Breaking: U.S. forces launch largest air assault since invasion

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez The Iraqi military will need helicopters once the Coalitioneers leave, these are ideal for counterinsurgency operations, very necessary.

There won't be any need for "counterinsurgency operations" once the "Coalitioneers" leave.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Zeebadee Why on earth would Iran be impressed by our ability to load up 1500 soldiers, fly and drive them a couple of dozen miles, unload them, and have them walk around all day? Is it because we managed to get through the day without any of our troops shooting each other? I wouldn't be surprised if the Iraqi troops hadn't even been issued live ammo. This kind of "action" just makes us look stupid.

because the press wouldn't know. if the press doesn't know, it won't make it onto the internet. if it doesn't make it onto the internet, none of them find out. ever studied military tactics? several skilled military commanders have used that kind of strategy. names that could be included would be:
General Erwin Rommel, in his first movements on the North African Front of WW2
General Montgomery, later on in the Battle of El Alamein, launching a seemingly large attack far to the south of the city, in a remote area, pulling out before German troops could investigate and launching a full-scale assault on the city, which now had a lower number of German soldiers.
Napoleon used it on several occasions.
why should we remove an effective strategy from our repertoire just because of our press? that is why no press were allowed on the movement originally.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Zeebadee There won't be any need for "counterinsurgency operations" once the "Coalitioneers" leave.

why not? because the coalitioneers are gonna kill every insurgent in existence? sad fact of life is: if you put a bunch of people under one governing power, you will always have those that are willing to actively rebel against that government. if there weren't any insurgents, there would be no dead American soldiers.

[rmnunez]

You think the insurgents would be peaceful and lay down arms once the foreigners left, I doubt it. They want power, control of the government, some want Saddam back, a few hope to establish an Islamic regime which probably means something like Iran, there are those ethnic issues too. Regardless of foreign presence the unrest would remain, the question is how to bring this down to a level which, once the US has substantially withdrawn, the Iraqi reconstituteds can handle with reduced support.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: dthmstr254 because the press wouldn't know. if the press doesn't know, it won't make it onto the internet. if it doesn't make it onto the internet, none of them find out. ever studied military tactics? several skilled military commanders have used that kind of strategy. names that could be included would be: General Erwin Rommel, in his first movements on the North African Front of WW2 General Montgomery, later on in the Battle of El Alamein, launching a seemingly large attack far to the south of the city, in a remote area, pulling out before German troops could investigate and launching a full-scale assault on the city, which now had a lower number of German soldiers. Napoleon used it on several occasions. why should we remove an effective strategy from our repertoire just because of our press? that is why no press were allowed on the movement originally.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What has any of this to do with this operation impressing Iran?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez You think the insurgents would be peaceful and lay down arms once the foreigners left, I doubt it. They want power, control of the government, some want Saddam back, a few hope to establish an Islamic regime which probably means something like Iran, there are those ethnic issues too. Regardless of foreign presence the unrest would remain, the question is how to bring this down to a level which, once the US has substantially withdrawn, the Iraqi reconstituteds can handle with reduced support.

I think the "insurgency" would quickly come to a halt if the foreign occupation forces left. Either the insurgency would take over and establish a government, or the people that are merely opposing the occupation would quit and the insurgency would collapse. I really don't care which happens. Nothing we stand to gain by staying any longer in Iraq is worth the price we have already paid for it. When we get a few sons and daughters of our chickenhawk politicians to volunteer for military service, then I'll believe that the threat from Iraq and Iran is real.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: dthmstr254 if there weren't any insurgents, there would be no dead American soldiers.

And if bush hadn't started this asinine war, there would be no insurgency and no dead American soldiers, or, btw, the thousands maimed for life.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez I know Iraq had military helicopters, in fact some critical lefties claim Rumsfeld sold Saddam custom-designed models equipped to spray toxic gas on Kurds, but I'm intrigued by the possibility they don't have any now (of the Rumsfeld models or not). The Iraqi military will need helicopters once the Coalitioneers leave, these are ideal for counterinsurgency operations, very necessary.

You are right. Not sure what happened to Saddam's helicopters but they are getting a few old Hueys from Jordon.

On 01 February 2005 Iraqi air force officials welcomed the arrival of the First two UH-1H Huey helicopters yesterday to Taji Air Base. The completely refurbished helicopters provide airlift support and important troop moving capabilities for the growing Iraqi air force command. Gifted from Jordan, this is the first of a series of scheduled deliveries to occur during the next year. A total of sixteen UH-1H aircraft are slated to arrive in Iraq by February 2006. The Iraqi flag is displayed on the fuselage of both aircraft.

Iraqi Air Force

Calling the Iraqis "air-mobile" is still quite a stretch.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Zeebadee And if bush hadn't started this asinine war, there would be no insurgency and no dead American soldiers, or, btw, the thousands maimed for life.

and if he hadn't, take the average of the thousands of Iraqis dead at his hands, and put take one year and you would have more already than the ones killed in the entire war. if we hadn't taken on this war when it was put to vote, the media would take the other road and say that their blood was on Bush's hands. the media just won't be pleased one way or another.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. What has any of this to do with this operation impressing Iran?

because they could have used it to scare them, because the media wouldn't be telling the entire damn world what the hell happened.

[jose]

[quote=dthmstr254] if we hadn't taken on this war when it was put to vote,

[quote]
Was it put to a vote?

If you wanted to impress Iran or anyone else you could have put on a better display than this bumblef+ck walkabout in the desert

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: jose Was it put to a vote? If you wanted to impress Iran or anyone else you could have put on a better display than this bumblef+ck walkabout in the desert

the same damn thing worked for Montgomery and Rommel, the only damn reason it didn't work this time is because of the morons in the press. give them enough money, and they would say anything.

oh, and it was put to vote, even Kerry voted FOR it.

[jose]

Was it put to a vote?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: dthmstr254 oh, and it was put to vote, even Kerry voted FOR it.

There was no vote to go to war. What was voted was to give bush the power to decide to go to war on his own. Congress effectively abdicated it's own responsibility to vote for war in order to either avoid blame or claim credit, depending on how the war progressed. If the war goes bad, the politicians can say, "Hey, I didn't vote for it, I just gave bush the power to start it. It's his fault". If the war goes well, these sleeze bags can then say, "Hey, I voted bush the power to go to war, see how great I am?". There's nothing lower on the face of the earth, and I mean nothing, than a politician.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Zeebadee There was no vote to go to war. What was voted was to give bush the power to decide to go to war on his own. Congress effectively abdicated it's own responsibility to vote for war in order to either avoid blame or claim credit, depending on how the war progressed. If the war goes bad, the politicians can say, "Hey, I didn't vote for it, I just gave bush the power to start it. It's his fault". If the war goes well, these sleeze bags can then say, "Hey, I voted bush the power to go to war, see how great I am?". There's nothing lower on the face of the earth, and I mean nothing, than a politician.

hmmm, what about a lawyer? everybody who had an IQ over 2 knew that by putting the vote on, Bush intended to use it. it was him who introduced the bill. in effect, the war was approved. I mean, what is the point of asking for the power to go to war without using the power if it is given. thus, whatever the hell you say, the vote was for war, and you can't change that.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dthmstr254 whatever the hell you say, the vote was for war, and you can't change that.

And three years later, the war is an unmitigated disaster that we happen to be losing and whatever the hell you say, you can't change that.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dthmstr254 hmmm, what about a lawyer?

Take a look and you'll see most politicians ARE lawyers. That should tell you something right there.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Take a look and you'll see most politicians ARE lawyers. That should tell you something right there.

in case you didn't notice, I was joking, hence the next to that.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: RickSp And three years later, the war is an unmitigated disaster that we happen to be losing and whatever the hell you say, you can't change that.

actually, if you watched the videos from Iraq that showed Iraqis destroying the statues of Suddam, and reading the statistics shows the revelation of the first publically available schooling. the people are closing in on finalizing the constitution years faster than we did with ours. progress in changing a country is always difficult. it matters not what you dream about, the reality is, this is the fastest we could have hoped for in terms of progress. I say have the returned soldiers volunteer to return. from the polls from them, I bet the majority would say a resounding "yes" to returning.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dthmstr254 in case you didn't notice, I was joking, hence the next to that.

I didn't notice. I really don't find anything at all funny about politicians OR lawyers so I guess I wasn't looking for/at the smiley.

[rmnunez]

I think the "insurgency" would quickly come to a halt if the foreign occupation forces left. Either the insurgency would take over and establish a government, or the people that are merely opposing the occupation would quit and the insurgency would collapse. I really don't care which happens.

We differ, if the coalitioneers fled then I think its likely insurgency would diminish, but not completely end, unless they managed to seize the government -then there'd be a different insurgency opposing them. An end to foreign occupation would mean insurgents animated by this would drop out, but those who are motivated by a desire to maintain the prior ethnic status quo, those who seek to restore Ba'athist rule, those who want Saddam and his family back in control and those who seek the establishment of an Islamic fundamentalist regime -would fight whatever government was in power.

It is difficult to calculate what proportion of the insurgency is inclined to lay down arms if the coalitioneers fled. The critical left suggests all insurgents are solely focused on this foreign occupation issue, they anticipate that is all that it would take to bring peace -have the foreigners leave. I think we will see a gradual reduction and the garrisoning of occupying forces and that this should produce a diminution in insurgency, if this is the case, then the local government should gain more control and be capable of handling unrest with its reconstituted forces.