ground," Wright says, choking up at the memory. The captain wondered if he had failed his soldier by not clearing a nearby building. "That's the tough thing about this job," says Wright, blinking back tears. "If you f––– up, sometimes people die." Less than three weeks later, one of his company's Humvees was hit by a roadside bomb. Wright's staff sergeant, Matt Lammers, lost both legs and his left arm. Wright was crestfallen when he saw Lammers in the hospital. Baghdad seemed hopeless then. "It makes you think," Wright says, recalling his feelings at the time. "Is this place too far gone?"

Many Americans were asking that question last spring and summer. While it's too soon to say Iraq has turned the corner, the violence in Baghdad and most of the country has since declined precipitously. Much of the credit has gone to Gen. David Petraeus, the commander who has changed the way the U.S. Army fights. "You can't kill your way out of an insurgency," Petraeus told NEWSWEEK, in an interview in his Baghdad headquarters last month. He has moved soldiers out of their secure megabases and into small outposts deep inside once alien and hostile neighborhoods, and he has ordered his men out of their armored convoys. "Walk … Stop by, don't drive by," says Petraeus, reading from a "guidance" he is drafting for his soldiers. The objective, he repeats over and over, is no longer to take a hill or storm a citadel, but to win over the people.

But this new way of war needs a new kind of warrior, and it needs tens of thousands of them. Five years into the longest conflict the U.S. military has fought since Vietnam, young officers like Tim Wright have been blooded by multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. They've learned, often on their own, operating with unprecedented independence, the intricacies of Muslim cultures. Faced with ineffective central governments, they have acted as mayors, mediators, cops, civil engineers, usually in appalling surroundings. Most recently, and hardest of all, they've had to reach out and ally themselves with men who have tried and often succeeded in killing their own soldiers. Brought up in rigid, flag-waving warrior cultures that taught right from wrong, black from white, they've had to learn to operate amid moral ambiguity, to acknowledge the legitimate aspirations of their enemies.

It is hard to overstate the achievement of this Petraeus Generation of officers, but their success is terribly fragile. Their newest allies—some of them former outlaws, insurgents, terrorists—may yet betray their trust. Living among them, walking the streets every day, is critical to maintaining their loyalty, yet with each passing month the pressure to draw down troops is likely to grow. And while the skills these American officers have gained are crucial in murky conflicts like Iraq, they are not universally valued or trusted within the Pentagon. Petraeus has fought many battles with his bosses—including CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon, who resigned last week—over getting the resources needed to make his counterinsurgency strategy work. As his heirs move up the ranks, they will face similar struggles over which wars America chooses to wage in the future—and the way the Army fights them.

Many have already had to do battle with superiors who have been slow learners, if not clueless. Wright, a tall, square-jawed athlete who looks a little like Jack Kerouac, is nothing if not a thoughtful warrior. He grew up in a nonmilitary family in Maine; his older brother now works for an NGO resettling African refugees, his sister for the NBA. At West Point, he majored in American history and focused part of his research on Margaret Chase Smith, a Maine senator who spoke out against McCarthyism. There at the Academy, as well as at the Infantry Officer Basic Course and the more advanced Ranger School, Wright was trained to pursue and defeat an enemy using technology and superior firepower. But he learned the limits of that training in Afghanistan in 2004.

For three months, Wright and his fellow soldiers fruitlessly searched an area the size of Vermont for Taliban insurgents. "Chasing guys through the mountains of Afghanistan at 10,000 feet didn't [work]. The intel people always talk about 'ratlines'," Wright says, wriggling his fingers. "The 'ratlines' are bulls––t. Why would a guy hike over a snowy mountain with a bag of IEDs when they can drive it in a truck?" Wright realized that what he needed was an ally who could identify the jihadists who were right in front of him.

For weeks, Wright and his fellow soldiers had been hunting for a militant leader named Jan Baz. Finally Wright's boss, Lt. Col. Walter Piatt, decided that if they couldn't kill or capture the fugitive, they'd co-opt him. Piatt asked the local Afghan governor to set up a face-to-face meeting, where the American colonel offered Jan Baz the job of local police chief. The militant, eager to cement his authority in the area, accepted. "Was there some shadiness going on there?" Wright asks. "Yes. But it worked." After Jan Baz was put on the American payroll, attacks dropped.

When Wright wrapped up his tour in 2005, he wrote an article in Infantry Magazine, an Army publication, criticizing the traditional "light infantry" tactics that had flopped in Afghanistan. He recommended more-flexible approaches, like mixing with the locals and (more implied than directly stated) buying off the enemy. When Petraeus drafted his counterinsurgency doctrine in 2006, he was able to draw on the experiences of resourceful frontline officers like Piatt and Wright. "All the stuff in the Petraeus manual, we had kind of figured it out there [in Afghanistan]," says Wright. "It was all the stuff we had seen work on the ground."

American officers learned very similar lessons in battling the Viet Cong. But much of that knowledge was simply lost. "It's said we fought that war nine times, a year at a time," says Petraeus, noting that because they had been drafted rather than volunteered, many combat-hardened troops left the Army as soon as their yearlong tours in Vietnam were up. By contrast, with the Army stretched thin and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan dragging on, soldiers like Wright find themselves heading back into the fight for a second (or third or fourth) tour. "They have a level of experience that I don't think our Army has had at that rank certainly since Vietnam, and maybe not even then," says Petraeus.

Petraeus has institutionalized that knowledge. Herding a team of researchers at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, he was able to get his manual written and approved about three years after the invasion of Iraq, lightning speed in Pentagon time. But even Petraeus says that the much-lauded document can provide only principles to follow. The hard work is still being done in the streets of Baghdad. "What they're dealing with is much more complex and much more nuanced than what we were trained to do when I was a captain," he says. "You have to understand not just what we call the military terrain ... the high ground and low ground. It's about understanding the human terrain, really understanding it."
....
The rest @ Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/123475)

Panzerknacker
03-17-2008, 08:10 PM
A really really dark landscape for the U.S military there, hopefully the new administration will bring some solutions for the conflict.

gumalangi
03-18-2008, 04:19 AM
off course it is dark,.. :cool:

Rising Sun*
03-18-2008, 07:40 AM
A really really dark landscape for the U.S military there, hopefully the new administration will bring some solutions for the conflict.

Notwithstanding the fact that Bush and his idiot clique, or more accurately claque, have caused the Iraq problem, why not hope that the Iraqis do something to bring solutions to their own problems, many of which are longstanding and were suppressed by Hussein and unleashed by Bush?

Expecting a new American administration to solve that problem by itself is in the same category as expecting it to solve the Israel problem.

Panzerknacker
03-18-2008, 11:10 AM
Well, they have a moral responsability, to bring a end ( a good end if possible) to the mess caused by an earlier administration, I believe is not the first time it happen.

gumalangi
03-18-2008, 11:14 AM
heard about grenada before?

Panzerknacker
03-18-2008, 05:32 PM
Yes we do...and ? what is the relationship with the todays facts in irak?

gumalangi
03-19-2008, 04:55 AM
it was a messy intervention by us also

alephh
03-19-2008, 07:17 AM
U.S. Soldiers Testify About War Crimes

Dozens of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans publicly testified about crimes they committed during the course of battle - many of which were prompted by the orders or policies laid down by superior officers.
+
Cpl. Jason Washburn told his commanders encouraged lawless behavior. "We were encouraged to bring 'drop weapons' or shovels, in case we accidentally shot a civilian, we could drop the weapon on the body and pretend they were an insurgent."
+
Marine John Michael Turner tore off the medals he earned during two tours in Iraq and threw them on the ground. "Apr. 18, 2006 was the date of my first confirmed kill. He was innocent, I called him the fat man. He was walking back to his house and I killed him in front of his father and friend. My first shot made him scream and look into my eyes, so I looked at my friend and said, 'Well, I can't let that happen,' and shot him again. After my first kill I was congratulated."

source:
http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/158957/1/3319


_

Rising Sun*
03-19-2008, 07:56 AM
Well, they have a moral responsability, to bring a end ( a good end if possible) to the mess caused by an earlier administration, I believe is not the first time it happen.

Agreed, but when did morality ever overwhelm national interest in decisions made by politicians?

Ordinary people can see the injustices in such things, but it's the politicians who make the decisions.

Ordinary people don't have close links with Halliburton and Big Oil. American politicians, notably the current administration, do.

In the case of my country, we couldn't have cared less about Iraq from any national standpoint before we attacked it. It's just a re-run of Vietnam and GW1, where our participation is about earning Brownie points with America in case we need its help again, which our governments never grasp will happen if it's in America's interests and won't if it's not, regardless of what American actions we might have supported in the past.

My country's moral obligation to Iraq was not to get involved in attacking Iraq for our own interests unrelated to Iraq. Having ignored that moral obligation, we're hardly likely to suddenly put Iraq's interests ahead of our own, which are to support America like the sad little lap dog we usually are.

Panzerknacker
03-19-2008, 11:26 AM
Well, perhaps you are right and my toughs are simple wishful thinking, however I believe that still is possible to clear the mess .

How ?...I dont know.

Rising Sun*
03-20-2008, 05:25 AM
Well, perhaps you are right and my toughs are simple wishful thinking, however I believe that still is possible to clear the mess .

How ?...I dont know.

Nobody does.

The Coalition of Dills went in with great and very successful tactics for winning a war but no idea of what to do afterwards, let alone planning for how to deal with the jihadist focus they turned Iraq into, which they didn't see coming.

Nickdfresh
03-27-2008, 01:49 AM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

From the horror of 9/11 to the invasion of Iraq; the truth about WMD to the rise of an insurgency; the scandal of Abu Ghraib to the strategy of the surge -- for seven years, FRONTLINE has revealed the defining stories of the war on terror in meticulous detail, and the political dramas that played out at the highest levels of power and influence.

Now, on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion, the full saga unfolds in the two-part FRONTLINE special Bush's War. Veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk draws on one of the richest archives in broadcast journalism -- more than 40 FRONTLINE reports on Iraq and the war on terror. Combined with fresh reporting and new interviews, Bush's War will be the definitive documentary analysis of one of the most challenging periods in the nation's history.

"Parts of this history have been told before," Kirk says. "But no one has laid out the entire narrative to reveal in one epic story the scope and detail of how this war began and how it has been fought, both on the ground and deep inside the government."

In the fall of 2001, even as America was waging a war in Afghanistan, another hidden war was being waged inside the administration. Part 1 of Bush's War tells the story of this behind-the-scenes battle over whether Iraq would be the next target in the war on terror.

On one side, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet squared off against Vice President **** Cheney and his longtime ally, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The battles were over policy -- whether to attack Iraq; the role of Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi; how to treat detainees; whether to seek United Nations resolutions; and the value of intelligence suggesting a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks -- but the conflict was deeply personal.

"Friendships were dashed," Powell's deputy Richard Armitage tells FRONTLINE. As the war within the administration heated up, Armitage and Powell concluded that they were being shut out of key decisions by Cheney and Rumsfeld. "The battle of ideas, you generally come up with the best solution. When somebody hijacks the system, then, just like a hijacked airplane, very often no good comes of it," Armitage adds.

Others inside the administration believe they understand the motivation behind some of the vice president's actions. "I think the vice president felt he kind of looked death in the eye on 9/11," former White House counterterrorism coordinator Richard Clarke says. "Three thousand Americans died. The building that the vice president used to work in blew up, and people died there. This was a cold slap in the face. This is a different world you're living in now. And the enemy's still out there, and the enemy could come after you. That does cause you to think [about] things differently."

More than anything else, the Iraq war will be the lasting legacy of the Bush presidency. Part 2 of Bush's War examines that war -- beginning with the quick American victory in Iraq, the early mistakes that were made, and then recounting the story of how chaos, looting and violence quickly engulfed the country.

As American forces realized they were unprepared for the looting that followed the invasion, plans for a swift withdrawal of troops were put on hold. With only a few weeks' preparation, American administrator L. Paul Bremer was sent to find a political solution to a rapidly deteriorating situation. Bremer's first moves were to disband the Iraqi military and remove members of Saddam Hussein's party from the government. They were decisions that the original head of reconstruction, Gen. Jay Garner (Ret.), begged Bremer to reconsider at the time. Now they are seen by others as one of the first in a series of missteps that would lead Iraq into a full-blown insurgency.

But Bremer has his defenders: "We believed, Bremer believed, and I think the leadership in Washington believed that it was very important to demonstrate to the Iraqi people that whatever else was going to happen, Saddam and his cronies were not coming back," Walter Slocombe, the national security adviser to Bremer, tells FRONTLINE.

Garner was not the only one on the outside. As senior officials complained about inattention at the top, Gen. Tommy Franks and his deputy, Gen. Michael DeLong -- the generals who had planned the war -- found that decisions were being made without them as well.

"All the recommendations that we were making now in the Phase IV part weren't being taken -- weren't being taken by Bremer or Rumsfeld," DeLong tells FRONTLINE. "That's when Franks said, 'I'm done.' They said, 'Well, you'll be chief of staff of the Army.' He said, 'No, I'm done.'"

What followed is well documented: insurgency, sectarian strife, prisoner abuse and growing casualties. But within the administration, a new battle over strategy was being fought -- this one between a new secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. The clash between America's top diplomat and its chief defense official would go on for more than two years and be settled only after the Republican loss in the 2006 congressional elections. It was then that the president forced Rumsfeld out, ended his strategy of slow withdrawal and ordered a surge of troops. FRONTLINE goes behind closed doors to tell the most recent chapter in this ongoing story, and asks what Bush will leave for a new U.S. president both in Iraq and in the larger war on terror.

Nickdfresh
04-22-2008, 06:06 AM
April 20, 2008
Message Machine
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand
By DAVID BARSTOW

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.

The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President **** Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.

“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.

Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.

As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.

“Night and day,” Mr. Allard said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”

The Pentagon defended its relationship with military analysts, saying they had been given only factual information about the war. “The intent and purpose of this is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American people,” Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said.

It was, Mr. Whitman added, “a bit incredible” to think retired military officers could be “wound up” and turned into “puppets of the Defense Department.”

Many analysts strongly denied that they had either been co-opted or had allowed outside business interests to affect their on-air comments, and some have used their platforms to criticize the conduct of the war. Several, like Jeffrey D. McCausland, a CBS military analyst and defense industry lobbyist, said they kept their networks informed of their outside work and recused themselves from coverage that touched on business interests.

“I’m not here representing the administration,” Dr. McCausland said.

CONTINUED HERE! (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=3&sq=CNN%20analysts&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1208862126-OqSkr5AfcF9Zi0nCsSWnIQ)

BAR_GUNNER
05-01-2008, 01:06 PM
Is it just me or were we foolish to believe we could ever successful invade Iraq?

Ive had 3 grandsons fighting in Iraq, and 4 cousins, they say Yes we are succeeding.
One cousin has been there for three tours, a Police Sgt from Tallahassee, training police officers there. He just re-enlisted for an unlimited term, because he believes in what he is doing and they are succeeding.



I look at it from a couple of points of view;

1. Suddam needed to be eliminated.
2. Once this happened we should have left and allowed the people to decide their own future

If I were Iraqi i would have cheered the coalition for their help and politely told them to piss off and get out of my country.

If you listen to the Media, you get that opinion. But, I worked for two newspapers after the Korean War, and learned you can _not_ believe more than 10-15&#37; of what they say. Today, it is much worse, I believe even less.

Newspapers and TV are _not_ in business to give you the truth.
They are in business to make a PROFIT, to sell advertising. They write or slant the news, in whatever way they believe their readers think or feel, and make more money that way. Anyone who believes more than the bare facts, is naive. Where something happened, the time it happened, the date it happened, who it happened to or who did it. You can not even believe what happened any longer of how it happened. They ALL slant the news to their advantage.

The TRUTH is, the majority of Iraqi & Muslims people want us to stay.
My grandsons say it is 7% or less of the Iraqi people cause the problems. Think about it, it the % was higher, a lot more men would be dying. In Korea, more were Killed in three months (over 1500 a month average) than the entire Iraqi War. Over SIX Million civilians died in 3 years.




I may be over simplifying the matter but I do understand why these people are fighting back. They see us as an occupying force not unlike the Germans in WWII.

"These people are not fighting back," the majority fighting are terrorists or dissidents, who do not like the Govt, and want to control it themselves. Many are Saddam's old henchmen, officers from his army, who want to take over. They want all the wealth they used to have, that they lost when Saddam was dethroned. They do not want a Democracy, but a Dictatorship.


If we removed ourselves and looked in on the situation from an outsiders prospective we would possible see these people as freedom fighter or a resistance movement.

The Iraqi people do not see them as "freedom fighters" they see them as enemies. One of my cousins who has a movie camera has sent dozens of movies to our family website, to show life in Iraq. He has driven around Baghdad for an hour many times, taping it all. No fighting, no fires, no explosions, people walking their dogs.l Children playing in the streets or on their way to schools in the morning, waving at the soldiers. Going to schools they love, that US Engineers have built, and GI's have paid for their books, pencils, and other things kids have in school. The Iraqi, even those who lost homes and family from the war, do not want Saddam's henchmen back. The Media never shows these things, they only show explosions or wreckage.

My Grandsons say much of what they see in the news is old news. That many stations run old pictures of their units taken even a year ago, and tell recent events as if the pictures are new. The media makes so much of it each time a US soldier is killed. My Grandson says, "More young people per 100,000 are killed in auto accidents in MA each day in the US, than in Iraq. It is safer for me in Iraq. Yet, you do not see in the media how many are killed each day in the US."

People will believe the worst, if one person dies in Iraq, it is a tragedy.
But, it is also a tragedy for the families each time someone dies in the US.

Don't let the Media do your thinking for you, think for yourself.

BAR_GUNNER
05-01-2008, 01:27 PM
April 20, 2008
Message Machine
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand
By DAVID BARSTOW

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guant&#225;namo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.
CONTINUED HERE! (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=3&sq=CNN&#37;20analysts&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1208862126-OqSkr5AfcF9Zi0nCsSWnIQ)

"A gulag" does not feed prisoners better than in our own state prisons or give them better medical care than many Americans get, even when they pay for it. Such terms are used to get maximum attention, to get maximum viewers, to make the maximum money when selling advertising.

IF this were all true, then the slant of the entire Iraq war given by the media would be quite different. As I said before if you believe more than BARE FACTS from the media, you are naive. David Barstow, is one more reporter sensationalizing the news. They will say _anything_ to get people to watch the news.

Back in the 40's the media printed more of the truth. By the 50's they had learned they can make more money selling advertising, by telling people what they want to hear than by the truth. It used to be papers only editorialized on the editorial page, now the entire paper or TV news is an editorial. It used to be TV news never made a profit, because it was boring only a small percentage tuned in. Today, News programs are some of the biggest profit makers, because they manipulate the news.

There may be _some_ truth in the above, the bare facts. Like they took talking heads to see the prison, so they could counteract some of the stories the media was making up to sensationalize it.

One big example of what the media does, is stories you see or can witness in the US. Like an earthquake in LA. The damage as shown by the media looks ten times or more greater than the actual damage. They shoot pictures of one apartment house that collapses, from four or more angles, at many times during the day. Then, they talk about it showing the pictures in the background. People watching think they are seeing 8 or 10 different apartment houses. They do the same with bridges that collapsed, etc, and the public gets fooled.

You can't believe more than 5-10% of what is in the media, and even less of what you read on the Internet. Some of these websites publishing what they call News, are making thousands of dollars per day. Some websites make as much as $30,000-60,000 month or more from advertising. Websites like CNN, make even more. They will do or say anything to keep getting the "hits" on the site, so they can make more per advertisement. :evil:

Rising Sun*
05-02-2008, 06:44 AM
This is a bit tangential, but it illustrates the way even the supposedly impartial legal process has been manipulated by the Adminstration and Pentagon in pursuit of the so-called war on terror, which is part of the overall White House spin doctor position that links the war in Iraq to that 'war'.

That it was done to accommodate an Australian neo-con government obsession with getting the scalp of one of its own citizens for shabby political purposes doesn't alter the fact that it was a gross executive interference in a legal process.


Prosecutor admits Hicks case political
John Wiseman | April 30, 2008

DAVID Hicks will not pursue action against the Australian or US governments despite startling admissions from the former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay that the military commission process that convicted him was politically influenced and that evidence was obtained through prisoner abuse.

Hicks's lawyer David McLeod said last night that Hick's instructions to him remained firm: he simply "wanted to get on with life".

However, Mr McLeod added that if Hicks chose to challenge what had happened to him, there would be a number of paths he could pursue.

"If the wheels start to fall off the validity of the military commission wagon, those circumstances may permit Hicks to agitate the fairness and lawfulness and validity of what happened to him in Australia," Mr McLeod said.

Appearing as a witness before the same tribunal in which he prosecuted Hicks, US Air Force Colonel Mo Davis said yesterday politicians had forced him to prosecute Hicks.

Colonel Davis, who quit as the chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay late last year because of outside interference, said that, if it had been his choice, Hicks would not have been charged because the case against him was not serious enough.

Hicks pleaded guilty to a single minor charge of providing material support for terrorism as part of a plea bargain that saw him returned to Australia to serve seven months in an Adelaide jail after five years' detention in Guantanamo Bay. He was released at the end of December.

Colonel Davis said he had "inherited" the Hicks prosecution, but he had wanted to focus on cases serious enough to carry 20-year jail terms and the case against the Australian did not meet that test.

Hicks's father, Terry, said yesterday the testimony ended any doubt that his son was charged with war crimes for purely political reasons. "Mo Davis is re-iterating what we have been saying for quite a while," Mr Hicks told The Australian. "It has all been rigged politically and now Mo Davis has come out and said it."

A spokesman for Attorney-General Robert McClelland said Labor was not privy to communications between the Howard government and US authorities and questions on that should be put to the Coalition.

Former prime minister John Howard declined to comment on Colonel's Davis testimony and former foreign minister Alexander Downer was unavailable.

Terry Hicks said his son was still undergoing psychological counselling and recovering from his imprisonment.

Colonel Davis made his remarks in a pre-trial hearing for Guantanamo detainee Salim Hamdan, who is accused of being the driver of Osama bin Laden.

As a witness, Colonel Davis said the military commissions, which exist outside the normal military justice system, had been corrupted by politics and inappropriate influence.

Hicks is the only Guantanamo Bay detainee to have been convicted and his is the only case to have a resolution before the commissions. My bold http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23620579-5013404,00.html

Nickdfresh
05-02-2008, 10:53 AM
Ive had 3 grandsons fighting in Iraq, and 4 cousins, they say Yes we are succeeding.
One cousin has been there for three tours, a Police Sgt from Tallahassee, training police officers there. He just re-enlisted for an unlimited term, because he believes in what he is doing and they are succeeding.

...

Out of about four veterans of the War, including a SFC that worked in special ops and had only recently returned and another a guy who had PTSD making him undeployable, I have yet to meet one vet that has much good to say about the war's conduct or its stated objectives. Yet I keep running across posters on the Internet that know lots of military that think the War is "being won" even though the people I've spoken too seem to think that there is no real "victory" per say that whole thing is very muddled with thoughts of victory meaning we can "go home" or John McCain's seeming desire to be able to continue the occupation for another "100 years." They thought that it's only a matter of time inevitably since the Iraqi gov't ultimately is the one that must make the peace, they seemingly have little desire to do so, and the gov't will inevitably be run by a Shiite militia which will tell us to leave..

Yes, I guess I am mildly biased towards the (center)left, but I have never met anyone that was very gung ho about fighting for the Iraq Shiite dominated gov't, which draws much of its secret support from Iran...


Perhaps we have a different perspective, but most of the comments I've heard are something to the affect that "we drive around waiting to get bombed or ambushed," or that the Iraqis in the army and police (save for the elite) are useless or are infiltrated by militias...

BAR_GUNNER
05-03-2008, 03:30 PM
Hi Cam77,

Are you aware that you just blue the Mr.Bush's cover up? It is nice to hear that some people openly acknoledge that the official reasons (the Weapons Of Mass Destruction) was a hoax.

At least it is a beginning...

:)

Well, I don't know anyone who does not acknowledge that. But that does not change anything, once we went in, we stayed to repair the damage to the infrastructure. That certainly needed to be done, and it is something we have done in WWII and other conflicts. The millions in lend lease loans to countries, have never been repaid to the US, and we have never insisted on it. Perhaps if it had been repaid, other countries would not be as well off. But, no one thanks us for it. Even the Iraqi's who agreed to pay for help with oil profits, are just building their treasure chests. They do not even supply oil to the military there, we spend millions for fuel.

People may not like the US, but we have left every country we helped better off than they were before we finished. If the people in this country who complain so much, used their brain to think, instead of following the media like sheep, they would be backing the support of Iraq.

Iraqi's are there, on the ground, know what life is like, and they support US.
It is only about 7% of the dissidents who want a dictatorship, so they can be as wealthy as they were, who do not. Like every country, it only takes a few idiots to spoil it for an entire city.

BAR_GUNNER
05-03-2008, 04:07 PM
Out of about four veterans of the War, including a SFC that worked in special ops and had only recently returned and another a guy who had PTSD making him undeployable, I have yet to meet one vet that has much good to say about the war's conduct or its stated objectives.




Then you get the wrong idea, because in 2007 there were a LOT of GI's writing in favor of the war. Unfortunately the Govt stopped them from writing on YouTube, etc, as they may have given away vital info, where they were located or other info that would help the enemy.

This is just one of the posts that my cousin SFC David Osborne was writing, among many.... He still has the same opinions, but is limited in what he can post.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818112/posts


[QUOTE=Nickdfresh;123750] Yet I keep running across posters on the Internet that know lots of military that think the War is "being won" even though the people I've spoken too seem to think that there is no real "victory" per say that whole thing is very muddled with thoughts of victory meaning we can "go home"

Being won, is much different than going home. Ending a war, is much different than going home. People believe the war in Korea ended in 1953, it did not. We signed a Cease Fire agreement, no armistice was ever signed. Technically it still could be said, we are still at war with North Korea. Men in the US Army, have been dying every year in Korea, killed by soldiers of North Korea. No, not hundreds, but some years there have been dozens killed. When my Nephew was there, before he went to Bosnia, 18 men were from his Helicopter unit were killed.

WE HAVE BEEN THERE, OVER FIFTY YEARS, at the rate it is going, it may be another fifty years. It is that kind of a situation McCain is talking about. Not a full fledged war. We still have troops in Europe, and that is over 60 years, it is easy to believe we could be in a country for 100 years.



Yes, I guess I am mildly biased towards the (center)left, but I have never met anyone that was very gung ho about fighting for the Iraq Shiite dominated gov't, which draws much of its secret support from Iran...

Perhaps we have a different perspective, but most of the comments I've heard are something to the affect that "we drive around waiting to get bombed or ambushed," or that the Iraqis in the army and police (save for the elite) are useless or are infiltrated by militias...

"Greetings from the FRONT LINE! By: David C. Osborne

The view/opinion expressed are my own, and DO NOT necessarily reflect the views of other Soldiers, the American People, or members of the U.S. Government

It is on the eve of yet another day of FIERCE fighting in Baghdad that I write the following to my fellow Americans...

Greetings from Baghdad, I trust this note finds you well.

Things in Baghdad are extremely complicated, and only the Lord knows what challenges each day will bring.

I wish it were possible to talk to every American citizen at one time, and ask you BEG YOU to not give up on ME.. I am fighting a terrible war, not against any nation or "army" but against an evil ideology (Satan Himself I believe) that is anti-American and anti-Freedom...

Few things in THIS life are worth fighting for, but in my opinion this IS one of those few things...

It is sad to see that some soldiers, and a growing number of American Citizens either do not understand this, or no longer believe that FREEDOM IS still worth fighting for.. I do not know what the future holds for us, but I SINCERELY believe that if WHEN the American people order us to stop fighting here in IRAQ, the battleground of our choosing....."

You can read the entire piece here, plus others he has written.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1818112/posts

Quote SFC David Osborne
"The Iraqi people desperately want security and stability... how many soldiers... how many nations.. how many American CITIZENS are willing to help them achieve that, AT ANY COST ! What is the "price tag" of freedom? I say that there IS no price tag, Freedom is NOT FOR SALE ! The enemy knows that without security and stability, Iraq will NEVER be FREE, and there is no DOUBT that the enemies of FREEDOM are committed to THEIR cause, my question for you is this... Are YOU as committed to Pro-American, Pro-Freedom values, as the enemy is to Anti-American, Anti-Freedom values? IF your answer is yes, please let me do MY JOB !!"


When David is not on duty in Iraq, he is a Sgt in the Tallahassee Police Dept.
So far, he has served three tours in Iraqi. He also says a lot more in our Family Website on family.com ... We come from a very large military family, we have all put our money where our mouth is, since the Revolution.

William Osborne and Benjamin Flag were awarded the Medal of Honor in the Civil war. Another member of the family Cpl Jason Dunham, a Marine, was recommended the first Medal of Honor by the Marines in Iraq. Pres Bush presented it posthumously.

Rising Sun*
05-05-2008, 05:39 PM
We have a large military base in germany after the war and anyone with military experience and knowledge knows that once your in you stay in and never leave.

Like Vietnam? Or the Philippines?


The beginning of the paragraph reads: Iraq is now largely irrelevant to the interests of the US led Coalition of the Self-Deluding in Iraq. This is questionable and many many people suppport my views and this is a fact.

I referred to the US led coalition.

You're talking about the US.

You also insist on talking about 'we' as if Canada is the US. Last time I heard, it's not. And that's a fact.

Nickdfresh
05-23-2008, 07:18 PM
Medal of Honor for soldier killed in Iraq
Ross McGinnis jumped on grenade thrown into Humvee, saved four others
The Associated Press
updated 2:01 p.m. ET, Fri., May. 23, 2008
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080523/080523-mcginnis-vmed-11a.vsmall.jpg
WASHINGTON - The White House announced Friday that a Pennsylvania soldier who jumped on top of a grenade in Iraq and saved the lives of his comrades will posthumously receive the Medal of Honor.

The nation's highest military honor will be given to 19-year-old Army Pfc. Ross McGinnis of Knox, Pa., on June 2.

McGinnis "distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism," said White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto.

McGinnis was perched in the gunner's hatch of a Humvee when a grenade sailed past him and into the truck where four other soldiers sat. He shouted a warning to the others, then jumped on the grenade. The grenade, which was lodged near the vehicle's radio, blew up and killed him.

Lt. Col. Anne Edgecomb, an Army spokeswoman, said McGinnis easily could have jumped out of the truck and saved himself.

'It saved their lives'
"The instinct is, jump out of the vehicle, but his four buddies were in the vehicle with him ... and he chose to place himself on top of the grenade and absorb the impact, and it saved their lives," Edgecomb said.

McGinnis was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, in Schweinfurt, Germany.

He died on Dec. 4, 2006.

Three others have also been awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously for their actions in Iraq. They are Army Sgt. 1st Class Paul R. Smith, Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor and Marine Cpl. Jason L. Dunham.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24794042/)