Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

[Der Maresal]

... :shock: !! Is this another Abrams Tank destroyed? :shock: :oops:
nnno...!!! Itt'' cann't beee! :cry:



ohhh :cry:

[Der Maresal]

:x ohhh.! Nn...nott another one!! :cry:
Maybe the Iraqis are not just ' "Gooks" & ''Camel-Raiders' after all.. 8)

[inahurry]

Good post der Maresal. A bit too passionate maybe but more to the point than others, including mine.

[mabadesc]

Hey, Maresal,

As I said before, and as Victor also logically stated, no tank is infallible, no army is infallible either. What did you expect? No casualties at all?

Regardless, I'm sure that if the US had invaded Irak without having a single vehicle destroyed or a single soldier killed, you probably would have criticized them for having ugly uniforms, or something like that.

About other's comments in the last few posts:

Russia, China, are certainly great military powers. But they certainly don't come near the power of the US. Russia is no longer the USSR. The arms race ended when Russia's economy couldn't keep up with military research, technology, not to mention the actual building and servicing of equipment. China is on the rise, but they still have a waaaaay long to go.

I must say, though, that the passion of all your posts means I have touched a nerve. It must be eating you, inahurry, and getu inside to see the strength of the americans. Don't be so angry... :evil:

One piece of advice: there's nothing you can do about it (just like there's nothing I can do about it). So relax, and smile. Take a Xanax or Diazepam if you have to. Life is beautiful!

[Geto-Dacul]

Nobody is actually angry, mabadesc!

QUOTE

As I said before, and as Victor also logically stated, no tank is infallible, no army is infallible either. What did you expect? No casualties at all?

But according to US Army spokesman Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks no US tanks were destroyed by enemy fire in Iraq... (06.05.2003)

AS I SAID before, for a country that spends HUNDREDS of billions of dollars in armament, you can say that it suffered SEVERE losses in Iraq. But as Victor said, "only victory counts". That's also true.

QUOTE

Regardless, I'm sure that if the US had invaded Irak without having a single vehicle destroyed or a single soldier killed, you probably would have criticized them for having ugly uniforms, or something like that.

And they have ugly uniforms too... They and the British since WWII. But especially since the 80's.

QUOTE

Russia, China, are certainly great military powers. But they certainly don't come near the power of the US. Russia is no longer the USSR. The arms race ended when Russia's economy couldn't keep up with military research, technology, not to mention the actual building and servicing of equipment. China is on the rise, but they still have a waaaaay long to go.

Oh...! Have you seen what those monsters are developping?! Since China has gone to space, what do you think? And the capture of the spy plane EP3 on March 31, 2001? As for Russia, check their missile system who is far superior to the American one... And they are still developping new weapons, behind the mask of Western propaganda that "they are finished, a way long to go etc." Since 1992, the Americans bought hundreds of tons of ex-Soviet military equipment for examinations and testing. China's involvment in the actual Iraqi events is very probable.

Best regards,

Getu'

[inahurry]

An analysis from a guy ( well, it was “insinuated” the analysis received a little help, unofficially, from GRU specialists, the truth is they are very well written ) who delivered excellent synthesis in the “classical” part of the conflict too. Starts from the recent loss of the 2 helicopters but goes farther :

“Black Hawks down” by Venik

http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.ph...d=26436&lang=en

Mabadesc, if one has no sympathy for something doesn’t automatically make him incapable to express a balanced opinion or that he is automatically less objective than the one sympathetic to the same phenomenon. Also, the number of sources that sing to the same tune doesn’t add extra truth to a debate. On the contrary, it should raise suspicion, unanimity of view is a rare thing among humans. Or it is pretty clear there is a unique type of discourse in the official media.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

AS I SAID before, for a country that spends HUNDREDS of billions of dollars in armament, you can say that it suffered SEVERE losses in Iraq.

This assessment is overblown. What, about 300 deads, 2000 wounded, 10 choppers down and 10 tanks out of action ? Severe, for a half year ? There are more people killed and wounded at home in the US from natural accidents in that same time period.

You could notice that many countries lost than number of men each day during WWI (and, at the peak times during the great offensives they could loose 10 times than number...per day).

The fact is that American losses in Irak are very light by most standards and have 0 effect on the efficiency of the American war machine. It takes more than that. If the Americans must withdraw from Irak it will be because the continual losses and low level warfare can trigger political backlash at home, don't hold your breath over an Iraki military victory, there will be none.

I wonder why some rejoice noisily each time Americans suffer losses. Like it will somehow make their own life better

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Since China has gone to space, what do you think?

That they are now where the US and the Soviets stood 45 years ago.

QUOTE

China's involvment in the actual Iraqi events is very probable.

Geto, care to elaborate ? What make you think the Chinese would want to meddle in that mess ?

[inahurry]

Currently, the irreversible casualties coalition forces suffered are between 2200-2400 people from a close to 7000 injured persons evacuated from Iraq from an up to 9000 general toll. Over 7 month of fighting. The emphasis put on the officially admitted deaths is indecent because the soldiers who lost a limb or suffered other permanent disability will never live a normal life again, not to mention they are lost from a military point of view.
US can’t control Iraq, maybe it isn’t their strategic plan but if it is then we witness a failure.
Leaving aside the intoxication about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s alleged involvement in 9.11.2001 attacks that aren’t even mentioned today by the administration, the other declared objectives, even if they can’t justify aggression against a sovereign state, like “regime change”, reconstruction and democratization aren’t achieved either. Saddam was deposed alright but the replacement government can’t function, its members can’t even survive outside the heavy protection US forces provide. Democratization depends of the existence of a stable situation which is not the case. Reconstruction as such is stalled, even if there was a genuine economic interest (paid by the American taxpayer money) from certain corporations the same instability is freezing the attempts. Worse, the perception of the failure hurts even more a shaking economy. This instability is caused by the Iraqis resistance tactics and the inability of US forces to counter them.
None of the claimed goals was achieved, most of them not even partially. Hidden goals ? I think they exist but the available evaluation criteria clearly show US didn’t achieve victory. At the end of 1941 Germany won, USSR lost, but the war ended in 1945 with a different outcome. Similarly, in May 2003 US won, now it doesn’t look so anymore. Maybe, just maybe, US force in Iraq is very efficient in minimizing its losses and good at keeping its fighting capabilities close to a high operational level but if it fails to achieve the mission what’s the use for it ?
It is not only the politicians failure here, they are for sure the first to blame and they are pretty sure responsible for part of the poor military results through their incompetent meddling and mostly because they set goals in disaccord with reality, but the rest are the fault and/or limitations of US military. One of the military’s major failure was the poor evaluation of the enemy’s competence and motivation. I’m pretty sure many commanders realize they are in a no-win situation and now they just passively follow orders.

[Indrid]

i am amazed that everybody is baffled when an american tank or helicopter crashes. i mean the irak war meant for the americans the loss of what 100-200 privates? and i am not talking now about the hundreds that followed. the number of casualties from this war would make a ww2 general laugh. 200 casualties? a minor skirmish! 3 tanks down? ha!

but today it's a big deal because these tanks, i do not know how many millions costs one to make, can be destroyed with a molotov cocktail ! so it`s 12 million$ let`s say destroyed by 12 cents. whats next ?

[inahurry]

A little piece of involuntary humor involving one of the “exported democracy“ agents in Iraq. The reason for posting here : it is absolutely hilarious.

"Democracy ..." Oh, never mind. We get it now. One of the NPR stations in Greater Trantor (i.e. Washington, D.C.) aired a "democracy" marathon the other day, including a two-hour show called "Exporting Democracy: the World Speaks." It was mainly about the United States exporting "democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan.

There wasn't any discussion of whether it really is democracy that's being exported, except when an Iraqi, calling in to comment, somehow got past the screeners. One of the newly appointed Iraqi ministers, Adnan Pachachi, was a guest speaker, and the caller said, essentially, [b][i]This guy doesn't represent us. He was appointed by the Americans.

That infuriated Pachachi, who said (again I paraphrase), [b][i]That is a vicious lie! I am sick and tired of hearing this, and I'm surprised that you allow a person like this the use of the airwaves! It is a lie that we were appointed by the Americans!

We appointed ourselves !

I try my hand at satire from time to time, but I'm not sure I could have made that up. [David T. Wright] (November 2003)

[Chandernagore]

I don't expect democracy to take root in Irak. Probably the majority of Irakis don't want it. Like almost all muslim countries. When you start giving rights and freedom to people it's not so easy to restrict your wife into the kitchen, you risk loosing your precious macho tribal privileges.

The US will probably at one point "declare victory and bug out" , letting the imported regime crumble soon after. If the whole pityfull story could end in Bush not being reelected I would say that even in the worst ideas you find a little something usefull. For the sake of putting an end to the unilateral policies I hope the democrats with get back into the white house. Unfortunately they don't look too well.

[Der Maresal]

what a waste of Tax-payer money... :cry:




Since the war begun in March 2003 , until the beginning of November the 'coalition' has lost 26 Unamnned Aerial Vehicles (mostly British), 22 helicopters, 10 planes, 45 helicopters and 2 planes damaged (mostly US).
This does not include the helicopters shot down during the last few days, as well as the other two blackhawks that collided with one another.

+ :roll: -How much do these Hellfire missiles and rockets on that Apache cost? :shock: I know an ordinary 500lb bomb is roughly $10, 000, a Sidewinder missile about $60,000, an AMRAAM AIM-120 $200,000, Maverick missile $100,000? a pod with 19 Rockets, about $10,000- And the Phoenix missile - don't ask how many millions that costs, 3M+ ? :shock:
Shooting 'Gold in the Mudd', and turning millions of dollars - up in smoke - is the American philosophy of winning wars. :?

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Shooting 'Gold in the Mudd', and turning millions of dollars - up in smoke - is the American philosophy of winning wars.

It's a good way of keeping the militaro-industrial complex busy. If you don't loose anything you have nothing to replace. It create contracts :?

[Victor]

QUOTE

I don’t think US army can “overcome any opponent in a conventional war”. I think they might even lose sometimes – this is what “not being invincible” means, isn’t it ?

There are more types of war. You can sweep the enemy tanks from the field, but you can get into big problems in guerilla war. But, please, tell us, which army today can defeat the Americans in a conventional war?

Any nation would be reluctant to engage in long wars. Those tend to generate a lot of losses in both men and material. They would also suppose a war economy and sacrifices from the population.
The US stayed in Vietnam (and Laos and Cambodia) for many years, despite intense protests from many anti-war groups. They also lost 300 more men. I would not say that they lost (as Der Maresal stated). They did manage to stop Communism from spreading into SE Asia.

QUOTE

And the Phoenix missile - don't ask how many millions that costs, 3M+ ?

Do you actually know what aircraft carries this missile and what purpose it serves?