The language we're hearing from Bush and others is not encouraging. For example: "But he (Bush) also warned that victory in Iraq might not come easily, and at the last minute he scratched from his speech an assessment that the war was progressing ahead of schedule." ""The path we are taking is not easy, and it may be long," said Mr. Bush. "Yet we know our destination. We will stay on the path, mile by mile, all the way to Baghdad, and all the way to victory."" http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/26/international/worldspecial/26CND-CAPI.html long war...mile by mile What a mess.
Re: Re: Bad signs Anyone who doesn't realize that the war is going badly by this point is delusional. Unfortunately, we can't throw in the towel, just keep spending billions and billions while the body bags keep coming home.
Re: Re: Re: Bad signs yes, so bad...one week of war and 22 american war casualties, although one single death is too much, 22 after a week of ground movements and fights on the ground is not bad when we are talking about a war what the hell did you think a war was going to be? american's rolling through iraq getting laid at every stop? war is an ugly monster...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad signs I think that's what the DoD thought it was going to be. Well, certain people in the DoD, that is.
The war isn't going badly, it is going as wars do. Anyone who honestly thought the march to Baghdad was going to be a walk in the park with the roads paved in white 'surrender' flags was a fool [yes, this would be Bush]. The war isn't going badly because US/Coalition troops are dying. It's a war, people on both sides are going to die. It's the side who suffers the minimal loss who can be considered 'the winner.' The war isn't going badly, it is going differently than Bush and some of his cronies thought it would, but wars tend to ignore planning and just go where they want. The war isn't going badly...yet. If you want to see a war go badly wait and see if Hussien decides to use chemical or biological weapons as US troops close in on Baghdad. That would be a war going badly.
The thought of that genuinely terrifies me. A real, serious attack with chemical or biological agents will result in thousands of casualities, no matter how quickly the troops put their gas masks on. If they really do have VX nerve gas and the means to deliever it a LOT of people are going to die. I think they might have the gas, but not the equipment to deliver it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bad signs this is true, but i knew this would last for a few months before the regime was overthrown. this battle was not going to be easy <none ever is> and so far it has not been "simple," anyone who thought so was under false impressions and if they would have educated themselves instead of listening to our news media <who exagerates everything> they would have known better...
Quick question: Is the current weather in Iraq something that should be expected this time of year? Will it persist well into the coming months? Seems like that's a big factor hampering current progress, and its negating our air superiority.
One thing that is going very well is the number of civilian causlities. Even the Iraqi's are only claming about 60. Before the war the doomsdayers and protesters were saying 100,000. Obviously if Chemical weapons are used then all bets are off. Or if Iraqi paramilitary units just start killing people to blame on the USA or just for the fun of it then the count will go up a lot.
fidlerre...sorry to pick, but it's a pet peeve of mine when people use "casualties" to mean "deaths." Casualties are deaths PLUS injuries. Anyone who thinks the war isn't going badly, where do you get that from? Watch the news channels. Don't listen to the anchordolts, listen to the military guys. Go to the WaPo website. (I say WaPo instead of the NYT, because the Times was middle of the road on this war, while WaPo was hawkish.) Read the articles. It's an inescapable conclusion that the war is going badly. Hell, we stopped our advance because our supply lines weren't secure!
Here's what is going well... -- Moving forward toward Baghdad at a decent pace. -- Keeping civilian casualties to a minimum. -- No WMD used against us yet. -- ??? Here's what is not going well... -- Iraqi soldiers aren't abandoning their posts at the rate predicted. -- Iraqi citizens aren't welcoming Coalition troops. -- Saddam's Ba'ath Party seems to still be in power. -- We are getting pulled into urban warfare in outside cities like Basra and Nasariya, which is a bad sign for our future in Baghdad. -- The DoD has prepared the US public very badly for this. -- No WMD found yet. -- Coalition forces are killing themselves at a faster pace than the Iraqis are. -- ???
sorry. i think if you remove the ba'ath party 'crackdown' in the cities around iraq you will see coalition soldiers welcomed much better. these people rule the regular population with fear, and they still have that fear now...we need to fake a 'saddam is dead' video and make the f'er come out in the open, then pick him off. too bad we didnt get him that first night.
Really? Enlighten us...I want names. Or maybe you're just allowing your general dislike of the Dubya Administration to cloud your perception of things.
I think the reason you hear that kind of talk is NOT because the war is going badly. Its because people(general public) think it is. So Bush has to come out and reassure them that this wasn't going to be an easy task. As for what the US thought was going to happen... Well look some of the stuff they "thought" was just trash talking and psych ops to ge the Iraquis and rest of world to believe this was going to happen. Did they REALLY think it was going to happen? I doubt it, they might have HOPED but they knew that Iraq's main Army wasnt going to back down. And they knew that people in Iraq wont support them until Saddam is gone or just about to be. There's NO WAY the US would come out at the begining of the war and say, "Yeah this is going to be tough, the Iraquis aren't going to be giving up, and they are going to use chemical weapons on us. On top of that we are going to put our troops in grave danger by leaving them streched out in the middle of the desert." Personally I think things are going according to plan with a few minor setbacks(sandstorms). I mean I can't beleive everything the US says just like I cant believe what the Iraquis say but if you just look at the numbers and where each one stands in DAY 7 of the war you'd be amazed. Dont go by what "everyone thought it was going to be", go by what you see.
OK, then how about this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33955-2003Mar26.html It's worth reading the whole article, in order to get a sense of how bad things are. But here are the highlights. You don't reassess successes. I'm genuinely pissed. Even I, against the war, thought that we could pull off the military aspect of it. Is there a snowball's chance in hell that this administration can pull off winning the peace? No. No. No. And you know why that completely sucks? Well, for alot of really obvious reasons, but there's another one. I'm nobody's pacifist, but if this turns into the unmitigated diplomatic/"soft power" disaster that I can't see any way of avoiding, it's quite likely to mean an overreaction into isolationism or pusillanimity or both. (Is "pusillanimity" a word?)
who knows. only time will tell and i am not about to give up on that hope yet, if you are that is fine...but some of us are not.
I guess people just want to call their shot. I'm waiting for Garcia to create the "I told you so" forum...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...504&e=1&u=/afp/20030327/ts_afp/iraq_worldwrap Dozens of US troops hurt in friendly fire, ground forces beefed up NEAR NASIRIYAH, Iraq (AFP) - Dozens of US marines were wounded in a friendly fire clash near the southern Iraqi town of Nasiriyah while the US army beefed up its forces in the north and south, as the war to oust President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) entered its second week. Shell and mortar fire apparently hit the marine command post headquarters near Nasiriyah, leaving 37 wounded, with three in critical and two in serious condition, officers told an AFP correspondent travelling with the troops. The headquarters compound returned fire, officers said, but casualty reports from the other side were not immediately available.
60? You mean 675. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,922715,00.html · British Killed in action 4; non combat (friendly fire and accidents) 18; PoWs 2; missing 2 · United States Killed in action 13; non combat 9; PoWs 7; missing 2 · Iraqi Killed in action, around 1,000; PoWs 4,000; civilians killed 675; civilians injured 1,110 · Others Journalists killed 2; missing 3
these numbers coming from a government who claims to have recaptured umm qasr, claims to have shot down numerous coalition jets, and oh yea...claims not to have WMD although they need 3,000 chemical suits and anti-dote for nerve gas, ya know...in case the coalition uses them i will believe number coming from the red cross/crescent, NOT one for the iraqi government.
WHy is "reassesment" = Things going BAD? It means they are evaluating the field and might change their plan. You CANT PREDICT WAR. So whatever plan they had is all just speculation once war starts it all changes. You need to adapt to the situation because the unexpected would happen. I mean they cant plan for a 3 day sandstorm stopping their plans and leaving them in the middle of the desert. But hey its not like it took out half of our forces. SO yeah they have to change their plans a little bit and resupply the mission, Iraquis are using guerilla warfare and using tricks to get to them, so yeah they have to reassess the situation. But it doesnt mean things are going bad. You guys are probrably the same dudes that bitch about your team losing(or just not dominating like they are supposed to) 1 game and then thinking the whole season is going down the toilet.
Any decent army has chemical suites and antidotes. And iraqi government gives fewer casualties than those reported by the guardian.