Guerilla Actions in Irak

Anyone can confirme that Hungary will provide aproximatelly two T-72 batallions for the new iraqi army?

Iama

Why would they? They "just" bought 100 pieces from Belarus in 1996.That being said,they had to destroy 100 T-55 in order to stay within the limits of MBFRT. There's also no word what would happen with the remaining T-55 (re-modernised or not).
It would be interesting to know what will be the replacement of the T-72 (a very capable platform)

Maybe they will aquire some second hand Leopard I, from our common friends, as we make it with Holland...

Think about how much will advance Hungary in NATO's eyes with "compatible" tanks!!!

Iama

Yes,but that's pure speculation.To be honest I wouldn't mind such cats in Romanian army

This post has been edited by Zayets on August 22, 2005 11:21 am

Hi Iama,

I saw that report. It could mean one or both of two things - the US is so overstretched that it can't find enough regular troops for all its global commitments and/or the threat level in Iraq is rather less than one might think and can be contained by lower grade personnel. I suspect it is a combination of the two.

Another report stated that the Iraqi Army now had 107 infantry battalions in formation, of which three are so far fully operational. I think we can expect that number to rise rather than fall, relieving further the pressure on US manpower.

Cheers,

Sid

From Bragg, 700 military of 82 nd Airborne Div. will be sent in Irak in next months.

Iama

Victor,first of all,what they do this soldiers far away from home,fighting?They do this for a noble cause?They want to protect their countries against a dangerous enemy who want to destroy him?Or is just an ocupation army,who have another interests(economicaly,especially,as usual in such wars,but military and politically too).About the enemy who dont wear an uniform(against the international rules),i agree.But from what i remeber,the war was started whitout agreement of UN,and another obvious break of international war rules(first time in post cold war era) was the war against Yugoslavia(again,without UN agree).About soldiers acused for war crime,you make me laugh.US dont recognize Haga court,and their soldiers have imunity in such causes(we sign even a treaty for this,what a shame).Remember Abu Ghraib case.Couple soldiers was acused(Acarul Paun),and comander of prison was replaiced.But let`s be serious,is hard to believe that in such close space,into a military regim,superiors dont know about that tortures.And,in the first time,winner is not judged,just looser.Is the jungle law out there.For me,when an army invade another country(who dont represent a danger for shes own country existance),is the first who breake the rules.And what is the diference betwen a bomber pilot who launch a guided missile and destroy a kindergarten building(with kids inside),like in Yugoslavia,or a shelter with civilians(including many kids)like in Irak,and an insurgent who detonate an IED when a military truck is aproach,but kill the civilians too.I dont defend the insurgents,but lets see with same measure both sides.

It's one thing to attack the troops occupying your country but killing scores of innocent civilians for that cause is rather pointless.

This can go the other way around too.
The things that differentiate between a terrorist and a soldier are the target and the intention. When a soldier or an insurgents kills inocent people when pursuing a military goal, unfortunate as that may be, they are "merely" doing collateral damage.

Like I said, what ever happened to Zarqawi and his group? For weeks he is absent from any news report. At the start of the year CNN was talking at length about him, now nothing. Has he vanished like Osama? Maybe he'll pop out before the 2008 elections in the US...

Considering the long run and the big picture, the war is lost.

Israel understood it - and they withdrew from Gaza.
Iran understood it - and they restarted with audacity their nuclear program.
Great Britain understood it - and they will withdraw in 2006, most probable.

When Bush and the average Joe will get it?
Even a brain with vacuum tubes should understand it by now...

Hi Florin,

Lost?

Israel is simply transplanting its 8,000 Gaza settlers to the West Bank, where they will join at least 250,000 others. Israel is still expanding.

Iran has not only restarted its nuclear programme, but also recognised the right of Israel to exist in the last fortnight.

Britain will probably withdraw from Iraq because the job is done. There is little active resistance in its zone of Iraq. It is taking over more operations in Afghanistan instead.

Cheers,

Sid.

The target, in the long run, is to install obedient puppet regimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Iran, and to secure once for all the oil of the Middle East: to make it a secured source for the U.S., and also a good lever to blackmail Western Europe, China and Japan, these latter 3 always in acute need for oil.

Well, not even in the occupied Iraq and Afghanistan the local governments are not quite obedient puppets. At the elections in Iraq the winners were not the ones wanted by Washington D.C. The oil in Iraq is available, but not secured: tens of sabotages interrupt the production every month. Iraq is on the point of breaking in 3 pieces, and the average daily life is worse than before the invasion of 2003. This barely means that the attempt to win hearts and minds in the Middle East is doomed.

The oil of Iran, the world's second largest exporter, is still out of reach - Tehran can do whatever it pleases with its oil. Syria and Iran, directly threatened with invasion in 2003, after the fall of Saddam Hussein, will be OK, from their own point of view, in the years to come.

And do you think that Israel would withdraw today if in the last 2 years 2000 Americans would not be killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, after "mission was accomplished" and "the war is over"? When the Coalition will pull out from the area, the American support toward Israel will be lower than before 2001. It is a probability, to say the least, and I guess some leaders in Tel Aviv have serious intentions to smooth their relations with their Arab neighbors.


But anyway, regarding our different approach, this is the quality of humans: to draw different conclusions, starting from exactly same events. So we'll see who was right... some years from now.

Regards.

I disagree, Florin. I think the oil is the only thing that keeps the US in Irak, and its safe and flowing...
The first oil fields to be secured by the US/UK at the start of the 2003 war were in the south, around (or between) Basra and Najaf. The last sabotage actions I heard of were to pipelines in the North, around Tikrit. IMO the US is easily pumping oil out of the southern oil fields, where the distance is even smaller from the Golf.

Hi Florin,

The US and the rest of the world were getting Iraqi and Iranian oil before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. They are still getting it and will continue to get it through the open market whatever regime is in power in these countries.

The Iraq war was not about oil, but US prestige, which had been tied to UN prestige while Saddam Hussein ignored 17 UN resolutions. Afghanistan was directly related to terror. Iraq was directly related to a reassertion of US power free of internationalist dithering - and Saddam Hussein was an entirely worthy target.

The US gets its Iraqi oil on the open market in competition with everyone else. If you want to look for attempts to secure Iraqi oil at fixed prices you need to go back to Russian and French deals with Saddam Hussein in the 1990s.

Israel's withdrawal from Gaza is for reasons related to itself, not Iraq. Gaza had 1,000,000+ Palestinians but only 8,000 Jews. If Gaza was ever to be absorbed into Israel it would add almost nothing to the state's Jewish population, but would double its Arab population. Israel withdrew because it realised that the only reason for Israeli settlement was as preparation for annexation and annexation would be extremely counter-productive to the Jewish character of the Israeli state.

Cheers,

Sid.

The people saying the Irak war was ONLY about oil are as wrong as those saying it was not about oil.
Who says a war has to have only one reason?

This post has been edited by Imperialist on August 25, 2005 05:28 pm