Iraq the Wargame

The following is a cut-and-paste from another forum I post in, it contains
sentiments similar to yours (hopefully it will format right):

/*********************/

This war is getting more and more disturbing in a couple of ways. First, the
expected surrenders by the main Iraqi army aren't happening at near the
frequency predicted. Many of them -appear- to be surrendering but they are
actually just dispersing to regroup later closer to Baghdad (that's why you
keep hearing reports of such huge surrenders, and yet the numbers of
captured soldiers are so low). Isolated units are in many cases continuing
to fight, often fiercely. And at Nasariyah (sp) today there was a really
nasty fight, where Iraqi units posed as civilians then ambushed the US
marines, inflicting about 50 casualties and several fatalities. These aren't
the actions of an army that is on the brink of collapse. That doesn't mean
we aren't winning, but it does indicate to me that expectations of a
nation-wide surrender aren't realistic at this point.

Second, Iraqi civilians are not showing joy at their 'liberation' from
Saddam. Oh, they danced in front of the army, but then, they dance every
time Saddam orders a parade in his name as well. That's just for show. When
the army left and just reporters were around, they stopped the fake smiling
and dancing and showed a lot of hostility. A -lot- of hostility. And this is
in the southern Iraq area, where the shiites are, these are some of the
worst-treated Iraqi civilians (next to the kurds). If they don't like us,
what kind of reception awaits us by the civilians of Baghdad?

These things and several others are starting to make me wonder: is all the
talk about how much the people of Iraq hate Saddam accurate? Or, to put it
another way, has it been interpreted accurately? You could ask me how I feel
about Bush and I'd tell you that he sucks and I'd love to see anyone else as
president. But that doesn't mean I want my country invaded by someone else.
I'm wondering if we are the victims of our own press releases, thinking the
Iraqis desperately want our help when in fact they want nothing of the kind.
Worth thinking about, considering what I've seen over the last couple of
days.

Also, I'm wondering if this 'kinder and gentler' war campaign isn't
backfiring badly. We are bypassing Iraqi units based on the belief that they
don't want to fight and will surrender later (so no need to injure/kill any
of them), then those units turn around and attack us later. We are leaving
the power and water on in Baghdad, and avoiding attack most other
infrastructure there, thinking that this will reduce the civilian suffering
(which of course it will), but won't it also greatly reduce the impact of
the bombing? Is it giving the Iraqi high command the impression that they
can weather this out?

I don't like the way this war is progressing at all. I don't doubt we'll
win, I just doubt that we'll win the way we want to. :/

<Bip's post>

<My post>

I realized on reading it that I didn't make it clear that it was -my- post
that I was cut-and-pasting, not a post written by someone else. Sorry 'bout
that. It was a post that I made on another forum, pasted here.

It could also lead to an easier and cheaper reconstruction with a populace
holding much less resentment to us...in theory. Perhaps trading the lives of
our troops for a decrease in future terrorists is an equation being
considered?

-Tim

Oh, there's no doubt that was the plan. And IMO, it was definitely the way
to go about it (assuming you had to go in at all, but that's an old topic
and I've stated my views on that). But if it's not working, if indeed it's
having the exact opposite effect, then it might need to be reconsidered.

I think the Americans put a lot of faith in their psy ops campaign,
it's been ongoing for months now. That's a very tricky business
though, and I'd imagine a lot of it has been shot to hell by the
setbacks over the last couple of days. The saturation media coverage
of the war works in their favour when everything is going smoothly,
but when it isn't it tends to magnify everything that isn't according
to plan. The Pentagon probably didn't give that enough consideration,
which is surprising. I think that if the bad news continues, they'll
start taking the gloves off.

I am quite surprised that the gloves havent come off already, its plain to
everyone that the current "humane" tactics are not working at all.

Tomi

- Richard Hutnik

Message below saved for context. Sorry for those who want it at the
bottom, but some people such as myself, have to click a "click here to
read rest of message", just to get one or two line reply, which is why
I top posted.

I think there's strong indications the US brass was as mislead by
rumors of Iraqi defeatism as the general populous. When I saw the
quote from an American colonel saying "I don't understand why they
don't surrender, it's not a fair fight" I knew some things were
missing from the breakfast newspaper of the US military.

That colonel should have been asked if HE would surrender if it was
HIS homeland that was being invaded by foreigners.

This isn't a "liberation" anywhere but in the heads of the
propagandists and those who swallow their bull. It's an invasion of
conquest and that's how the Iraqis are seeing it.

Of course they'll still lose. But we'll see what the cost is this week
when the US troops actually start running into dug in troops in
Baghdad itself.

--

Ben Sisson

"Blood is red, bruises are blue
When strangers come here, we run them through!
HARG! HARG! HARG!"

-The Thraddash, Star Control 2

>Second, Iraqi civilians are not showing joy at their 'liberation' from

The shi'ites are the more religious side of Islamic culture. That's
where al-Qaeda comes from. If the US thought that those people were
going to be happy to see the US they were deluding themselves (which
wouldn't be a surprise). There's a boatload of trouble the size of an
aircraft carrier waiting to happen with those people, though we won't
see it for a while yet.

I think the long term problems could be more in the north. If the Turks
cross the border in large numbers, as they seem to be doing, the whole area
could degenerate into three way battles between Kurdish paramilitary
fighters, the Turkish army and Iraqi forces. Turkey really did a number on
the Americans, first refusing them troop access and then invading Iraq on
their own.

Tomi

Apart from the Kurdish issue, Turkey has a long-standing interest in
this area. Iraq used to be part of their Ottoman Empire until Turkey
backed the wrong side in WW1 and was broken up. They might reasonably
want to take control again - Iraq hasn't been much of a success as an
independent state. It's like the fragments of the Austro-Hungarian
empire which was also broken up after WW1. The artificial nations
created out of that have recently been falling apart too - Yugoslavia
and Czechoslovakia.

Actually, al-Qaeda (and the Taliban) are radical Sunnis, not Shi'ites. The
Lebanese Hizballah are Shi'ites, but one could argue they're fighting a
territorial war, not a religious war. Shi'ites are no more religious than
Sunnis, whatever that means. Having travelled in both Iran (mainly Shi'ite
population) and Saudi Arabia (Sunni), my personal observation, for what it's
worth, is that evidence of religious practice such as visibility of mosques,
audibility of the call to prayer, people observing prayers in public, etc,
was much stronger in Saudi Arabia.

This is a good point I made a while ago, and you just made ...
and the Pentagon seemed to miss. They noted the morale issues and the
surrenders from 1991 and assumed this would be redux ... but the
distinction between then and now was that they had no way to get out
of Kuwait. Here, if they decide to stop fighting, they don't need to
surrender, they can just simply go to their homes.
I think that Iraq will fold easily. 24-hour live TV coverage
has spoiled people to thinking something must always be happening ...
the ordinary ebb and flow of days in war are being magnified to events
of huge importance. The oil fields are secure, the oil fields are not
secure ... it's a little silly. Clearly the force available is
overwhelming, they just haven't been unleashed.
What they're forgetting is that a lot of the civilians we want
to protect are staying far away from any targets we want ... so
there's not much reason to hold back. The civilians with guns are
just soldiers without uniforms and fair game. This will be a quick
war ... Saddam is likely dead ( referencing a surrendered unit as
doing well while mentioning the only important port in Iraq tells me
that the last tape wasn't current ) so they're just hanging on to try
and take over for themselves.

H

Feel the burning stare of my hamster and change your ways!

>Actually, al-Qaeda (and the Taliban) are radical Sunnis, not Shi'ites. The

Yeah I think I may have gotten them backwards. Oops...

Just think of how much worse it would be with the 75,000 troops
Rumsfield wanted to play this game with, instead of having enough
troops to actually guard the supply lines.

I suspect that casualties will peak around the battle of Baghdad and
Tikrit, as US troops will be most overstretched, and there will be
the largest number of supply vehicles moving into recently 'secured'
areas.

Depending on how the occupation shakes out, casualties could start
to rise again after the opposition learns effective means of attacking/
harassing US troops. Part of the Iraqi problem right now is that
they have a huge number of unreliable units, where soldiers don't
trust their officers or fellow soldiers to actually fight. Units
or individual soldiers who decide to resist and form units will have
a more homogenious morale, and would be more likely to do damage,
in my opinion.

Even a couple pinprick attacks a day can add up to a lot of casualties
over a year. 5-10K sounds a bit too precise. I would call the range
between 1K and 20K, with above 10K being improbable because by that
point there would be huge political pressure to change the nature
of operations.

The cost to friendly civilian casualties, to those seen as
'collaborators' is likely to be far higher. Because there will
be more of them in exposed positions, and they will be less well
armed, and because they may arouse hatred for other reasons as well,
including tribal vendettas.

Michael Sandy

I predict a thousand ... and since we lose 800 a week in
automobile accidents I think 1000 lost wiping out a dictator with an
army is excellent -- results so overwhelmingly positive it would make
Spartans green with envy.
I hope I'm wrong about the 1000, of course ... but if I'm
wrong it will be because I overstated the casualties.

We are an entire armored division short of what was planned because the 4th
Armored (I think I have the right unit) division were the ones waiting to
offload into Turkey to form a northern front. Instead they are on boats
still, heading towards Kuwait for an approximate April 10th arrival date.
Turkey's refusal to allow them passage greatly reduced our ground presence
in this war.

In some ways it reminds me of a typical domestic disturbance call by police.
A man and a woman are going at it full tilt, smashed furniture, screaming
obscenities, physical contact, but then the cop shows up to 'help' and both
turn on the cop with twice the fury they had for each other. People are
territorial, and armed outsiders are rarely welcome, regardless of their
motives. Especially by a community that views such outsiders badly to begin
with.

I find it revealing that during the first day of the war we heard all sorts
of things about feelers coming out of Iraq about willingness to surrender
(from Rep Guards, no less). Over the next few days I heard a lot less about
such communications. Yesterday, I didn't hear a single mention about any
such communications. So, either all the people who sent out such feelers
are dead, or they don't feel so 'surrendery' any more. Either way it looks
like the coup we've been hoping for for 13 or so years isn't going to happen
any time soon.

>"Ben Sisson" <ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message

And ESPECIALLY when the cop is eying up the good silverware and
measuring the rooms to see if his furniture will fit, all the while
protesting he's just doing his duty.

"Michael Sandy" <wugg...@cmc.net> wrote in message
news:1fsbn3d.10egjkj1s54m8mN%wugg...@cmc.net...

>Tobacco will kill more people today than the entire Iraq War will, in
>total - both sides.

Ssh you you'll give shrub the excuse he needs to invade Cuba - its
cigars are weapons of mass destruction!

I'm amazed Cuba didn't get lumped into the so called axis of evil
actually. Guess the Cuban expatriot lobby group didn't grease enough
Republicans....

>On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:54:30 -0800, wugg...@cmc.net (Michael Sandy)

You're taking "glass half full" to heights it has only reached when
astronauts get thirsty. I don't call those results positive at all,
considering not a single one of them should be dead.

Or are ignoring the enemy and civilian casualties along with the
casualties certain to come in the months ahead as the islamic world
begins taking its vengeance....

>From the shadows, the mysterious hank...@NOSPAMgeocities.com (Hank)

I agree ... I think we should lower the speed limit to 5 MPH
so no one is ever killed in a car accident.

You'd better get to that anti-war demonstration then ...
But why would Muslims attack America because of a political
war? It's the religion of peace, right? Hussein is secular. I'm
scratching my head wondering why Muslims would care about a political
change in Iraq. It's not like we're going to force them to convert to
Christianity. We didn't go to war on Islam after the many, many
attacks that terrorists ( who just happened to be Muslims ) launched
on Americans. What are you trying to say?

H

>On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 14:23:05 GMT, Ben Sisson
><ilkhanik...@yahoo.ca> enlightened me with:
>

Just to reinforce this thread of thought:

"By last night that assessment had proved so wide of the mark that
Marine commanders, edging nervously through the backstreets of this
decrepit port, refused to predict how many more gunmen might be
waiting for them. One officer said: "The fighting has got worse with
each day. So much for the walkover we were told to expect."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5781-622145,00.html

It's starting to get ugly. The west is *not* getting the full story
from CNN (and god help people watching Fox, I've never seen more
atrocious news coverage, ever). I don't think its CNN's fault, I think
they are not being given accurate information.

I think you lost the definition of acceptable risk somewhere. You can
die getting out of bed in the morning, but that doesn't mean you
should stay in it. On the other hand, invading Iraq will not save any
lives in the long run. Some will be saved in the short run - Kurds.
Some will be killed who wouldn't have in the short run - Iraqis. Some
will be killed who never would have been threatened at all had more
intelligent leaders been elected - Americans.

This was is just the beginning. That won't stop shrub and co. from
crowing about their victory while leaving future presidents to clean
up their mess, of course.

I'm not an activist. Purely clinical observation is all I care to do.

Religion is only a piece of the puzzle. You appear to have a poor
understanding of how Americans are viewed in the islamic world. Not
that it was unsalvagable... but it's getting pretty damn close now.

Perception is more important than reality, and it doesn't help that
the perception in many cases of westerners (especially Americans)
abroad is awfully close to reality. This is seen as an imperialist
invasion. Most islamic resentment against the US is political, with
religion only the most visible component.

In that case you will probably learn first hand soon enough. Or at
least learn the consequences of not knowing.

If it was an internal movement overthrowing Saddam, they'd probably be
overjoyed. But what they are seeing now, to them, THIS cure is worse
than the disease.

Somewhere between Fox and ABC is a reasonable balance, but I
don't think CNN is it and I certainly do not think the TimesOnline is
either -- biased lik the Sun but not as much fun. I hope you're not
assuming they're more balanced simply because they're somewhere else.
The BBC is a lot worse than CNN, in my opinion.
Journal de France, on the other hand, is more balanced than
you might expect. Not perfect but not sneering at everything the US
govt. says (while passing on Iraqi propoganda without comment) like
Peter Jennings ... and not the US Army broadcasting network Fox seems
to be. If you find that perfect source, let me know. Until then I'll
go on sifting through all of them.

Apparently the original plan called for the standard period of heavy
bombing in advance of the ground troops crossing the border. Over the
past months Rumsfeld and Franks have argued back and forth, Rumsfeld
pushing for a very small window of bombing before the general advance
while Franks wanted something closer to the original Gulf War. I
gather Rumsfeld put a lot of faith in the psy ops part of the
campaign, with the "Shock and Awe" bombing as kind of catalyst to
begin the disintegration and rapidly advancing shock troops pushing it
over the edge. The problem now is the regime has not collapsed, Iraqi
defensive positions haven't taken nearly the kind of pounding they
would have under the original plan and Coalition forces are strung out
pretty thin over a lot of ground. They are coming up against the hard
defenses outside Baghdad without having secured the rear. I still
don't think it will be an extended campaign but if I'm wrong and
Baghdad holds out, they are going to run into serious problems
controlling the rest of the country - and if Turkey invades the north
all bets are off.

I wonder if the Turks will ask for UN permission. That would
be the fragmented disaster I spoke of a while ago, with Iraq as it
exists gone and parts of it owned by Iran and Turkey. I hope the
French are happy in that case.
A larger Iran and more Kurds being abused by Turks is quite a
legacy for their greed.

Paul Wolfowitz and his ilk strongly advised Bush that he could do it with
only 50,000 troops.

>
> Tomi
>
>

We invade Iraq in defiance of current U.N. opinion, give Turkey
the opportunity to carve up Iraq like, well, a turkey, and it is
all *France's* fault. Even for your red, white, and blue brand glue
sniffing neurons that is a pathetic pretzel twist of illogic. I
think the tin foil in your hat needs polishing again, better hurry
up at it because France's brain cooking satellite will be overhead
any minute. Ooops, too late, looks like it's been over your house
a few times already.

Something else for your propoganda pipe - fear of such a land grab
is supposedly one of the reasons why Bush senior *didn't* finish the
job in '91. Didn't agree with the halt myself, but maybe this is a
case of papa knows best.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Robert "I heard of you. I heard you were dead." Stetler, k...@rawbw.com -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- "Any trouble, boy ?" "No, old man. Thought I was having trouble with my -
- adding. Its all right now." -For A Few Dollars More- -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Early on there was a gameplan floated that involved just dropping airborne
troops into Baghdad itself, with the concept being that if it fell then the
rest of the country would fall along with it. That figure you quoted might
have been for that plan (the number I heard was similar). Thank God that
wasn't implemented, I had chills when I first heard it. It sounded to me
like a 50000 soldier version of Black Hawk Down waiting to happen.

Don't you mean our greed? Turkey wouldn't have invaded anyone without
the US doing it first.
--
Silverlock, ICQ 474725,

Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system
will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage
to persons or structures from use of this product.
Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.

No its the religion of holy war. And were invading their country. How
would you respond if your country got invaded?

Well, that's their problem ... but if you're right, people
should get their heads out of the sand. I doubt that every Christian
country would rise up and attack a Muslim country that attacked a
Christian one ... since that's happened plenty and no such uprising
ever occurred.
So if, as Ben is saying, the Muslims are prone to irrational
wars based on religion and they stick with others of their religion no
matter what, then clearly they are just intolerant and nothing we can
do in the way of diplomacy or foreign affairs can change that.
Only when the world is a Dar al-Islam, and we are all in
Dhimmitude, will there be a Dar a-Salam. That means no house of
peace until the whole world is a house of Islam. Thus, we can
officially stop blaming GWB or America for Muslim hatred.
Thanks for making that point, Ben.

H

Sure it is ... and you could see it if you could stop
urinating yourself over the chance to insult people again -- and isn't
this about the tenth time you've used the tinfoil hat jab in a
newsgroup posting? It had been used a lot the first time you did it
and you sound really lame using it now.
The UN does not get to determine American foreign policy. How
come you aren't bashing France for invading Ivory Coast and imposing
their own government? Oh, because they're not America so it's okay.
The fact is Turkey would never dare to do this if the rest of
the UN had a clue. Instead Turkey smells factionalism and dissension
... to Muslims that is the time to strike ... and that's just what
they're doing. Don't be surprised if Iran does the same thing. They
know that no one in the UN can or will stop them except the US and the
coalition. Certainly not your grandstanding Old Europe darlings.
So my point stands, your childish attempts at humor ( or
insult -- it's difficult to tell because you mix metaphors and drugs,
it seems ) notwithstanding. France made a power play and lost ...
and if we don't act quickly the Kurds in northern Iraq will be
butchered by Turks ... so, yes, that blood is on France's hands.
Your ridiculous insistence that it was okay for Hussein to
butcher them but it's our problem if the Turks now do it is
mind-boggling. If France was less like you they would be helping to
get rid of an evil dictator and protecting the Kurds from this.
Instead, their desire to try and recapture long-faded glory allows
them to do nothing ... The Austria-Hungary empire is making fun of the
French attempts at being a world power again.

H

Hmmm ... let me see if I understand this. Every other
country in the world that insists no action should be taken without UN
approval is okay doing exactly what they protest as long as someone
else does it first?
That makes a lot of sense. So who invaded Ivory Coast first
.. you know, since France asked the UN for permission to send troops
in and install a Prime Minister of their choosing? Oh, no one? They
just did it, and didn't ask the UN?
So why is that okay again?

H

>On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 02:47:23 GMT, Silverlock <cro...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>>

I was making pretty much the opposite point, Hank. I clearly said that
religion was not a primary reason for who they decided to help,
political and cultural reasons were at the forefront. Stop making
strawmen. You're starting to look like your losing it here with these
bizarre twists of words.

>The following is a cut-and-paste from another forum I post in, it
>contains sentiments similar to yours (hopefully it will format right):

It is well reasoned and expressed, although I disagree.

>This war is getting more and more disturbing in a couple of ways. First,
>the expected surrenders by the main Iraqi army aren't happening at near
>the frequency predicted.

We don't know that. Remember that in the previous Gulf War, Iraqi units
had to surrender in order to go home after the war, since they were in a
foreign country (Kuwait). In this war, they are in Iraq, and hence they
don't need to show up and then wave a white flag -- they just need to not
show up to their posts.

>These aren't the actions of an army that is on the brink of
>collapse. That doesn't mean we aren't winning, but it does indicate to
>me that expectations of a nation-wide surrender aren't realistic at this
>point.

Not at this point, no, I agree there. But things like that can change
overnight. France in WWII went from heavily-armed belligerent to total
collapse in three weeks (although the whole campaign lasted a bit more than
twice that long).

>Second, Iraqi civilians are not showing joy at their 'liberation' from
>Saddam. Oh, they danced in front of the army, but then, they dance every
>time Saddam orders a parade in his name as well. That's just for show.
>When the army left and just reporters were around, they stopped the fake
>smiling and dancing and showed a lot of hostility.

Link? The only exchanges I've seen with reporters have been either very
hopeful or very guarded because they're afraid we'll give up and go home
before the job's done, like last time.

>These things and several others are starting to make me wonder: is all
>the talk about how much the people of Iraq hate Saddam accurate? Or, to
>put it another way, has it been interpreted accurately? You could ask me
>how I feel about Bush and I'd tell you that he sucks and I'd love to see
>anyone else as president. But that doesn't mean I want my country
>invaded by someone else.

I suspect that if Bush had a practice of feeding people feet first into
plastic shredders, or was even one thousandth as bad as Saddam in any other
respect, you might welcome some outside assistance. Hell, I would.

>I'm wondering if we are the victims of our own
>press releases, thinking the Iraqis desperately want our help when in
>fact they want nothing of the kind. Worth thinking about, considering
>what I've seen over the last couple of days.

I think that if that were the case we would have seen a much larger Iraqi
presence at the "peace" protests over the past few months.

>Also, I'm wondering if this 'kinder and gentler' war campaign isn't
>backfiring badly. We are bypassing Iraqi units based on the belief that
>they don't want to fight and will surrender later (so no need to
>injure/kill any of them), then those units turn around and attack us
>later.

Too early to say if it is backfiring. If, say, a brigade-sized U.S. combat
unit is surrounded and destroyed or captured by bypassed Iraqi forces, then
I would agree that it has backfired. I will concede that I share your
concerns here.

>We are leaving the power and water on in Baghdad, and avoiding
>attack most other infrastructure there, thinking that this will reduce
>the civilian suffering (which of course it will), but won't it also
>greatly reduce the impact of the bombing? Is it giving the Iraqi high
>command the impression that they can weather this out?

I think it would, if the Iraqi high command weren't the focused target of
the bombing that is happening. Plus, what are they going to do? Saddam is
still just as paranoid as he was before. He won't leave his facilities
without extensive bodyguards, which means any motorcade he uses will be a
dead giveaway that someone important is there.

>I don't like the way this war is progressing at all. I don't doubt we'll
>win, I just doubt that we'll win the way we want to. :/

Well, there's no doubt this war will take longer than the last one; in the
last one we were liberating a tiny country from foreign invaders. Now we
*are* the foreign invaders (albeit with an infinitely better cause), of a
much larger country.

ASG

The only evidence I have seen of this 'Plastic Shredder' seems to just
be inaccountable. A number of sources refer to it but I am completely
unable to find anything of real merit. Most sources simply refer to it
taken on faith.

At this point I'm afraid I personally have to consider that the
impracticalities of such a machine as an instrument of
torture/excecution outweighs any evidence that this is true.

--

Stoneskin

[Insert sig here]

>Ananda Gupta left a note on my windscreen which said:

The CIA was caught lying about Iraqi excesses in Kuwait thirteen years
ago so I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out this is the same.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be true, either, though. So
I'm not surprised at all. It was a guarantee the media would be used
for propagada purposes, so this sort of thing was certain to be shown
whether it's true or not.

Most objections to the portrayal of this sort of thing comes not from
the idea that Saddam doesn't do it, but from the fact so many others
around the world do do it and shrub doesn't care about THOSE madmen.
Must be something different about Iraq, something Iraq has that those
poor dicatorships don't... wonder what that could be.

Actually, it looks like the EU is exerting heavy pressure on the Turks not
to invade, telling them they will basically lose any shot at getting in the
club in 2004. That probably weighs even heavier than any pressure the
Americans can exert directly, as Turkey desperately wants to get in the EU.

That's the best strategy in any case. You might want to check out the
Washington Post online too, they're fairly in-depth. CNN's coverage is like
the Coalition advance - covers a lot of ground but there's no depth to it.
Of course, I won't recommend some of my other sources, heh.

>From the shadows, the mysterious hank...@NOSPAMyahoo.com (Hank) (if

>Ben Sisson

But the point you were attempting to make was not the point
you made. You're the one who said Islam would react because a secular
evil dictator widely hated by the entire Muslim world was attacked by
America.
What reason can there be for that other than that America is a
Christian country? I even asked you to clarify it again before coming
to that conclusion. It was your statement, not mine. On reflection
I simply agreed with it. If it's a straw man when I agree with you,
so be it ... but you're not making very good points then.
If religion is not the reason, why is all of Islam going to
take vengeance on America for attacking Iraq?
Here's opportunity number three for you to explain what you
meant.

Do you need to ask? I mean, really?

There's many pieces to the puzzle that fit together to make people
respond the way they do. In this case, religion is one of them, but
not in the sense you're trying to make it. Not because the US is
Christian. But because the Iraqis are Muslim. Now couple this with
most the arab world having the same views on life and the world etc.
as your common Iraqi. It's more or less the same culture and the same
political leanings. I think it's a near universal truth that a person
wants to be governed by 'one of their own'.

The other arab governments didn't like Saddam, that's quite true. But
that doesn't mean they want the *US* doing something about it. I said
it before and I'll repeat it now - for the arabs THIS cure is worse
than the disease. If you've read Rumsfield's remarks about how he
wants to rebuild the country, you can easily see why the arabs are
worried. There's no respect from the US government, only comtempt for
islam and a belief that once the good old american way is implemented
they'll all see the light.

Your collection of questions in a block at the end of your post was
highly unclear. Consider this a clearing up of the many MANY
misconceptions you seem to have picked up, and for the last time stop
putting words in my mouth I didn't say. We've noted your habit of
doing this in the past, we're not going to let you get away with it
now. You agreed with a point I never made due to YOUR misunderstanding
of it.

Um this would be the first opportunity unless you're referring to
something further back in the thread. You do realize you were
responding to someone else when you started lying about what I said,
right?

And the fact is your questions were unclear and leading. You didn't
ask "why is all of Islam going to take vengeance on America for
attacking Iraq?" before, you asked "But why would Muslims attack

I'm not going to play shell games with you. Don't take an answer to
one question and claim it was the answer to another. Therein lies your
strawman.

I've come across a rather different take on how the war is proceeding on
Iraq:

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news077.htm

I'll note in advance that this is an obviously biased source and cannot be
confirmed, but it's quite different from the war shown on CNN. Worth reading
at least.

It did:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1971852.stm

--
Bunboy The people who can smile when things go wrong have found someone
else to blaim
"Michael Sandy" <wugg...@cmc.net> wrote in message
news:1fsbn3d.10egjkj1s54m8mN%wugg...@cmc.net...
> Bip <b...@att.com> wrote:
>
> > I was wondering when Iraqi bubs would switch to guerrilla tactics.
Guess I
> > was more impatient than me pop, cuz they went to it on this Sunday. Pop
1,
> > me goose egg. American bubs have a number of weaknesses that anybody
and
> > his sister would notice: lack of troops to screen rear areas,
reluctance
> > to enter urban combat, reluctance to cause civ casualties. This makes
pop
> > centers into natural strongpoints. The outcome may not be in doubt, but
> > it's not going to be a live-fire exercise like with Afghany. The intro
of
> > the Kurds + American handlers into the northern front should be an
> > interesting development.
>
> Just think of how much worse it would be with the 75,000 troops
> Rumsfield wanted to play this game with, instead of having enough
> troops to actually guard the supply lines.
>
> > Pop, who has had experience with guerilla stuff, is projecting 5-10K
> > American casualties. Me got no clue on the body count, but pretty sure
> > it's gonna last a lot longer than the "official" end of the war, i.e.
> > guerilla attacks will go on regardless of Huss' crying uncle to uncle
Bush.
> > Guerrilla warfare is like herpes. Ya can keep it under control, but it
> > don't go away.
>
> I suspect that casualties will peak around the battle of Baghdad and
> Tikrit, as US troops will be most overstretched, and there will be
> the largest number of supply vehicles moving into recently 'secured'
> areas.
>
> Depending on how the occupation shakes out, casualties could start
> to rise again after the opposition learns effective means of attacking/
> harassing US troops. Part of the Iraqi problem right now is that
> they have a huge number of unreliable units, where soldiers don't
> trust their officers or fellow soldiers to actually fight. Units
> or individual soldiers who decide to resist and form units will have
> a more homogenious morale, and would be more likely to do damage,
> in my opinion.

Two parts to this. First, we know it because we are currently fighting
them. That sounds like a flippant answer, but we have now engaged several
units of the Iraqi main army that we never expected to fight in the first
place. You can argue about why they didn't surrender, but they most
definitely didn't, nor did they desert. They are in fact fighting with high
morale. Second, all this fighting that is taking place in the southern part
of Iraq is from forces too numerous by far to have come from the Baghdad
area (which is improbable anyway, as they'd have to drive past hundreds of
miles US forces and air cover to get there), they came from units that
pretended to surrender and then regrouped. Note that I didn't say that no
surrenders have taken place, just not the expected numbers of them.

I can't give a link because I didn't read it, I saw it. The source was from
two different news feeds, one from ABC the other from NBC. But both cases
were almost identical, when the reporters stayed behind after the troops
left the crowd stopped fawning and dancing and actually became quite
threatening. Statements like "When is Israel coming?", "Why are you
conquering Iraq?", "Where is the food and medicine you promised?", and other
ones in a similar vein. People angry over their destroyed homes and dead
family members. The one news crew had their car broken into and gear
stolen, and when they got in their car to leave kids surrounded it and
started beating on it with sticks. I guess someone forgot to tell them
they'd been liberated. Right now the people in Basra (about 1 million
people) have no water, no food, and no power. They might not get any
assistance for days (and I find that figure ridiculously optimistic because
our military never even entered Basra to clear it, it's currently in control
of the Iraqis), and even when help does arrive we can't possibly truck in
supplies for 1 million people. You think they will feel joy when this is
over? I doubt it.

A military analyst I was watching made an interesting comment, he said that
if the Shiites were truly happy to see us then we wouldn't be having half
the problem with these hit-and-run tactics being used in the south of Iraq.
But the fact is that the Shiite population there isn't helping us one bit in
tracking these units down. And that is a disturbing thing to think about.

You can forget what the Iraqis say when the guys with guns are around.
Decades of survival under Saddam have taught them exactly how to behave in
those circumstances: you dance and laugh and hug and show your utter joy at
their presence. And what they say when the guns aren't around makes me
think that post-war Iraq isn't going to be much safer for Americans than it
is currently.

Who is this 'we' you're talking about? Again, you're under
the paranoid delusion that you are some arbiter of truth when in fact
you apparently can't even write a coherent sentence. You're the one
who said if we engaged in politics with Iraq the entire Muslim world
would take 'vengeance' on us. That certainly sounds like you're
saying all Muslims because it's what you said. When I contend that,
if such is the case, then GWB can't be to blame, you immediately start
accuse me of 'lying' about what you said.
Well, don't write it if you don't know what the words mean.

Again, this sort of childish invective is what we have been
trying to keep you from doing. Yet you continue to do it. Where
have I lied? You said the Muslims would take vengeance on us for
attacking a Muslim country ... even one they hate. So how did I lie
when I pointed out that you were right. The only time you got your
panties in a bunch was when I said that absolved GWB, since Muslims
have hated plenty of people, including us, long before Bush got into
office. That's when you started backpedalling, because we know you'll
side with any evil dictator as long as it doesn't involve endorsing
Bush.

>Ben Sisson

Okay ... so spell it out. Why did you say Muslims would take
vengeance on America if you didn't mean it? Were you just
exaggerating? We've tried to cure you of that in the past but you
just won't quit doing it.

Despite the fact this clearly answered your question, you ignored it,
preferring to attack the clarity of earlier posts. One begins to
wonder if you have any intention of sticking to what's said or if
you'd rather make a scene and pick fights.

My sentences are perfectly clear. Perhaps with some further education
you will begin to understand them better. At that point maybe you
won't see the need to take a response to one question and use it in
quotes as if it was a response to an entirely different one.

Once again with the lies? Or were you planning to use the phrase
"engaged in politics" to mean whatever you want it to mean? I said
what I said, and it certainly didn't include the phrase "engaged in
politics", and feel free to point out where I did, if you can. The
Arab world is going to take venegeance on the US for attacking one of
their own without due cause - or more accurately, they will use it to
further an already present cause due to PREVIOUS American policies.
It's pretty simple.

And back to the shell game.... You think people don't notice when you
weasel back and forth like this?

We have direct proof of you lying about what I said in this very
paragraph, and further proof above when you said I said all muslims
would attack the US because they were Christian. "So if, as Ben is

were your precise words, and they were a lie, as indeed I said
virtually the exact opposite. More than once.

You've been caught. I'd just drop it now and concentrate on what I did
say if you want to continue being treated seriously.

Don't respond if you can't understand what people say. And
furthermore, don't lie about it. Being caught twice is bad enough.

The truth is now childish invective? You really are losing it.

Two instances pointed out already. Either lied or posted out of
ignorance. We'll leave it up to you to tell us which it was.

So far so good.

You lied when you willfully took what I said to mean they were
attacking the US because of religious reasons, and that it was
irrational to do so, knowing that I said neither thing (conveniently
absent from the quoted text of course). I did say religion was a part
of the puzzle, and at the same time pointed out it was not the primary
motivating factor and was merely a part of the cultural and political
reasons for not liking the US attacking.

You, of course, twisted the words to make it sound like I said
religion was the reason they were attacking, and then took it further
to mean it was the US's religion we were talking about, another exmple
of the shells in action.

I haven't backpedalled at all. My position hasn't changed anywhere but
in your addled understanding. And the fact you'll claim I am
supporting Saddam shows just how far you'll fall in order to attack
people you disagree with. Pathetic.

Note: no response. Hank refuses to admit he changed the question,
using the answer to one as if it were the answer to another. This is
the shell game in action.

I did mean it. The shell game again! Try and point out where I said
anything to the contrary. You are just plain all over the place here.

Do you ever respond without messing up what the other person says?
Have you ever actually addressed a point raised, or do you only do
combat with men of hay?

Follow along this time, slow one. The muslim world is not happy with
the US attacking Iraq because they don't like the US for many reasons
- political, cultural, AND religious, and are afraid of what the US
might try to put in place in Iraq. They also don't like the precedent
this sets, and they don't like the fact the US feels free to attack a
country that wasn't doing anything to them, and are justifiably
concerned they might be next. You remember Afghanistan? Remember the
Arab world supporting the US then? They did. There was clear and
present justification. The Taliban attacked the US first. For the
Arabs that's a good enough reason for the US to strike back.

We've tried to keep you on track in arguments, but it appears your
back to your old ways of lunging at shadows.

Which shell will the pea be under in your next response? Only time
will tell. Meanwhile, my argument hasn't changed a lick....

Like Fox? "Oceania has victories on all fronts"

Why would France need to ask permission to protect the 30 thousand
citizens it has in the country from a rebellion? You can't see the
difference between a defensive assault to restore order and an
aggressive campaign to sow discord?

20,000 French out of 16 million people. I think we can just
as logically claim to be protecting a lot more American lives than
that by going after Saddam ... and we're using the same tactics, since
you have no problem with France imposing their own version of a peace
settlement, including a hand-picked Prime Minister, by the point of a
gun. Again, if all that needs to be claimed is that lives are at
stake, I think we needn't have bothered with the UN at all.
You should be jumping up and down for us to do that in Iraq,
since it's so very French to do so.

Comparing Ivory Coast and Iraq problems is nonsense.
FWIK France didn't send a multi-divisional invasion force to replace the
legal Ivory Coast president but a batalion of troops to protect French
residents and with his permission . Do you really think that such a small
force could impose anything in a country with 16 million people and during a
civil war?
This has nothing to do with Iraqi situation.

And about protecting American lives, how many live in Iraq and need
protection?
Do you really think Iraqis would have directly attacked US citizens?

Actually as an european who follows these kinds of things, I have to
make a few corrections.

Turkey was never part of the 2004 new members. In fact, Turkey
was the sole candidate of 15 to not even get a DATE for
NEGOTIATIONS about possible membership. If Turkey ever wants
to join the EU, they'll have to MASSIVELY clean up their act,
especially human rights and economically, not to mention their
oppression of the Kurds in Turkey itself. What the EU members
are using to exert pressure on Turkey right now, is the date for
negotiations. It should be around the time the other candidates join
(2004), but if they do invade Iraq, there's every chance that the
door gets closed for the next decade. Yes, they desperately want
in the EU. But like a lot of new member states, it's almost solely in
hopes of getting richer in the EU (there's a lot of subsidizing of
poorer member states). Personally, I think pigs will fly ere
Turkey gets in. It's simply a country too far. Would the USA
consider (let's see) Colombia as a new state (53th?) ? It's the
same thing here. The current government of Turkey is a bunch
of fundamentalistic Islamists, and they're MUCH MUCH likely
to have good connections with Mr Laden than ol' Saddam.
Despite the carrot of billions of dollars of support for their
failing economy, they still majorly screwed over Bush.

Yes, they want in the EU. But their current government is far less
likely to want this than all their previous ones. And by now, they're
beginning to get the notion that they might never get there. So
I think Turkey WILL invade Iraq. They just care a lot more
about a possible independent Kurd state than tehy will about
what the EU says. Despite all this, I'm pretty much in favor of
a new state for the Kurds. After WWI, they were the only people
not to get their own state, instead their lands were split amongst
Iran, Iraq and Turkey. This has lead to 50 years of civil unrest,
guerrilla/terrorist activities and bloody supression of civil uprises.
Let's not forget it was the Kurds that got tested upon by Saddam
with his chemical weapons. A whole town of 5000 people died
a guruesome death.

I'm going to stop here. Feel free to flame me to a crisp.

Which in turn may majorly screw over Turkey if they start trying to
occupy northern Iraq. I doubt the coalition would get into a war with
Turkey but I could see a standoff, and with the added public visibility
the Kurds getting US recognition (and defense) as a sovereign nation.
Turkey might just precipitate exactly what they don't want. If its not
already a done deal anyway, considering Turkey's screwing up the works
by not letting us set up our northern front. A decision that will
prolong the war and lead to higher casualties on all sides.

And despite the US leaving them hanging after the gulf war they still
(at least by CNN's accounts) are strongly pro American.

I too would like to see the Kurds get a "Kurdistan". I think it's likely
if only because of the strategic implications of a second friendly
nation in that part of the world.

You may think we can logically claim that but I and several hundred
thousand others doubt it including our allies on the UN. If it is that
important and vital it should have been easy to prove to them
shouldn't it?
Again if we had 20k citizens in Iraq who were in danger yes I could
see us sending forces in to protect them and restore stability but
that is an entirely different thing then going into a government that
is in play and stable with the purpose of removing it based on some
abstract and so far unconvincing theory that iraq is a direct threat
to us, and more of a threat then North Korea or Saudi Arabia. Both of
those countries are a greater threat to the US either through direct
and easily seen ties to terrorism or direct threat.

To create Kurdistan where it should be, we'd have to yank out chunks of
Turkey, Iran, and Iraq. And one of those chunks (Iraq) has substantial oil
reserves. The chances of that happening are about 1 in a billion, and
that's being optimistic, though I wouldn't be against it if it occurred.

How biased? I'd be more willing to call it "detached."

I have to say I was against the war from the start, but I did not expect, at
all, that it would be, well, a war. I figured it'd be basically over by now.

-Tim

>And ESPECIALLY when the cop is eying up the good silverware and
>measuring the rooms to see if his furniture will fit, all the while
>protesting he's just doing his duty.

Now THAT is a great analogy.

-Tim

Biased indeed!

After reading the opening page, I'm barricading my home because it is
obvious the Iraqis will have driven us back and followed us to our own
shores in 2 weeks!

This reminds me of the propaganda that kept pouring out of the Evil
Empire until its very collapse.

Right ... it's no different than CNN in content, just in
phrasing. They tilt things by saying "Americans have failed to ... "
do whatever they're talking about, whereas CNN might say "America is
currently attempting to ... "
I guess if not having done something yet is failing to do it,
they're less biased than CNN. No wonder Damocles reads it ... it's
all negative about the US. He should just read
english.al-jazeera.net.

Did you miss the part where I said there's a clear bias? They claim to be
affiliated with Russian intelligence, but there's no way to confirm it. It
is still worth reading for the different perspective.

>

But it's not a different perspective. How can you claim to be
more enlightened if you read, for example, a website that says dogs
are cats? As I said, their content seems to be the same as everywhere
else ... all they're doing is spinning it by saying everything America
has not yet done they have 'failed' to do. That's not perspective,
it's just anti-American eye candy. This is why I said you should just
read al-jazeera ... it's both anti-American and at least claiming to
have different news. This Russian thing is the same stuff we already
know, only with a sneer toward the US.

Obviously it would be only the northern Iraq portion of old Kurdistan. I
left that unsaid, but then I assumed it went without saying :) The
simple fact that the Kurds would have a small Oil rich nation (much like
Kuwait) makes it even more advantageous for the US to push for an
independent Kurdish state. In my opinion the strategic factors alone
make a far more likely than 1 in a billion. If one factors in Turkey's
actions possibly making it even more of a visible issue (which simply
makes it easier for the US to push the idea) along with the minor
factors like all the human rights violations against the Kurds. Well
lets just say I doubt many people would have thought that Israel would
have been formed where it was, before millions of Jews were slaughtered
by Hitler. Not that that was the only factor (or even necessarily a
major one, I don't really know) but the sympathy of the western Allies
certainly didn't hurt the idea.

Strategically speaking, a Kurdish nation there translates into a US
military base(s) right smack on the border of Iran, one of the worst
terrorist supporters in the area, and right smack on the newly formed
Iraq border with requisite US friendliness. Not a bad "overwatch"
position. Admittedly they already have this with Kuwait...

I don't know maybe the political factors would keep it from happening,
but those same political factors (read Muslim opposition) were pretty
much ignored in our current war. How much "pull" Turkey has to keep a
Kurdish state from being formed in northern iraq, is seriously
questionable. How much "pull" a newly reformed Iraq would have to keep
it from happening, is also in serious doubt... So would the major
players: Turkey, Iraq and Iran, and the disapproval of Muslim nations in
the area, really keep the US and friends from doing it? I doubt it. In
fact I'd (perhaps arrogantly) speculate that the only thing that would
keep it from happening would be the US not wanting it to happen.

Finally there's the Kurds... With a defeated Iraqi military and a
Turkish military that has to invade to impose their will, the Kurds
might help their cause (and indeed are poised to do so) by simply taking
and holding what they (rightly) have a claim to. They ALREADY have a
pocket of resistance, they ALREADY "occupy" land in the face of Iraqi
forces. Possession being 9/10th of the law and all, the coalition allies
would only need to take the step of recognizing their claim.

I saw it in a London Times story, in which the alleged eyewitness said she
had witnessed it directly. Naturally she could have been lying. Given
what other things we know about the proclivities of Saddam and his sons the
story is at least plausible.

I've never seen a plastic shredder; I assumed it was like a paper shredder
but much stronger and larger. If that's the case then Saddam may have
found that its entertainment value exceeded the inconvenience caused by its
impracticalities.

<snip>

>troops into Baghdad itself, with the concept being that if it fell then the

Sounds a bit like Operation Market Garden in a way.

Chris Schack