• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Poll: If Iraq used WMD (aka NBC weapons) would you...

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: andreasl
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: andreasl
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: andreasl
apoppin,

I'm curious, have you ever served in the military?
No - CO during the Vietnam war. What does that have to do with anything?

Have you?
Yes, I have. I was just curious since you are making grandiose predictions about the coalition strategy.
Where? I don't remember posting anything original on coalition strategy - ALL my posts are regarding combatting Saddam's suicide-murder strategy of devastating Baghdad and the unwillingness of most people to even consider this as a valid - if evil - way to start jihad. ;)
I am sorry apoppin, I must have misred this statement of yours:



HOW?

1) We committed far less troops that is necessary.
2) We thought the Iraqi people would rise up against Saddam
3) We didn't realize the power of Saddam's Propaganda and worked to shut off Iraqi TV TOO LATE
4) We are "paused" - a step short of retreat and getting attacked in AmBush Alley.
EDIT: And lots others in this thread and others.
As I said, none of those thoughts are "original" and were in answer to direct questions . . . are you completely disagreeing with the 4 points ! regurgitated from military analysists . . . i.e. DO YOU THINK we committed sufficient troops . . . Didn't we think the Iraqi people WOULD revolt? . . . You like seeing the images of "US caused civilain casualties and our POWs being paraded - was it wise to allow this? . . . And are we NOT "paused"?




Nitpick all you want on my repetition of military analysys - my entire point is, WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO TO PREVENT SADDAM FROM UNLEASHING WMD and the total destruction of Baghdad AT HIS "END"? Well?
And you are regurgitating topics from people that are outside the loop and you are treating them as fact.
 

andreasl

Senior member
Aug 25, 2000
419
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: andreasl
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: andreasl
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: andreasl
apoppin,

I'm curious, have you ever served in the military?
No - CO during the Vietnam war. What does that have to do with anything?

Have you?
Yes, I have. I was just curious since you are making grandiose predictions about the coalition strategy.
Where? I don't remember posting anything original on coalition strategy - ALL my posts are regarding combatting Saddam's suicide-murder strategy of devastating Baghdad and the unwillingness of most people to even consider this as a valid - if evil - way to start jihad. ;)
I am sorry apoppin, I must have misred this statement of yours:



HOW?

1) We committed far less troops that is necessary.
2) We thought the Iraqi people would rise up against Saddam
3) We didn't realize the power of Saddam's Propaganda and worked to shut off Iraqi TV TOO LATE
4) We are "paused" - a step short of retreat and getting attacked in AmBush Alley.
EDIT: And lots others in this thread and others.
As I said, none of those thoughts are "original" and were in answer to direct questions . . . are you completely disagreeing with the 4 points ! regurgitated from military analysists . . . i.e. DO YOU THINK we committed sufficient troops . . . Didn't we think the Iraqi people WOULD revolt? . . . You like seeing the images of "US caused civilain casualties and our POWs being paraded - was it wise to allow this? . . . And are we NOT "paused"?




Nitpick all you want on my repetition of military analysys - my entire point is, WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO TO PREVENT SADDAM FROM UNLEASHING WMD and the total destruction of Baghdad AT HIS "END"? Well?
I'm not nitpicking you nor am I looking for a fight. I just thought it was important to point out how military operations are conducted, by the military ;)

BTW, taking out artillery positions (rocket and tube) would be a good way to prevent the use of WMDs by Saddam. And I am sure they are doing the best they can in this regard. But they will never be able to destroy them all so the ultimate decition will rest upon Saddam (as long as he is alive that is). That is a kind of bleak outlook isn't it?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: apoppin

Clearly we are mired in a quandry. We moved in too fast, overconfident that it would be "easy". Now a long siege of Baghdad is what Saddam wants as he is in charge of molding world (and especially arab) opinion . . . we will see endless pictures of civilian casualties . . .

And when we FINALLY go in - do you really think Special Ops will find even half of his hidden WMD arsenal before he uses them? Our Iraqi intellegence is really poor
.
First of all how do you know our intelligence is really poor? Secondly if Basara is liberated along with other cities were the population have been brutalized by Hussien don't you think word would get out to the other Arab Nations, especially if those in the Liberated Cities start to rejoice over their freedom from Hussien?
HOW?

1) We committed far less troops that is necessary.
2) We thought the Iraqi people would rise up against Saddam
3) We didn't realize the power of Saddam's Propaganda and worked to shut off Iraqi TV TOO LATE
4) We are "paused" - a step short of retreat and getting attacked in AmBush Alley.
5) We could NEVER find Saddam and don't know ANYthing about him or his son's condion.
6) We don't know what we will face in Baghdad.
7) We WERE in control of Basera and then we WEREn't . . . what is "control".
8) We fully EXPECTED to have huminatarian aid in Iraq long before now and it is proving to be a HUGE problem - we are now accused of "starving Iraqi's population".

I bet I can think of more - this is just as I type . . .

So - do you think we have GOOD Iraqi Intellegence?

If you don't think all those scenarios were laid out to our leaders by the Intel Community then you are mistaken. We've got good Intel, Rumsfeld just didn't believe it or take it seriously enough. Anyway, War is fluid and things do change constantly.

Where I think Bush and his Admin screwed up is not informing the public that this could be a protracted conflict. A lot of people were under the impression that this was going to be a walk in the park. I remember in the thread stickied in OT where I said that we would probably incur hundreds if not a few thousand casualties and some one replied that I was crazy. It seems that many people have no idea that war isn't a Video Game.

I'm also starting to think they screwed up by imbedding reporters with the troops. These reporters are blowing things way out of proportion and causing those like yourself to over react and panic. I just hope the rst of the population can keep their wits about them.

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: apoppin

If you don't think all those scenarios were laid out to our leaders by the Intel Community then you are mistaken. We've got good Intel, Rumsfeld just didn't believe it or take it seriously enough. Anyway, War is fluid and things do change constantly.

Where I think Bush and his Admin screwed up is not informing the public that this could be a protracted conflict. A lot of people were under the impression that this was going to be a walk in the park. I remember in the thread stickied in OT where I said that we would probably incur hundreds if not a few thousand casualties and some one replied that I was crazy. It seems that many people have no idea that war isn't a Video Game.

I'm also starting to think they screwed up by imbedding reporters with the troops. These reporters are blowing things way out of proportion and causing those like yourself to over react and panic. I just hope the rst of the population can keep their wits about them.
You are right about Rumsfeld (and Bush) . . . and I am NOT panicing. I just think we are in "over our heads" without the UN.

And I also agree that the embedded reporters are a mistake.

I simply presented a likely "saddam endgame scenario" and asked what are we gonna do about it? Reassure us . . . anyone?

 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
76
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Red Dawn


If you don't think all those scenarios were laid out to our leaders by the Intel Community then you are mistaken. We've got good Intel, Rumsfeld just didn't believe it or take it seriously enough. Anyway, War is fluid and things do change constantly.

Where I think Bush and his Admin screwed up is not informing the public that this could be a protracted conflict. A lot of people were under the impression that this was going to be a walk in the park. I remember in the thread stickied in OT where I said that we would probably incur hundreds if not a few thousand casualties and some one replied that I was crazy. It seems that many people have no idea that war isn't a Video Game.

I'm also starting to think they screwed up by imbedding reporters with the troops. These reporters are blowing things way out of proportion and causing those like yourself to over react and panic. I just hope the rst of the population can keep their wits about them.
You are right about Rumsfeld (and Bush) . . . and I am NOT panicing. I just think we are in "over our heads" without the UN.

And I also agree that the embedded reporters are a mistake.

I simply presented a likely "saddam endgame scenario" and asked what are we gonna do about it? Reassure us . . . anyone?

So how would being sanctioned by a UN sway Hussein from the endgame scenario you've been talking about? And how would that stop Arabs from becoming just as enraged without UN help?

The way I see it, if the UN condoned the war, and the endgame scenario turns out to be true, instead of Arabs being pissed at just the US, Britain, and a few more countries, you basically have the Arabs being pissed at all of Europe and Asia + North America.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: apoppin

If you don't think all those scenarios were laid out to our leaders by the Intel Community then you are mistaken. We've got good Intel, Rumsfeld just didn't believe it or take it seriously enough. Anyway, War is fluid and things do change constantly.

Where I think Bush and his Admin screwed up is not informing the public that this could be a protracted conflict. A lot of people were under the impression that this was going to be a walk in the park. I remember in the thread stickied in OT where I said that we would probably incur hundreds if not a few thousand casualties and some one replied that I was crazy. It seems that many people have no idea that war isn't a Video Game.

I'm also starting to think they screwed up by imbedding reporters with the troops. These reporters are blowing things way out of proportion and causing those like yourself to over react and panic. I just hope the rst of the population can keep their wits about them.
You are right about Rumsfeld (and Bush) . . . and I am NOT panicing. I just think we are in "over our heads" without the UN.

And I also agree that the embedded reporters are a mistake.

I simply presented a likely "saddam endgame scenario" and asked what are we gonna do about it? Reassure us . . . anyone?

I don't think we are in over our head, we might have to send a couple hundered thousand troops to help but that would just make it easier. We aren't taking any significant casulties nor have we had to retreat at all. You assertion that the pause was almost as bad as a retreat is totally inappropriate and wrong. In fact it seems to me that we got there faster than we expected and now we have to soften up the Iraqi Positions and let the rest of our troops catch up, rest and resupply.

As for Hussiens Doomsday Attack, you think that the Iraqwi Army Generals are going to opt for going out that way themselves? You think that if their troops and population had any inkling that was in store for them that they would sit back and take it? Yeah right. Their might be some Diehard Martrys in the Fedayeen but 99.9% of Iraqi's would never choose to be a Martyr themselves.
 

andreasl

Senior member
Aug 25, 2000
419
0
0
I simply presented a likely "saddam endgame scenario" and asked what are we gonna do about it? Reassure us . . . anyone?

Well we can identify what they have done so far to prevent the Iraqies from using WMDs

1) Discouraging field commanders from using them by psycological warfare means (radio comms, leaflets, etc)
2) Hitting command and control in an attempt to prevent such orders from Saddam to reach the field.
3) Hitting their means of delivering these weapons (attacking artillery, launch sites etc)

Are there any other means they can use? None of these are foolproof. As even if Iraqi command, control and communications is completely broken down they can still use runners and couriers. It's pretty impossible to prevent that at least inside Bagdhad.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BigJ2078
So how would being sanctioned by a UN sway Hussein from the endgame scenario you've been talking about? And how would that stop Arabs from becoming just as enraged without UN help?

The way I see it, if the UN condoned the war, and the endgame scenario turns out to be true, instead of Arabs being pissed at just the US, Britain, and a few more countries, you basically have the Arabs being pissed at all of Europe and Asia + North America.
I feel like cutting and pasting my reply from the "other" thread that i started . . . anyway

IF the UN - representing the ENTIRE world - was surrounding Baghdad it would not be just the US and Britain pushing imperialist expansion policy in an effort to secure a sweet oil deal (that IS what the Arabs believe) . . .

RATHER it would be the ENTIRE world that the Arabs would have to declare jihad against - an impossible situation for them (we're talking about the arabs also attacking the Chinese, Indians, Russia - NO WAY - they would be exterminated as a "race") . . . Instead we will have "crap" blowing up all over America and Britain (which the Arabs can see as a much easier "target" than 5 billion more people).

;)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: BigJ2078
So how would being sanctioned by a UN sway Hussein from the endgame scenario you've been talking about? And how would that stop Arabs from becoming just as enraged without UN help?

The way I see it, if the UN condoned the war, and the endgame scenario turns out to be true, instead of Arabs being pissed at just the US, Britain, and a few more countries, you basically have the Arabs being pissed at all of Europe and Asia + North America.
I feel like cutting and pasting my reply from the "other" thread that i started . . . anyway

IF the UN - representing the ENTIRE world - was surrounding Baghdad it would not be just the US and Britain pushing imperialist expansion policy in an effort to secure a sweet oil deal (that IS what the Arabs believe) . . .

RATHER it would be the ENTIRE world that the Arabs would have to declare jihad against - an impossible situation for them (we're talking about the arabs also attacking the Chinese, Indians, Russia - NO WAY - they would be exterminated as a "race") . . . Instead we will have "crap" blowing up all over America and Britain (which the Arabs can see as a much easier "target" than 5 billion more people).

;)
We it's a good thing you are around to do all the worrying for us. All the stress you are relieving us of will probably extend our lives a few years:)
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: apoppin


I simply presented a likely "saddam endgame scenario" and asked what are we gonna do about it? Reassure us . . . anyone?

I don't think we are in over our head, we might have to send a couple hundered thousand troops to help but that would just make it easier. We aren't taking any significant casulties nor have we had to retreat at all. You assertion that the pause was almost as bad as a retreat is totally inappropriate and wrong. In fact it seems to me that we got there faster than we expected and now we have to soften up the Iraqi Positions and let the rest of our troops catch up, rest and resupply.

As for Hussiens Doomsday Attack, you think that the Iraqwi Army Generals are going to opt for going out that way themselves? You think that if their troops and population had any inkling that was in store for them that they would sit back and take it? Yeah right. Their might be some Diehard Martrys in the Fedayeen but 99.9% of Iraqi's would never choose to be a Martyr themselves.
I know the "pause" is not a "retreat" - it is PERCEIVED by the arab world as such and that "strengthens" them knowing we are "vunerable".

No - only a VERY few of Saddam's most loyal men would carry it out - yes, .1% of his most elite guard. The rest won't know (duh). And very likely THESE are the ones that are planning to escape with Saddam in the destruction and confusion. ;)

EDIT:
We it's a good thing you are around to do all the worrying for us. All the stress you are relieving us of will probably extend our lives a few years:)
It's good to see the "old" Red Dawn is back. :D MY PLEASURE for worring "for" you.


Actually, THIS discussion acts as a Stress-reliever for me . . . :p
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: apoppin


I simply presented a likely "saddam endgame scenario" and asked what are we gonna do about it? Reassure us . . . anyone?

I don't think we are in over our head, we might have to send a couple hundered thousand troops to help but that would just make it easier. We aren't taking any significant casulties nor have we had to retreat at all. You assertion that the pause was almost as bad as a retreat is totally inappropriate and wrong. In fact it seems to me that we got there faster than we expected and now we have to soften up the Iraqi Positions and let the rest of our troops catch up, rest and resupply.

As for Hussiens Doomsday Attack, you think that the Iraqwi Army Generals are going to opt for going out that way themselves? You think that if their troops and population had any inkling that was in store for them that they would sit back and take it? Yeah right. Their might be some Diehard Martrys in the Fedayeen but 99.9% of Iraqi's would never choose to be a Martyr themselves.
I know the "pause" is not a "retreat" - it is PERCEIVED by the arab world as such and that "strengthens" them knowing we are "vunerable".

No - only a VERY few of Saddam's most loyal men would carry it out - yes, .1% of his most elite guard. The rest won't know (duh). And very likely THESE are the ones that are planning to escape with Saddam in the destruction and confusion. ;)
Except there is no pause in operations.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: apoppin


I simply presented a likely "saddam endgame scenario" and asked what are we gonna do about it? Reassure us . . . anyone?

I don't think we are in over our head, we might have to send a couple hundered thousand troops to help but that would just make it easier. We aren't taking any significant casulties nor have we had to retreat at all. You assertion that the pause was almost as bad as a retreat is totally inappropriate and wrong. In fact it seems to me that we got there faster than we expected and now we have to soften up the Iraqi Positions and let the rest of our troops catch up, rest and resupply.

As for Hussiens Doomsday Attack, you think that the Iraqwi Army Generals are going to opt for going out that way themselves? You think that if their troops and population had any inkling that was in store for them that they would sit back and take it? Yeah right. Their might be some Diehard Martrys in the Fedayeen but 99.9% of Iraqi's would never choose to be a Martyr themselves.
I know the "pause" is not a "retreat" - it is PERCEIVED by the arab world as such and that "strengthens" them knowing we are "vunerable".

No - only a VERY few of Saddam's most loyal men would carry it out - yes, .1% of his most elite guard. The rest won't know (duh). And very likely THESE are the ones that are planning to escape with Saddam in the destruction and confusion. ;)
Except there is no pause in operations.
What does that have to do with Iraq using WMD on Baghdad in the Endgame?

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: apoppin


I simply presented a likely "saddam endgame scenario" and asked what are we gonna do about it? Reassure us . . . anyone?

I don't think we are in over our head, we might have to send a couple hundered thousand troops to help but that would just make it easier. We aren't taking any significant casulties nor have we had to retreat at all. You assertion that the pause was almost as bad as a retreat is totally inappropriate and wrong. In fact it seems to me that we got there faster than we expected and now we have to soften up the Iraqi Positions and let the rest of our troops catch up, rest and resupply.

As for Hussiens Doomsday Attack, you think that the Iraqwi Army Generals are going to opt for going out that way themselves? You think that if their troops and population had any inkling that was in store for them that they would sit back and take it? Yeah right. Their might be some Diehard Martrys in the Fedayeen but 99.9% of Iraqi's would never choose to be a Martyr themselves.
I know the "pause" is not a "retreat" - it is PERCEIVED by the arab world as such and that "strengthens" them knowing we are "vunerable".

No - only a VERY few of Saddam's most loyal men would carry it out - yes, .1% of his most elite guard. The rest won't know (duh). And very likely THESE are the ones that are planning to escape with Saddam in the destruction and confusion. ;)
Except there is no pause in operations.
What does that have to do with Iraq using WMD on Baghdad in the Endgame?
There is no pause, so you can quit saying there is one.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: apoppin


I know the "pause" is not a "retreat" - it is PERCEIVED by the arab world as such and that "strengthens" them knowing we are "vunerable".
What you think that Al Jezeera isn't feeding the Arab world BS about us getting beat already? Trust me, the Arab Governments know we aren't being defeated.

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin

Except there is no pause in operations.
What does that have to do with Iraq using WMD on Baghdad in the Endgame?
There is no pause, so you can quit saying there is one.
Tell that to ABC news and then quit bugging me about it
The ground "pause" was necessary, according to Lt. Gen. William Wallace, the Army's top commander at the front, because supply lines were stretched so thin. He also told reporters that Iraqi resistance was more intense than anticipated which could make the war longer.

Sources said his comments drew an angry phone call from his boss Gen. Tommy Franks. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would not say if Wallace was in trouble.

"I suppose everyone can have their own view," Rumsfeld told reporters today.

The view from the field squared with what Wallace was saying, even if the Bush administration did not like it.

"The United States was planning on walking in here like it was easy and all," Marine Sgt. Jimmy Paiz said. "It's not that easy to conquer a country, is it?"

Supply lines, under continued assault from Iraqi guerrillas, appear to be under duress, with troops running out of food, water and fuel. Soldiers are calling the 250-mile-long supply lines ? a network of roads toward U.S. troops south of Baghdad ? "ambush alley."

"We've got to the stage where some of the infantry here are down to one meal a day,
so it's a pretty difficult situation supplying such a large and high-tech army," said the BBC's David Willis, with U.S. Marines in central Iraq.
You can argue with the general. :p

edited
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin

Except there is no pause in operations.
What does that have to do with Iraq using WMD on Baghdad in the Endgame?
There is no pause, so you can quit saying there is one.
Tell that to ABC news and then quit bugging me about it
The ground "pause" was necessary, according to Lt. Gen. William Wallace, the Army's top commander at the front, because supply lines were stretched so thin. He also told reporters that Iraqi resistance was more intense than anticipated which could make the war longer.

Sources said his comments drew an angry phone call from his boss Gen. Tommy Franks. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would not say if Wallace was in trouble.

"I suppose everyone can have their own view," Rumsfeld told reporters today.

The view from the field squared with what Wallace was saying, even if the Bush administration did not like it.

"The United States was planning on walking in here like it was easy and all," Marine Sgt. Jimmy Paiz said. "It's not that easy to conquer a country, is it?"

Supply lines, under continued assault from Iraqi guerrillas, appear to be under duress, with troops running out of food, water and fuel. Soldiers are calling the 250-mile-long supply lines ? a network of roads toward U.S. troops south of Baghdad ? "ambush alley."

"We've got to the stage where some of the infantry here are down to one meal a day, so it's a pretty difficult situation supplying such a large and high-tech army," said the BBC's David Willis, with U.S. Marines in central Iraq.
You argue with the general. :p
Well at todays press breifing it was stated there was no pause. This was stated about 15 minutes ago. Also it was stated that issues with supply lines are greatly exagerated.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin

Except there is no pause in operations.
What does that have to do with Iraq using WMD on Baghdad in the Endgame?
There is no pause, so you can quit saying there is one.
Tell that to ABC news and then quit bugging me about it
The ground "pause" was necessary, according to Lt. Gen. William Wallace, the Army's top commander at the front, because supply lines were stretched so thin. He also told reporters that Iraqi resistance was more intense than anticipated which could make the war longer.

Sources said his comments drew an angry phone call from his boss Gen. Tommy Franks. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would not say if Wallace was in trouble.

"I suppose everyone can have their own view," Rumsfeld told reporters today.

The view from the field squared with what Wallace was saying, even if the Bush administration did not like it.

"The United States was planning on walking in here like it was easy and all," Marine Sgt. Jimmy Paiz said. "It's not that easy to conquer a country, is it?"

Supply lines, under continued assault from Iraqi guerrillas, appear to be under duress, with troops running out of food, water and fuel. Soldiers are calling the 250-mile-long supply lines ? a network of roads toward U.S. troops south of Baghdad ? "ambush alley."

"We've got to the stage where some of the infantry here are down to one meal a day, so it's a pretty difficult situation supplying such a large and high-tech army," said the BBC's David Willis, with U.S. Marines in central Iraq.
You argue with the general. :p
Well at todays press breifing it was stated there was no pause. This was stated about 15 minutes ago. Also it was stated that issues with supply lines are greatly exagerated.
That is Rumsfield's "damage control". REread the article . . . Lt. Gen. William Wallace, the Army's top commander at the front, is giving HIS view from the field.

Believe who you wanna believe.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin

Except there is no pause in operations.
What does that have to do with Iraq using WMD on Baghdad in the Endgame?
There is no pause, so you can quit saying there is one.
Tell that to ABC news and then quit bugging me about it
The ground "pause" was necessary, according to Lt. Gen. William Wallace, the Army's top commander at the front, because supply lines were stretched so thin. He also told reporters that Iraqi resistance was more intense than anticipated which could make the war longer.

Sources said his comments drew an angry phone call from his boss Gen. Tommy Franks. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would not say if Wallace was in trouble.

"I suppose everyone can have their own view," Rumsfeld told reporters today.

The view from the field squared with what Wallace was saying, even if the Bush administration did not like it.

"The United States was planning on walking in here like it was easy and all," Marine Sgt. Jimmy Paiz said. "It's not that easy to conquer a country, is it?"

Supply lines, under continued assault from Iraqi guerrillas, appear to be under duress, with troops running out of food, water and fuel. Soldiers are calling the 250-mile-long supply lines ? a network of roads toward U.S. troops south of Baghdad ? "ambush alley."

"We've got to the stage where some of the infantry here are down to one meal a day, so it's a pretty difficult situation supplying such a large and high-tech army," said the BBC's David Willis, with U.S. Marines in central Iraq.
You argue with the general. :p
Well at todays press breifing it was stated there was no pause. This was stated about 15 minutes ago. Also it was stated that issues with supply lines are greatly exagerated.
That is Rumsfield's "damage control". REread the article . . . Lt. Gen. William Wallace, the Army's top commander at the front, is giving HIS view from the field.

Believe who you wanna believe.
You expect us to believe that the Marines are down to one meal pack a day? If that were the case and we couldn't get throught to them via Supply line we'd just air drop them the food
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin

Except there is no pause in operations.
What does that have to do with Iraq using WMD on Baghdad in the Endgame?
There is no pause, so you can quit saying there is one.
Tell that to ABC news and then quit bugging me about it
The ground "pause" was necessary, according to Lt. Gen. William Wallace, the Army's top commander at the front, because supply lines were stretched so thin. He also told reporters that Iraqi resistance was more intense than anticipated which could make the war longer.

Sources said his comments drew an angry phone call from his boss Gen. Tommy Franks. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would not say if Wallace was in trouble.

"I suppose everyone can have their own view," Rumsfeld told reporters today.

The view from the field squared with what Wallace was saying, even if the Bush administration did not like it.

"The United States was planning on walking in here like it was easy and all," Marine Sgt. Jimmy Paiz said. "It's not that easy to conquer a country, is it?"

Supply lines, under continued assault from Iraqi guerrillas, appear to be under duress, with troops running out of food, water and fuel. Soldiers are calling the 250-mile-long supply lines ? a network of roads toward U.S. troops south of Baghdad ? "ambush alley."

"We've got to the stage where some of the infantry here are down to one meal a day, so it's a pretty difficult situation supplying such a large and high-tech army," said the BBC's David Willis, with U.S. Marines in central Iraq.
You argue with the general. :p
Well at todays press breifing it was stated there was no pause. This was stated about 15 minutes ago. Also it was stated that issues with supply lines are greatly exagerated.
That is Rumsfield's "damage control". REread the article . . . Lt. Gen. William Wallace, the Army's top commander at the front, is giving HIS view from the field.

Believe who you wanna believe.
Beleive what you want to beleive as well. I am just glad you are not running the war.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
0
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin

Except there is no pause in operations.
What does that have to do with Iraq using WMD on Baghdad in the Endgame?
There is no pause, so you can quit saying there is one.
Tell that to ABC news and then quit bugging me about it
The ground "pause" was necessary, according to Lt. Gen. William Wallace, the Army's top commander at the front, because supply lines were stretched so thin. He also told reporters that Iraqi resistance was more intense than anticipated which could make the war longer.

Sources said his comments drew an angry phone call from his boss Gen. Tommy Franks. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would not say if Wallace was in trouble.

"I suppose everyone can have their own view," Rumsfeld told reporters today.

The view from the field squared with what Wallace was saying, even if the Bush administration did not like it.

"The United States was planning on walking in here like it was easy and all," Marine Sgt. Jimmy Paiz said. "It's not that easy to conquer a country, is it?"

Supply lines, under continued assault from Iraqi guerrillas, appear to be under duress, with troops running out of food, water and fuel. Soldiers are calling the 250-mile-long supply lines ? a network of roads toward U.S. troops south of Baghdad ? "ambush alley."

"We've got to the stage where some of the infantry here are down to one meal a day, so it's a pretty difficult situation supplying such a large and high-tech army," said the BBC's David Willis, with U.S. Marines in central Iraq.
You argue with the general. :p
Well at todays press breifing it was stated there was no pause. This was stated about 15 minutes ago. Also it was stated that issues with supply lines are greatly exagerated.
That is Rumsfield's "damage control". REread the article . . . Lt. Gen. William Wallace, the Army's top commander at the front, is giving HIS view from the field.

Believe who you wanna believe.
You expect us to believe that the Marines are down to one meal pack a day? If that were the case and we couldn't get throught to them via Supply line we'd just air drop them the food
I am only quoting Nightline - you see it for yourself. It is up to you to decide what you believe. And the source - BBC's correspondent with the marines is saying "SOME of the troops" were on restricted rations.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY