OT Way to go Spain; that'll teach 'em. . .

"John Cook" wrote in message
...

Well.....

Firstly the US needs to hand control to the UN(if they want it???),

That would be the same UN that cut-and-ran after the bombing a few months
ago? Or the same UN that blew the nation building effort in Somalia?
Ooops--forgot--they are one and the same, huh? Yeah, right...

Fools rush in where angles fear to tread!!, seems quite apt at
present.

The UN presence (600 aid workers) in Iraq was a team who were trying
to run aid to a country crippled by numerous attacks, they were there
to stop the population dying of starvation, they left after the second
attack when 22 of that 600 got blown up and the US could not provide
basic security, by any measure its time to go!!!


Problem with that theory is that they DECLINED the US offer to
provide increased security and decided they could do without it.

Kofi Annan later fired the UN officials responsible, his announcement
stated that the official concerned "appeared to be blinded by the
conviction that UN personnel and installations would not become
a target of attack, despite the clear warnings to the contrary".

Of the 2 officers directly responsible for overseeing security the
report said

""These two officers displayed profound lack of responsibility and
ineptitude"

Keith

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:18:37 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .
Iraqi poll details


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...1849087D3D.htm.


Nice try, John! But you may want to read *all* of the results of that poll
(which is, by the way, the same one I already quoted to you elsewhere)--only
15% are in favor of us leaving NOW, the remainder wanting us to remain until
things are capable of being handled by their own security forces.


And 35% say they should leave on June 30th 2004, or put another way
59.2% want them out on or before June 30th (q29), don't you just love
polls. (35%+15.1%+8.3%);-)

Where were they conducting these polls? (what social/economic
diversity was polled, there's so many ifs and buts you'd be hard
pressed to prove anything from a poll of under 3000 people), and to
be honest you'd be mental to go polling in any hotspots, I personally
would make up the results rather than wander round falluja with a
clipboard.

another said the that Japan (Q11) is at the top of the list of
rebuilding nations.... I have to wonder how they got such a high
mark???.


Brooks

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:02:16 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .

Well.....

Firstly the US needs to hand control to the UN(if they want it???),

That would be the same UN that cut-and-ran after the bombing a few months
ago? Or the same UN that blew the nation building effort in Somalia?
Ooops--forgot--they are one and the same, huh? Yeah, right...

Fools rush in where angles fear to tread!!, seems quite apt at
present.

The UN presence (600 aid workers) in Iraq was a team who were trying
to run aid to a country crippled by numerous attacks, they were there
to stop the population dying of starvation, they left after the second
attack when 22 of that 600 got blown up and the US could not provide
basic security, by any measure its time to go!!!


Problem with that theory is that they DECLINED the US offer to
provide increased security and decided they could do without it.

Ah! my apologies! I stand corrected,

Kofi Annan later fired the UN officials responsible, his announcement
stated that the official concerned "appeared to be blinded by the
conviction that UN personnel and installations would not become
a target of attack, despite the clear warnings to the contrary".

Of the 2 officers directly responsible for overseeing security the
report said

""These two officers displayed profound lack of responsibility and
ineptitude"

It is without doubt a a very idiotic decision.


Keith



John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"John Cook" wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:18:37 -0400, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .
Iraqi poll details



http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...D-E21849087D3D
..htm.


Nice try, John! But you may want to read *all* of the results of that
poll
(which is, by the way, the same one I already quoted to you
elsewhere)--only
15% are in favor of us leaving NOW, the remainder wanting us to remain
until
things are capable of being handled by their own security forces.


And 35% say they should leave on June 30th 2004, or put another way
59.2% want them out on or before June 30th (q29), don't you just love
polls. (35%+15.1%+8.3%);-)


Except Q29 didn't specify June 30th (and would depend on how the person
viewed what would "be" an Iraqi Government).
Q29 also depends on how the person responded to Q14a. Based on the responses
to 14a that is less than 10% ( 9.4% ) of those persons polled for that
question (about 250 people). The 90.6% not included would appear to not even
know that there are US and UK troops in Iraq - so their vote would be a vote
for never since they don't even know they are there. :-)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp...iraqsurvey.pdf

Where were they conducting these polls? (what social/economic
diversity was polled, there's so many ifs and buts you'd be hard
pressed to prove anything from a poll of under 3000 people), and to
be honest you'd be mental to go polling in any hotspots, I personally
would make up the results rather than wander round falluja with a
clipboard.

another said the that Japan (Q11) is at the top of the list of
rebuilding nations....

That depends on how you you read those numbers - Japan followed the US as
the country as the 1st choice

I have to wonder how they got such a high
mark???.

Given a choice between Japan and the UN which would you chose but how many
Japanese cars do you see in the various television news reports from
Iraq....

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

"MADRID, Spain (CNN) -- Spain's 1,400 troops in Iraq will be withdrawn
"in the shortest possible time," the country's new prime minister said
Sunday.

Well, how could a Spanish government ask its soldiers to
risk their lives to implement a policy it does not believe in?
That would be an utterly impossible line to take. Zapatero
promised his voters that he would call the Spanish troops
back from Iraq over a year ago. He is keeping his promise --
such things happen, even in politics.


There is another aspect to this. The outgoing Government had tried to
blame the Madrid train bombing on ETA or other Basque seperatists.
When the truth came out many Spaniards must have lost complete
confidence in the Government and voted them out. Really a government
that lies that much has to go in any democracy. This sort of
irresponsibillity could have re-ignited the Basque seperatist issues.

Is there any proof that they lied? Sounded to me like they were incorrect
in their initial assumption, which is a different thing entirely. You do
understand the difference, right?

Jarg

Fools rush in where angles fear to tread!!, seems quite apt at
present.

What does geometry have to do with it?

Trust you to go off at a tangent. (see sig file)


The UN presence (600 aid workers) in Iraq was a team who were trying
to run aid to a country crippled by numerous attacks, they were there
to stop the population dying of starvation, they left after the second
attack when 22 of that 600 got blown up and the US could not provide
basic security, by any measure its time to go!!!

But you expect them to rush back in when someone else is providing the
security, and demonstrate a herewithto never displayed sense of serious
resolve...yeah, right. Would you be interested in purchasing some really
nice beachfront property in southern Arizona...? Or maybe a bridge...?

Keith has pointed out in another post that the US offered protection
to the UN Aid workers which was flatly refused by the UN Security
service, an atrocious lack of judgement on their part.



The UN said 'don't go in yet, give the inspectors time to discover
the existance of WMD' and well see about a united front after that.

They passed 1441. In what, 1991? And could not figure out how to effectively
enforce it for a bit over a decade. Real effective organization you got
there... And I don't recall any promises of a subsequent "united front";
given that we had France and Germany in the mix, any such promise, even if
it *did* exist (which I don't think it did) would have not been worth the
hot air it was made up of.

The bit in 1441 which allowed the US to invade Iraq :-

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to
use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2
August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution
660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the
area,"

The "all necessary means to _restore_ international peace and
security", was the bit they used to justify the war, the Security bit
was most important due to the 'underwealming' evidence of WMD that
Iraq had stockpiled that could be used within 45 mins.;-).


The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral decisive
force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US friendly
'version' of events.

LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they "rescued"?
You are letting your animosity towards all things US-ian gobber up your
tenuous grasp of the real facts. And while you are rereading Bowden's book,
note how much effort was required in order to get the Malays and Pakis
moving that day.
Would that be because they hadn't been advised that the US would mount
an operation on that day!!, you can't just expect everyone to be ready
to jump right on into a firefight without getting some kind of ROE and
authority from their superiors.

The Spanish have stated quite plainly that a UN run force would be
acceptable, the alternative forces (IE those countries that want to
help the US get out of a bad situation) would patrol on day one with
Iraqi's police, then use a graduated response with the Iraqi police
being able to call in _reasonable_ force if required, and a whole lot
of force when necessary.

A-hem. And how are you getting the "alternative force" there in that
timeframe? Without US support,
Why without US support?, you get the 'alternatives' there, setup and
supplied, and ready to go then the UN takes over and day one starts!,
don't expect to drop everything and say theres the mess go clean it
up.
Oh! So now it is "unless absolutely necessary", not your previous, "Get the
hell out of Dodge before sundown, pardner!"? So what you are really
proposing is a token parade ground force, with the US remaining there to
handle the things when "absolutely necessary"? Flip-flop much?

You can describe it how you like if it diffuses the situation,
remember its your mess, the rest of the world may help you or not
theres no guarentees they would want to get involved in such a
debarkle.

No I afraid you will have to stay for the duration and help clear up
the mess you created.

No, you said we had to pull back on "Day One", quite specifically in fact.
Now you make it sound as if you want us there to do the heavy hitting, but
we should "keep off the grass, and stay in the back of the bus" otherwise,
huh? You ARE rather rabid with your anti-Americanism, aren't you?

It seems the Iraqi's are the ones you should be worry about being
anti-american, I personally am not anti-american, then again I'm not
pro-american.
do you believe such a state can exist??.




No your cedeing control to hand picked Iraqi's, many of whom have been
absent from iraq for decades, why don't the locals want that?,

Who said they don't?
That poll you keep referring to 'look at who they don't want running
the Iraqi gov', Oh surprise surprise it the guy who lived in the US
for the last decade or two, We can argue the poll till doomsday comes,
the figures mean little in themselves from such a small sample.

You have zero military experience?
Combat experience is zero, but have worked with them in several areas.

That would be my guess, based upon your
ridiculous assertion that having bad guys in your security units is better
than not having them there...
Have you ever heard of keep your friends close and your enemies
closer, while there in a structure that is commanded by your side you
have a chance of controlling elements, as opposed to the present
situation.
You don't need tens of thousands, you need peacekeepers, preferably
muslims, preferably sunni's or shia who will patrol areas where the US
presence is not tolerated by the locals (you know! the ones you freed
from Saddams oppression), you keep the US well out of sight in those
areas unless called for, its about diffusing the situation!!!.

Uhmmm--you do need tens of thousands. Take a gander at what is on the ground
now--you know, that coalition force that the vast majority of Iraqis want to
see remain in-place until such time as their own forces can handle security?
Which would indicate that the only thing needing defusing is the current
radical minority and their terrorist brethren. Stop making this out to be a
case of the majority of the Iraqis wanting us out NOW--that just is not
supported by the reputable poll results. BTW, do you have ANY supporting
evidence to back up YOUR claims? Any at all?.

59.2% want the US out by june 30th or earlier from that poll...
The last problem is to pursuade the rest of the world to come in and
risk their lives for what is undoubtly one of the worst US inspired
cock-ups,

Have you ever expressed any opinion favorable of the US in any form or
fashion? I don't recall it if you ever did...

I don't recall you ever saying the US has cocked right up with Iraq, I
happen to agree with (IIRC) Abdul Nasser who said "The Americans dont
make simple mistakes, they make big huge complicated ones, which leave
the rest of us scratching our heads wondering if we have possible
missed something"

Answer the question--have you expressed any opinion favorable of the US?
Ever?

yes I have, how about the US has a brillient military capability
easily a magatude better than any one else, now your turn! is Iraq a
cockup?.
I'm Biased because I think the US has made a tremendous error of
judgement!!!.

No, you are biased because you demonstrate a decidedly anti-American
propensity in all discussions, or at least those that I have watched you
wade into of late. Still awaiting those examples of your saying *anything*
good about the US...

What do you want me to say??, go on i'm interested?.
You have the best politicians money can buy perhaps:-)

So as an unbiased observer of the situation in Iraq whats its
successes???

I am not unbiased--I just admit it, unlike you.


You avoided the question again... what are its successes?.

"John Cook" wrote in message
om...
Fools rush in where angles fear to tread!!, seems quite apt at
present.

What does geometry have to do with it?

Trust you to go off at a tangent. (see sig file)

I don't normally bother reading that crap following a post, be it a
disclaimer or an advertisement for someone's website.



The UN presence (600 aid workers) in Iraq was a team who were trying
to run aid to a country crippled by numerous attacks, they were there
to stop the population dying of starvation, they left after the second
attack when 22 of that 600 got blown up and the US could not provide
basic security, by any measure its time to go!!!

But you expect them to rush back in when someone else is providing the
security, and demonstrate a herewithto never displayed sense of serious
resolve...yeah, right. Would you be interested in purchasing some really
nice beachfront property in southern Arizona...? Or maybe a bridge...?

Keith has pointed out in another post that the US offered protection
to the UN Aid workers which was flatly refused by the UN Security
service, an atrocious lack of judgement on their part.

Which is maybe another reason why most of the Iraqis seem not to place much
confidence in the UN...




The UN said 'don't go in yet, give the inspectors time to discover
the existance of WMD' and well see about a united front after that.

They passed 1441. In what, 1991? And could not figure out how to
effectively
enforce it for a bit over a decade. Real effective organization you got
there... And I don't recall any promises of a subsequent "united front";
given that we had France and Germany in the mix, any such promise, even
if
it *did* exist (which I don't think it did) would have not been worth
the
hot air it was made up of.

The bit in 1441 which allowed the US to invade Iraq :-

"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to
use all
necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2
August
1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution
660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the
area,"

The "all necessary means to _restore_ international peace and
security", was the bit they used to justify the war, the Security bit
was most important due to the 'underwealming' evidence of WMD that
Iraq had stockpiled that could be used within 45 mins.;-).

I don't think I'd talk about "underwhelming" until the source of that VX in
Jordan is finally determined...



The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral decisive
force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US friendly
'version' of events.

LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they
"rescued"?
You are letting your animosity towards all things US-ian gobber up your
tenuous grasp of the real facts. And while you are rereading Bowden's
book,
note how much effort was required in order to get the Malays and Pakis
moving that day.

Would that be because they hadn't been advised that the US would mount
an operation on that day!!, you can't just expect everyone to be ready
to jump right on into a firefight without getting some kind of ROE and
authority from their superiors.

Not real bright, are you? You trot out a source that allegedly supports your
warped construct, and it turns out you can't even properly get the very
basics of the *source* right. Hint--what *USMC* unit was involved in that
Mogadishu raid that is the subject of your source? You need to go back and
read that book again--most of it obviously passed through your cranial
cavity without your accurately decyphering its meaning.


The Spanish have stated quite plainly that a UN run force would be
acceptable, the alternative forces (IE those countries that want to
help the US get out of a bad situation) would patrol on day one with
Iraqi's police, then use a graduated response with the Iraqi police
being able to call in _reasonable_ force if required, and a whole lot
of force when necessary.

A-hem. And how are you getting the "alternative force" there in that
timeframe? Without US support,

Why without US support?, you get the 'alternatives' there, setup and
supplied, and ready to go then the UN takes over and day one starts!,
don't expect to drop everything and say theres the mess go clean it
up.

Oh, so now you are postulating a "Day One", to be followed by another... Day
One? Or is this just another example, like your later, "Well, we'll keep the
US-ians around to handle the REAL problems while we have a few thousand of
(undetermined providing nations' troops) serve as window dressing--but other
than that the US will cede control and be tucked away quietly in its bases,
out of sight, out of mind!" idea, of how you can use the US forces, without
actually using the US forces? Doublespeak much? Either you have the US as a
player, as you are now indicating, or you don't, as you originally
postulated--which is it?


Oh! So now it is "unless absolutely necessary", not your previous, "Get
the
hell out of Dodge before sundown, pardner!"? So what you are really
proposing is a token parade ground force, with the US remaining there to
handle the things when "absolutely necessary"? Flip-flop much?

You can describe it how you like if it diffuses the situation,
remember its your mess, the rest of the world may help you or not
theres no guarentees they would want to get involved in such a
debarkle.

Well, there we agree--if anyone was so dull as to actually implement your
"plan", then it would be a "debarkle" (I guess).


No I afraid you will have to stay for the duration and help clear up
the mess you created.

No, you said we had to pull back on "Day One", quite specifically in
fact.
Now you make it sound as if you want us there to do the heavy hitting,
but
we should "keep off the grass, and stay in the back of the bus"
otherwise,
huh? You ARE rather rabid with your anti-Americanism, aren't you?

It seems the Iraqi's are the ones you should be worry about being
anti-american, I personally am not anti-american, then again I'm not
pro-american.
do you believe such a state can exist??.

I find your protestations against being labled anti-American a bit weak,
given the evidence of your repeated posts against myriad things USian, and
*none* pro-USian...



No your cedeing control to hand picked Iraqi's, many of whom have been
absent from iraq for decades, why don't the locals want that?,

Who said they don't?

That poll you keep referring to 'look at who they don't want running
the Iraqi gov', Oh surprise surprise it the guy who lived in the US
for the last decade or two, We can argue the poll till doomsday comes,
the figures mean little in themselves from such a small sample.

So they don't like Chalabi--so what? They have the CPA until they can
construct their own new final government, they are overwhelmingly happy with
their current local government, and they decidedly want the coalition to
remain in the country for the time being. I suspect the reason you don't
like that poll is because it does not square with your own sermonizing of
what the Iraqis themselves *really* want, which begs the question of when
you were annointed and gifted with the clairvoyance necessary for you to
repeatedly tell us their desires.


You have zero military experience?
Combat experience is zero, but have worked with them in several areas.

Uhmm--the guy driving the Roach Coach (mobile snack stand) around FT Knox
could claim he "worked with" those of us who were actually pulling duty.
Sorry, no points awarded for that claim. So what we have in you is a guy who
claims that he knows the "strategy and tactics" of the situation in Iraq
better than those who *do* wear the uniforms, or the SecDef, etc., yet who
has zip/nada/zilch in terms of military experience or training. That
figures.


That would be my guess, based upon your
ridiculous assertion that having bad guys in your security units is
better
than not having them there...

Have you ever heard of keep your friends close and your enemies
closer, while there in a structure that is commanded by your side you
have a chance of controlling elements, as opposed to the present
situation.

Have you ever heard of OPSEC? Or the necessity of building a credible
reputation if you are going to avoid unnecessary bloodshed? Or to put it in
the most basic terms, how willing would YOU be to put yourself into a
situation where you are engaging an insurgent threat and then find that the
guys designated to provide covering fire for your rush to the objective are
part-and-parcel of the same guys shooting back at you? Only an IDIOT would
claim that placing known hostiles into your own security force would be a
"wise" move.

You don't need tens of thousands, you need peacekeepers, preferably
muslims, preferably sunni's or shia who will patrol areas where the US
presence is not tolerated by the locals (you know! the ones you freed
from Saddams oppression), you keep the US well out of sight in those
areas unless called for, its about diffusing the situation!!!.

Uhmmm--you do need tens of thousands. Take a gander at what is on the
ground
now--you know, that coalition force that the vast majority of Iraqis
want to
see remain in-place until such time as their own forces can handle
security?
Which would indicate that the only thing needing defusing is the current
radical minority and their terrorist brethren. Stop making this out to
be a
case of the majority of the Iraqis wanting us out NOW--that just is not
supported by the reputable poll results. BTW, do you have ANY supporting
evidence to back up YOUR claims? Any at all?.

59.2% want the US out by june 30th or earlier from that poll...

Bull****. You are twisting the numbers quite hard to get that kind of warped
result. Go back and READ the questions posed. A whopping 15% said the wanted
the coalition out immediately. Stop your quibbling.


The last problem is to pursuade the rest of the world to come in
and
risk their lives for what is undoubtly one of the worst US
inspired
cock-ups,

Have you ever expressed any opinion favorable of the US in any form
or
fashion? I don't recall it if you ever did...

I don't recall you ever saying the US has cocked right up with Iraq, I
happen to agree with (IIRC) Abdul Nasser who said "The Americans dont
make simple mistakes, they make big huge complicated ones, which leave
the rest of us scratching our heads wondering if we have possible
missed something"

Answer the question--have you expressed any opinion favorable of the US?
Ever?

yes I have, how about the US has a brillient military capability
easily a magatude better than any one else, now your turn! is Iraq a
cockup?.

Wait a sec. Please provide the cite--it is not that I don't trust
you...well, yes, it is. I'd be very curious as to the nature of that
comment, and what followed it after your inevitable "but...".

No, Iraq is not whatever you described it as above. It ain't neat, it ain't
pretty--but that is the nature of conflict, and of establishing a new nation
to replace the old.

I'm Biased because I think the US has made a tremendous error of
judgement!!!.

No, you are biased because you demonstrate a decidedly anti-American
propensity in all discussions, or at least those that I have watched you
wade into of late. Still awaiting those examples of your saying
*anything*
good about the US...

What do you want me to say??, go on i'm interested?.
You have the best politicians money can buy perhaps:-)

I want an example of your providing any kind of pro-US statement in this
forum, preferably irelated to the modern era. You have worked very hard to
try and completely trash the F/A-22, you keep tossing jabs at the JSF/F-35,
you hammer us on Iraq...I went back about three years on Google and did not
find any pro-US comments to speak of, but plenty of anti-s. Face it,
John--look in a mirror and tell yourself, "To be honest, I don't like the
US, or anything US-ian." Face your demons, man.


So as an unbiased observer of the situation in Iraq whats its
successes???

I am not unbiased--I just admit it, unlike you.


You avoided the question again... what are its successes?.

Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. State ordered mass executions are no
longer in vogue. Last i heard the power and water distribution systems had
reached or exceeded the pre-conflict levels. That ridiculous statue of
Hussein being toppled in Baghdad. The succesful defeat of the Iraqi forces
and ouster of the ruling party using forces that many naysayers said were
"inadequate" to move onto and through Baghdad. And best of all, the Iraqis
themselves feel they are better off today than a year ago before we went in,
and they are optimistic about the future. You need more?

Brooks

The same UN whose units from Pakistan and Malaysia rescued the US
Marines in Somalia after the US decided on some 'unilateral decisive
force' was in order, see 'Blackhawk down' for the most US friendly
'version' of events.

LOL! You are truly clueless. Can you tell me which USMC unit they
"rescued"?
You are letting your animosity towards all things US-ian gobber up your
tenuous grasp of the real facts. And while you are rereading Bowden's
book,
note how much effort was required in order to get the Malays and Pakis
moving that day.

Would that be because they hadn't been advised that the US would mount
an operation on that day!!, you can't just expect everyone to be ready
to jump right on into a firefight without getting some kind of ROE and
authority from their superiors.

Not real bright, are you? You trot out a source that allegedly supports your
warped construct, and it turns out you can't even properly get the very
basics of the *source* right. Hint--what *USMC* unit was involved in that

Ah I think I see what your getting at the 'Marines' I Mentioned from
Memory were 'Rangers' and 'Delta force' that were rescued - at least I
think that's what you are on about?.

Mogadishu raid that is the subject of your source? You need to go back and
read that book again--most of it obviously passed through your cranial
cavity without your accurately decyphering its meaning.

Oh, so now you are postulating a "Day One", to be followed by another... Day
One? Or is this just another example, like your later, "Well, we'll keep the
US-ians around to handle the REAL problems while we have a few thousand of
(undetermined providing nations' troops) serve as window dressing--but other
than that the US will cede control and be tucked away quietly in its bases,
out of sight, out of mind!" idea, of how you can use the US forces, without
actually using the US forces? Doublespeak much? Either you have the US as a
player, as you are now indicating, or you don't, as you originally
postulated--which is it?

You use them sparingly, in conjunction with foreign peacekeepers and
local police, remember were trying to diffuse a difficult situation
created by a gung ho attitude, that's not easy to dispel, if at all
possible.

No I afraid you will have to stay for the duration and help clear up
the mess you created.

No, you said we had to pull back on "Day One", quite specifically in
fact.
Now you make it sound as if you want us there to do the heavy hitting,
but
we should "keep off the grass, and stay in the back of the bus"
otherwise,
huh? You ARE rather rabid with your anti-Americanism, aren't you?

It seems the Iraqi's are the ones you should be worry about being
anti-american, I personally am not anti-american, then again I'm not
pro-american.
do you believe such a state can exist??.

I find your protestations against being labled anti-American a bit weak,
given the evidence of your repeated posts against myriad things USian, and
*none* pro-USian...

How does that affect the situation in Iraq?, its still a big cock-up



No your cedeing control to hand picked Iraqi's, many of whom have been
absent from iraq for decades, why don't the locals want that?,

Who said they don't?

That poll you keep referring to 'look at who they don't want running
the Iraqi gov', Oh surprise surprise it the guy who lived in the US
for the last decade or two, We can argue the poll till doomsday comes,
the figures mean little in themselves from such a small sample.

So they don't like Chalabi--so what?


So what!!!, you stick someone they don't like in and pretty soon they
will be out and someone you don't like will be in, blimey you are
not facing reality are you, there not interested in imported Iraqi's.

They have the CPA until they can
construct their own new final government, they are overwhelmingly happy with
their current local government, and they decidedly want the coalition to
remain in the country for the time being. I suspect the reason you don't
like that poll is because it does not square with your own sermonizing of
what the Iraqis themselves *really* want, which begs the question of when
you were annointed and gifted with the clairvoyance necessary for you to
repeatedly tell us their desires.


You have zero military experience?
Combat experience is zero, but have worked with them in several areas.

Uhmm--the guy driving the Roach Coach (mobile snack stand) around FT Knox
could claim he "worked with" those of us who were actually pulling duty.
I used to make bits for missiles systems and elsewhere on worked on
communications, beyond that I can't say.
Sorry, no points awarded for that claim. So what we have in you is a guy who
claims that he knows the "strategy and tactics" of the situation in Iraq
better than those who *do* wear the uniforms, or the SecDef, etc., yet who
has zip/nada/zilch in terms of military experience or training. That
figures.
OK I'm fed up with this thread - Check out someone who you can
identify with he-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3646947.stm
Quote"Now, the two serving generals have raised questions about the
wisdom of excluding Baath party officials from the post-war
administration"
Now what was it you were saying about ridiculous assertions!!, I said
excluding the old mob was a big mistake, two US generals (who I
freely admit have an Infinitely better handle on the situation in
Iraq than you or I, "seem to share the view that the policy of
casting senior Iraqi officers aside was a mistake."

"British generals, too, have been speaking out".

"Yesterday, the head of the British Army - Gen Sir Mike Jackson - told
the House of Commons Defence Committee it was a fact that the British
approach to post-conflict situations was doctrinally different to that
of the US".

"There has been some criticism of US tactics from British, Polish and
other commanders."

But there all Anti American aren't they, perhaps you wish to share
your thoughts as to why these two US generals are wrong, as to Why
the British are wrong, and the polish too..

That would be my guess, based upon your
ridiculous assertion that having bad guys in your security units is
better than not having them there...

Well I have two US generals and a couple of other nations who agree
with me...Or do you agree with "the famous French statesman, Georges
Clemenceau, who said that "war is too important to be left to the
generals". Funny I thought you didn't agree with the French.


Have you ever heard of OPSEC? Or the necessity of building a credible
reputation if you are going to avoid unnecessary bloodshed?
Or to put it in
the most basic terms, how willing would YOU be to put yourself into a
situation where you are engaging an insurgent threat and then find that the
guys designated to provide covering fire for your rush to the objective are
part-and-parcel of the same guys shooting back at you? Only an IDIOT would
claim that placing known hostiles into your own security force would be a
"wise" move.

"23/6/2003 U.S. announces formation of new Iraqi army
RAMADI, Iraq (AP) — U.S.-led civil administrators announced the
creation of a new Iraqi army Monday, hoping to contain anger among
soldiers jobless since Saddam Hussein's military was disbanded and to
curb a rash of anti-U.S. attacks."

Or perhaps

"I'm not that comfortable in the new army," said Nawar Mahmood, 23,
who said he was a member of the Kurdish pesh merga militia and had
been reassigned to the new Iraqi army. "I spent 13 years in the pesh
merga fighting the Baathists, and now there are many Baathists in the
new army."



Now Mr Brook every single Iraqi soldier is a known hostile, they were
fighting against the US led coalition.. remember?, the new Iraqi Army
was formed to contain anger from the old soldiers and curb attacks
also!!, Ohh they seem to be agreeing with me...remember what I said
:-

"Well if Mr Rumsfield is correct there are large numbers of republican
guard roaming around attacking US forces in felluja, having them in
there old units would have made tracking them a lot easier, rather
than having several thousand ex soldiers milling around the town.,"

You have had a severe rant about known hostiles, unfortunately the
security measure of asking " are you a hostile?" is easily defeated by
answering "no"



59.2% want the US out by june 30th or earlier from that poll...

Bull****. You are twisting the numbers quite hard to get that kind of warped
result. Go back and READ the questions posed. A whopping 15% said the wanted
the coalition out immediately. Stop your quibbling.

Q26 50.9% of those who were aware of the coalition oppose their
presence..

yet in another question when asked:-
Q28 - For each of the following, please tell me whether you think it
would be very effective, somewhat effective, not very effective or not
at all effective in improving security.

half of those that expressed an opinion thought that the Immediate
departure of coalition forces would be effective.

You have a wide disparity right there... between your 15% and 50 %,
I'll be kind to you - perhaps it was how it was worded.


Answer the question--have you expressed any opinion favorable of the US?
Ever?

yes I have, how about the US has a brillient military capability
easily a magatude better than any one else, now your turn! is Iraq a
cockup?.

Wait a sec. Please provide the cite--


Its above, here I'll do it again, I reckon Denon USA make the best
Audio receivers/amps. especially in my price range.

Oh and the Swiss do make a good army knife!..

Now I wish to make a point, Would members of all the other countries
please refrain from asking me to endorse their Country and/or
products, I know your not all as paranoid as some, but I simply cannot
cope with 200 plus endorsements, its not that I'm anti (insert your
nation here) its just I don't really care enough to mention all the
good things you've achieved throughout history, nor do I have the time
to type all those wonderful things.


I'm Biased because I think the US has made a tremendous error of
judgement!!!.

No, you are biased because you demonstrate a decidedly anti-American
propensity in all discussions, or at least those that I have watched you
wade into of late. Still awaiting those examples of your saying
*anything*
good about the US...

Tell you what - you provide a cite about anything good you've said
about Denmark, or the UN.



What do you want me to say??, go on i'm interested?.
You have the best politicians money can buy perhaps:-)

I want an example of your providing any kind of pro-US statement in this
forum, preferably irelated to the modern era. You have worked very hard to
try and completely trash the F/A-22, you keep tossing jabs at the JSF/F-35,
you hammer us on Iraq...I went back about three years on Google and did not
find any pro-US comments to speak of, but plenty of anti-s. Face it,
John--look in a mirror and tell yourself, "To be honest, I don't like the
US, or anything US-ian." Face your demons, man.
On 26-2-2004

"BVR the JSF should be good,but WVR it would suffer if it didn't
have
an high off boresite missle and an helmet to cue the missile.

It may lack in areas of the flight envelope that is useful for post
missile launch maneauvre to deny the opposition a shot, but its
stealth should make up for it.


That's my take on it, it all depends on how good the avionics are!
consider the price, lots of stuff may get left off due to weight and
costs..."

I have friends and relo's over there, You seem to have the "you're
either with us or against us" attitude, Why can't I criticise without
being labeled anti US.

You avoided the question again... what are its successes?.

Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.

This is true!!, and is a good example!!, blimey I knew you could do
it.

State ordered mass executions are no
longer in vogue.

But unfortunately more civilians are dying from 'collateral damage I
think the total deaths are over 10,000 now.


Last i heard the power and water distribution systems had
reached or exceeded the pre-conflict levels.

Which pre conflict, the first one or the subsequent?
That ridiculous statue of
Hussein being toppled in Baghdad.
Yes and being draped in the stars and strips too, that brought a tear
to my eye.

The succesful defeat of the Iraqi forces
and ouster of the ruling party using forces that many naysayers said were
"inadequate" to move onto and through Baghdad.


And best of all, the Iraqis
themselves feel they are better off today than a year ago before we went in,
and they are optimistic about the future. You need more?



Brooks


John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
Have you ever heard of OPSEC? Or the necessity of building a credible
reputation if you are going to avoid unnecessary bloodshed? Or to put it
in
the most basic terms, how willing would YOU be to put yourself into a
situation where you are engaging an insurgent threat and then find that
the
guys designated to provide covering fire for your rush to the objective
are
part-and-parcel of the same guys shooting back at you? Only an IDIOT would
claim that placing known hostiles into your own security force would be a
"wise" move.

You're very hard on your political and military leadership, Kevin.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

+++++
Half Iraq's forces 'are traitors or deserters', by Toby Harnden in Baghdad
(Filed: 23/04/2004)

One in 10 members of Iraq's new security forces is actively helping
insurgents while 40 per cent have deserted, according to an American
general.

Major Gen Martin Dempsey, commander of the US army's 1st Armoured Division
in Baghdad, issued the bleakest coalition assessment yet of Iraqi security
capabilities.

Are the new Iraqi security forces prepared to face real danger?
He said that during recent uprisings "about 50 per cent of the security
forces that we've built over the past year stood tall and stood firm".
He added: "About 40 per cent walked off the job because they were
intimidated and about 10 per cent actually worked against us."
snip
Gen John Abizaid, the senior US commander in the Middle East, has
acknowledged that inadequate screening of Iraqi security force recruits has
been a key failure in American training. Gen Dempsey said Iraqi forces had
been riddled with "infiltrators".
+++++

--
Paul J. Adam

See also
http://212.2.162.45/news/story.asp?j...64&n=100247763

In a major change of strategy, the US is planning to offer government
jobs in Iraq to former senior officers of Saddam Hussein’s military
and the ousted Baath Party.

Cheers

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk