100,000 Iraqi's die at hands of USA & Britain



davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
szbert said:
What a whiney doper! Quitters never win, and winners never quit. Just because Edison failed a few hundred times making the light bulb, you'd rather live in an age of candlelight and whale oil lamps.

We just keep killing them until the enemy is gone or there will to fight is completely extinguished.
If paying for all of those bullet's would require higher taxes :eek: , where would you stand :confused: . Especially, since you want a woman to run for president, i presume on the republican ticket, who has penned a steamy, lesbian romance novella. :D Please explain this dichotomy :)
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
szbert said:
What a whiney doper! Quitters never win, and winners never quit.

I've heard Churchill called lots of things, but never a "whiney doper".

szbert said:
Just because Edison failed a few hundred times making the light bulb, you'd rather live in an age of candlelight and whale oil lamps.

Edison did not invent the light bulb.

szbert said:
We just keep killing them until the enemy is gone or their will to fight is completely extinguished.

Times have moved on since the Americans massacred the Red Indians. In Iraq the opposition is using AKMs and RPGs instead of bows, arrows and stone axes.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
szbert said:
What a whiney doper! Quitters never win, and winners never quit. Just because Edison failed a few hundred times making the light bulb, you'd rather live in an age of candlelight and whale oil lamps.

We just keep killing them until the enemy is gone or their will to fight is completely extinguished.

And that's what your lot did in Vietnam - and you still couldn't win over the Vietnamese.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
darkboong said:
I've heard Churchill called lots of things, but never a"whiney doper".
.

Berties espousal of Churchill is pathetic.

In fact if Bertie even had a minute scintilla of knowledge about Churuchill, he'd know that Churchill always, always, preferred negotiation to war ("Jaw, Jaw, over War, war").
 

Ruedy

New Member
Jun 17, 2004
90
0
0
limerickman said:
And that's what your lot did in Vietnam - and you still couldn't win over the Vietnamese.

Yup, you're right, Limerickman. Winning hearts and minds doesn't work. Trying to do that was our mistake.

America would do better to not worry about what the French, Irish, Germans, whomever's hearts and minds are doing.

Grab' em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow (originally coined by someone else) is probably the best way to go.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Ruedy said:
Yup, you're right, Limerickman. Winning hearts and minds doesn't work. Trying to do that was our mistake.

America would do better to not worry about what the French, Irish, Germans, whomever's hearts and minds are doing.

Grab' em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow (originally coined by someone else) is probably the best way to go.

Well when you invade a country on the pretext of a lie - how can you expect to win hearts and minds ?

Iraq never posed a regional (Middle Eastern) threat - never mind a threat to the USA.
Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11.

I parted ways with the USA, after it invaded Iraq.

It was right that the USA invade Afgahnistan - they harboured BinLaden and
they gave ideological suuport to 9/11.
But Iraq ?
I disagreed with the premise for invading a sovereign country who posed no threat whatsoever to the USA.
And further I disagree with an administration who knowingly lied about the pretext for the Iraqi invasion.
 

Ruedy

New Member
Jun 17, 2004
90
0
0
limerickman said:
Well when you invade a country on the pretext of a lie - how can you expect to win hearts and minds ?

Iraq never posed a regional (Middle Eastern) threat - never mind a threat to the USA.
Iraq did not have anything to do with 9/11.

I parted ways with the USA, after it invaded Iraq.

It was right that the USA invade Afgahnistan - they harboured BinLaden and
they gave ideological suuport to 9/11.
But Iraq ?
I disagreed with the premise for invading a sovereign country who posed no threat whatsoever to the USA.
And further I disagree with an administration who knowingly lied about the pretext for the Iraqi invasion.

I don't care whether or not you agree or disagree with the Bush administration. How do you really know it lied? Just what you hear from the media? Are you that easily led?.....No point in argueing over who or what onw believes over another. No one will win........."Well when you invade a country on the pretext of a lie - how can you expect to win hearts and minds ?"........All I'm saying is I don't care about winning hearts and minds and I do not think "winning hearts and minds" should even be a consideration.
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
Ruedy said:
Yup, you're right, Limerickman. Winning hearts and minds doesn't work. Trying to do that was our mistake.

Err, did they ever try to do that In Vietnam ? Honest question.

Regardless if they did, the overwhelming brutality of the stuff I *do* know about wouldn't endear the US troops to anyone.

Ruedy said:
America would do better to not worry about what the French, Irish, Germans, whomever's hearts and minds are doing.

America doesn't worry much about it, except when it whines about needing help to secure all the turf infested with angry natives.

Ruedy said:
Grab' em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow (originally coined by someone else) is probably the best way to go.

That appears to be the approach the US has taken. Let's face it, it hasn't worked.

The Americans hide inside their APCs and barracks in full armour, they shoot at anything that moves and they rely too heavily on air attack. Added up that makes the Americans look as though they are afraid, and that means that they are unable to control the turf they hold. The Iraqis might fear them, but they don't respect them.

All I can suggest to fix that is better training, better discipline, better strategy, and more experience. At least the last point is being addressed, although the current indicators are that the returning troops are largely basket cases which means that the US won't benefit from that experience.
 

szbert

New Member
Oct 12, 2004
336
2
0
We should also thank the Australian troops for whacking some of these rags.

No doubt, it's time to send the B52s to carpet bomb Fallujah & Ramadi.
If that doesn't work. Nuke 'em till they glow. Or as the t-shirts said, "Nuke their ass and take their gas."
I'm tired of ***** footing around with these anti-American rags. Saudis and Iranians should be pissing in their pants.
 

darkboong

New Member
Mar 2, 2004
1,556
0
0
szbert said:
I'm tired of ***** footing around with these anti-American rags. Saudis and Iranians should be pissing in their pants.

Meanwhile in the real world you quarterback from the comfort of your armchair a few thousand miles away as the US troops cower in the barracks...
 

szbert

New Member
Oct 12, 2004
336
2
0
Yes, I spent 24 years cowering. Much of the last two years I was cowering in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thanks for making this list bong boy.


darkboong said:
Meanwhile in the real world you quarterback from the comfort of your armchair a few thousand miles away as the US troops cower in the barracks...
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
Let's look at another perspective, seeing as you mentioned Vietnam.

It hasn't been mentioned yet that the Chinese, Russians and Europeans are surprised that the U.S. military hasn't shown itself to be anything like as effective a fighting force as had been imagined in the past. This is especially the case in China where the war has been followed with some interest.

The first major tactical mistake the U.S. seems to have made is to keep their troops tied up in a prolonged guerilla warfare scenario. One of the principal errors the U.S. Army made in Vietnam was to allow the enemy combatants to figure out and adapt to the tactics used against them. Of course, the longer your troops are on the ground, the more the enemy will adapt and use less obvious means of resistance.

That was the lesson of Vietnam.

Another crucial mistake is to fail to secure any kind of support from the Iraqi people themselves and also the fact they alienated the original Iraqi military and allowed them to disband and disappear. Neither did they seal the borders, protect key arms depots. All of these are fatal blunders that even the Brits or Russians wouldn't have made.

Considering that Iraq has no real heavy weaponry (no ballistic defence system, helicopters, air or naval defence), the Iraq campaign should have been a cakewalk. Instead, U.S. troops virtually lost control of vast parts of the country and simply haven't demonstrated the same kind of combat standards European troops exhibit.

The truth is the U.S.Army has suffered immense damage to its prestige and that has been the most surprising outcome of the Iraq Campaign.


limerickman said:
And that's what your lot did in Vietnam - and you still couldn't win over the Vietnamese.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Carrera said:
Let's look at another perspective, seeing as you mentioned Vietnam.

It hasn't been mentioned yet that the Chinese, Russians and Europeans are surprised that the U.S. military hasn't shown itself to be anything like as effective a fighting force as had been imagined in the past. This is especially the case in China where the war has been followed with some interest.

The first major tactical mistake the U.S. seems to have made is to keep their troops tied up in a prolonged guerilla warfare scenario. One of the principal errors the U.S. Army made in Vietnam was to allow the enemy combatants to figure out and adapt to the tactics used against them. Of course, the longer your troops are on the ground, the more the enemy will adapt and use less obvious means of resistance.

That was the lesson of Vietnam.

Another crucial mistake is to fail to secure any kind of support from the Iraqi people themselves and also the fact they alienated the original Iraqi military and allowed them to disband and disappear. Neither did they seal the borders, protect key arms depots. All of these are fatal blunders that even the Brits or Russians wouldn't have made.

Considering that Iraq has no real heavy weaponry (no ballistic defence system, helicopters, air or naval defence), the Iraq campaign should have been a cakewalk. Instead, U.S. troops virtually lost control of vast parts of the country and simply haven't demonstrated the same kind of combat standards European troops exhibit.

The truth is the U.S.Army has suffered immense damage to its prestige and that has been the most surprising outcome of the Iraq Campaign.

You missed the fact that they shoot their own soldiers in the back - they call it friendlyfire.

The fact of the matter remains that there were too few troops posted to Iraq, by the USA.
Old Rumsfeld didn't want the spectre of mass body bags coming back from Iraq, a la Vietnam.
So instead he tells Tommy Franks to impose democracy with too few troops.
That way the body bags come back in smaller numbers and the war can continue for years.

They're screwed - it's a guerilla war and I'm afraid history shows that guerilla
wars are never won by the imposters.
 

szbert

New Member
Oct 12, 2004
336
2
0
And the EuroPeons continue to prattle, while no one listens.
Another round for the two drunken micks, please.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
Just heard (on c-span radio) the prime minister of England declare that he is planning on bringing the black guard home for christmas. He said, in the same speech, that he will probably need more bodies, er....I mean troops- for iraq; much to the chagrin of, members present, in the house of commons. :confused:
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
2
38
davidmc said:
I read the report, it's an estimate. It may be accurate & it may, also, not be accurate. There are going to be civilian casualties, especially in an urban guerrilla conflict. We are not "officially" at war right now, correct ? Bremer was moved in because "official" hostilities were over. This is the war after the war. Combatants can't be discerned from non-combatants for the most part. If they conceal their weapons, they can pass for non-combatants. There are no iraqi insurgency uniforms that i'm aware of. :confused: So, how does one tell the diff.? It is'nt that easy. The insurgents know the importance of blending in, so they're going to dress like everyone else. As far as the inpouring, the border w/ syria or jordan was'nt given the attention necessary in the beginning of the conflict. This theater is enticing to young, upstart jihadist's to make a name for themselves. You don't think they'd jump at the chance to "cut their teeth", so to speak, fighting against the great satan (bush & co.)? Come on let's be realistic.
You can't tell the difference between an insurgent and a civillian. I agree. Thats not what the report was about, its the very fact that these people died at the hands of the coalotion forces, the people who were supposed to be protecting them that is the shocking point being made. Its the method of execution that is at fault here. You ackowledged that you cant tell the diff. which shows you know that miltants are using different methods to remain undetected. If we know that mlitants and civilians are together when why are we using the same heavy handed tactics in order to deal with them? They have changed thier tactics but we havent. We still use heavy artillery and helicopter gunships to weed out a handful of insugrents and write the rest of as collateral damage. The British and American military HAVE more advanced methods at thier displosal to deal with this type of warfare so why are the grunts on the grounds still walking about shooting anything that moves?

War is indeed ugly, but it doesnt have to be disgracefully ugly, which is what this is turning out to be. War is about protecting the innocents and you may say that collateral damage is inevitable but its not so ease to be as philosohpical when its your people and families being killed.
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
2
38
davidmc said:
Just heard (on c-span radio) the prime minister of England declare that he is planning on bringing the black guard home for christmas. He said, in the same speech, that he will probably need more bodies, er....I mean troops- for iraq; much to the chagrin of, members present, in the house of commons. :confused:
He declared that 2 weeks ago. The Black Watch will be home for Christmas. Well done Tony Blair. Thumbs up.

Also, if that confuses you then do we really need to quote your precious Bush to find out who talks more sense?
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
MountainPro said:
You can't tell the difference between an insurgent and a civillian. I agree. Thats not what the report was about, its the very fact that these people died at the hands of the coalotion forces, the people who were supposed to be protecting them that is the shocking point being made. Its the method of execution that is at fault here. You ackowledged that you cant tell the diff. which shows you know that miltants are using different methods to remain undetected. If we know that mlitants and civilians are together when why are we using the same heavy handed tactics in order to deal with them? They have changed thier tactics but we havent. We still use heavy artillery and helicopter gunships to weed out a handful of insugrents and write the rest of as collateral damage. The British and American military HAVE more advanced methods at thier displosal to deal with this type of warfare so why are the grunts on the grounds still walking about shooting anything that moves?

War is indeed ugly, but it doesnt have to be disgracefully ugly, which is what this is turning out to be. War is about protecting the innocents and you may say that collateral damage is inevitable but its not so ease to be as philosohpical when its your people and families being killed.


The LANCET article doesn't include Fallujah (they couldn't survey it - due to the amount of fighting going on there).
So indeed the figure may be more than 100,000.

Your central point is correct though and it is something which Blair appears to have missed (along witha lot of other things).
The US has sent in troops who have been shown to be incompetent and unprofessional.
The British Army are a professional organisation and are streets ahead of their US counterparts.
The goodwill engendered by the British in Southern Iraq from the Iraqi's is
illustrative.
Few causualties amongst either the civilian population and British troops.
Respect for the local people - engagement with the local people.
In a word, professionalism.

Granted Fallujah and around Baghdad is a different scenario.
But let's examine what is happening here.
Channel 4 recently showed tape of an airstrike by an Apache on people in Fallujah.

This sequence of events took 32 seconds.
32 seconds.
Street to street fighting taking place.
The Apache is hovering above a street.
Buildings have smoke billowing out.

A group of people are seen running out from one building.
Apache pilot informs tactical support "people seen leaving building moving south - what do I do ?"
The immediate response - within 1-2 seconds is
"Take them out - take them out".

I interject here - it is clearly visible from the film that we can see perhaps 40-50 people running.
It is clearly evident that this group is too big to be a militia group (40-50 people in a two storey building - very unlikely.).
It is clear that these people are running for their lives from something.

Back to the film : Apache pilot "Locking on to target" - 10 seconds later.
You see the group being hit by an explosion.
"Target hit - oooh, dude".

Eye witness accounts tell that the group of people seen in the films were women and children.
They had been running from buidling to building because the US forces in Fallujah were going through, house by house, and firing on each and very person.
Indiscriminately.

The local Iraq doctors and the Red Crescent have informed Channel 4 that the remains of these people (where there were remains) clearly show that the group comprised on women and children.
No guns/artillery were found on these people.

Channel 4 put this to the Dept of Defence.
DoD said that they were unaware of this incident but would investigate it.

DoD repsonded some time later to say that the order to fire on the group was
given because the group were seen running toward troops - not in shot on the film.
Channel 4 put it to the DoD, that if they were running toward troops - who were not in shot - why were they not able to identify the group as being women and children, who were unarmed ?
Later DoD, came back to C4 and said that the initial explanation for the attack was wrong (ie that the group were running toward troops and were armed) and that the tactical ops people BELEIVED that the group were armed and that's why they ordered the Apache to fire.
(Bush believed Hussein had WMD too !)

This is a war crime.
it is a war crime committed by the US.

My point is that Blair in acceeding to the Bush request for the Black Watch
and the Scots Guards to go to fight with the yanks, spells trouble.
Both regiments will be under the command of the US - both regiments will be
seen to solidify the forces of invasion in local peoples eyes.

It is a doomed strategy.
Blair is prepared to sell out the good name and professionalism of his own army - and to allow them to be tied in with an incompetent, unprofessional
occupying force called the US army.
 

Bikerman2004

New Member
Jul 24, 2004
752
0
0
101
limerickman said:
The LANCET article doesn't include Fallujah (they couldn't survey it - due to the amount of fighting going on there).
So indeed the figure may be more than 100,000.

Your central point is correct though and it is something which Blair appears to have missed (along witha lot of other things).
The US has sent in troops who have been shown to be incompetent and unprofessional.
The British Army are a professional organisation and are streets ahead of their US counterparts.
The goodwill engendered by the British in Southern Iraq from the Iraqi's is
illustrative.
Few causualties amongst either the civilian population and British troops.
Respect for the local people - engagement with the local people.
In a word, professionalism.

Granted Fallujah and around Baghdad is a different scenario.
But let's examine what is happening here.
Channel 4 recently showed tape of an airstrike by an Apache on people in Fallujah.

This sequence of events took 32 seconds.
32 seconds.
Street to street fighting taking place.
The Apache is hovering above a street.
Buildings have smoke billowing out.

A group of people are seen running out from one building.
Apache pilot informs tactical support "people seen leaving building moving south - what do I do ?"
The immediate response - within 1-2 seconds is
"Take them out - take them out".

I interject here - it is clearly visible from the film that we can see perhaps 40-50 people running.
It is clearly evident that this group is too big to be a militia group (40-50 people in a two storey building - very unlikely.).
It is clear that these people are running for their lives from something.

Back to the film : Apache pilot "Locking on to target" - 10 seconds later.
You see the group being hit by an explosion.
"Target hit - oooh, dude".

Eye witness accounts tell that the group of people seen in the films were women and children.
They had been running from buidling to building because the US forces in Fallujah were going through, house by house, and firing on each and very person.
Indiscriminately.

The local Iraq doctors and the Red Crescent have informed Channel 4 that the remains of these people (where there were remains) clearly show that the group comprised on women and children.
No guns/artillery were found on these people.

Channel 4 put this to the Dept of Defence.
DoD said that they were unaware of this incident but would investigate it.

DoD repsonded some time later to say that the order to fire on the group was
given because the group were seen running toward troops - not in shot on the film.
Channel 4 put it to the DoD, that if they were running toward troops - who were not in shot - why were they not able to identify the group as being women and children, who were unarmed ?
Later DoD, came back to C4 and said that the initial explanation for the attack was wrong (ie that the group were running toward troops and were armed) and that the tactical ops people BELEIVED that the group were armed and that's why they ordered the Apache to fire.
(Bush believed Hussein had WMD too !)

This is a war crime.
it is a war crime committed by the US.

My point is that Blair in acceeding to the Bush request for the Black Watch
and the Scots Guards to go to fight with the yanks, spells trouble.
Both regiments will be under the command of the US - both regiments will be
seen to solidify the forces of invasion in local peoples eyes.

It is a doomed strategy.
Blair is prepared to sell out the good name and professionalism of his own army - and to allow them to be tied in with an incompetent, unprofessional
occupying force called the US army.
This thread is misleading. Casualties doesn't mean killed. It includes injured and killed. It isn't the first time Limerickman has attempted to mislead.