US bombs Euphrates bridges

[Jhhnn]

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_...lick_id=123&art_id=qw1128610260414B262

Obviously, something has gone very, very wrong when we have to target infrastructure in a country we already occupy, to behave as if it's being held by an opposing army...

And it will undoubtedly go a long ways towards winning the hearts and minds of the locals, too...

This whole misadventure is beginning to resemble Vietnam more and more everyday, complete with the same idiocy of having to destroy the village in order to save it, but on a much larger scale...

Bravo, Neocons! Every choice has been the wrong one, every opportunity wasted, every mistake imaginable has been purposely implemented as policy. No wonder history repeats itself.

 

[dphantom]

Sigh....

Spans in the bridges were either destroyed or damaged. Not the bridge itself. The purpose is to channelize th flow of the terrorists to make them easier to kill.

Standard military tactic, channelize the enemy to force them into your kill zone. The bridges will be very easily repaired.

It is not destroying the village to asve the village aka Vietnam.

try this link to get a better feel for the overall picture of why this is being done.

particulary the River Gates updates of 6 Oct and previous.

Bridge link

 

[Witling]

Phantom, very interesting link. Thank you. I don't see how your assertion that it is not destroying the village to save it follows from the link article which states only that " Coalition forces continue to clear the cities of Haditha, Haqlaniyah and Barwana." Fallujah and Tal Afar were extensively destroyed to save them. I don't want to change the course of this discussion but, when the war started there used to be a guy on her whose name was approximately Sxggy. He thought that it was ludicrous to suggest that the war would go on for five years. The link to which you cite contains interesting articles. They're completely wrong about the possibility of military victory -- but interesting articles. Thanks.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Sigh....

Spans in the bridges were either destroyed or damaged. Not the bridge itself. The purpose is to channelize th flow of the terrorists to make them easier to kill.

Standard military tactic, channelize the enemy to force them into your kill zone. The bridges will be very easily repaired.

It is not destroying the village to asve the village aka Vietnam.

try this link to get a better feel for the overall picture of why this is being done.

particulary the River Gates updates of 6 Oct and previous.

Bridge link

Well we all know that anyone that wants to cross a river must be a terrorist.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: dphantom
Sigh....

Spans in the bridges were either destroyed or damaged. Not the bridge itself. The purpose is to channelize th flow of the terrorists to make them easier to kill.

Standard military tactic, channelize the enemy to force them into your kill zone. The bridges will be very easily repaired.

It is not destroying the village to asve the village aka Vietnam.

try this link to get a better feel for the overall picture of why this is being done.

particulary the River Gates updates of 6 Oct and previous.

Bridge link

Terrorists are not the same thing as armies of enemy troops, "standard military tactics" are not really the best idea...that's the sort of thinking that gave us this mess in the first place.

Also, "channelize" is not a word 😉

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Also, "channelize" is not a word 😉

Yeah, but it sounded really hip and in-the-know. 😉

 

[Lanyap]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: dphantom
Sigh....

Spans in the bridges were either destroyed or damaged. Not the bridge itself. The purpose is to channelize th flow of the terrorists to make them easier to kill.

Standard military tactic, channelize the enemy to force them into your kill zone. The bridges will be very easily repaired.

It is not destroying the village to asve the village aka Vietnam.

try this link to get a better feel for the overall picture of why this is being done.

particulary the River Gates updates of 6 Oct and previous.

Bridge link

Terrorists are not the same thing as armies of enemy troops, "standard military tactics" are not really the best idea...that's the sort of thinking that gave us this mess in the first place.

Also, "channelize" is not a word 😉

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/channelize

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_...lick_id=123&art_id=qw1128610260414B262

Obviously, something has gone very, very wrong when we have to target infrastructure in a country we already occupy, to behave as if it's being held by an opposing army...

And it will undoubtedly go a long ways towards winning the hearts and minds of the locals, too...

This whole misadventure is beginning to resemble Vietnam more and more everyday, complete with the same idiocy of having to destroy the village in order to save it, but on a much larger scale...

Bravo, Neocons! Every choice has been the wrong one, every opportunity wasted, every mistake imaginable has been purposely implemented as policy. No wonder history repeats itself.

Originally posted by: dphantom
Sigh....

Spans in the bridges were either destroyed or damaged. Not the bridge itself. The purpose is to channelize th flow of the terrorists to make them easier to kill.

Standard military tactic, channelize the enemy to force them into your kill zone. The bridges will be very easily repaired.

It is not destroying the village to asve the village aka Vietnam.

try this link to get a better feel for the overall picture of why this is being done.

particulary the River Gates updates of 6 Oct and previous.

Bridge link

:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

Ooooooh look, one of the Chief Aplogists comes in right away with an excuse for the Republicans.

Surprised I am not

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Lanyap

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: dphantom
Sigh....

Spans in the bridges were either destroyed or damaged. Not the bridge itself. The purpose is to channelize th flow of the terrorists to make them easier to kill.

Standard military tactic, channelize the enemy to force them into your kill zone. The bridges will be very easily repaired.

It is not destroying the village to asve the village aka Vietnam.

try this link to get a better feel for the overall picture of why this is being done.

particulary the River Gates updates of 6 Oct and previous.

Bridge link

Terrorists are not the same thing as armies of enemy troops, "standard military tactics" are not really the best idea...that's the sort of thinking that gave us this mess in the first place.

Also, "channelize" is not a word 😉

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/channelize

Wow, but then "proactive" is an official word now too.

 

[tommywishbone]

I'm pretty sure the name of the bridge was, The Dragons Jaw. Sounds familiar...

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Lanyap

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: dphantom
Sigh....

Spans in the bridges were either destroyed or damaged. Not the bridge itself. The purpose is to channelize th flow of the terrorists to make them easier to kill.

Standard military tactic, channelize the enemy to force them into your kill zone. The bridges will be very easily repaired.

It is not destroying the village to asve the village aka Vietnam.

try this link to get a better feel for the overall picture of why this is being done.

particulary the River Gates updates of 6 Oct and previous.

Bridge link

Terrorists are not the same thing as armies of enemy troops, "standard military tactics" are not really the best idea...that's the sort of thinking that gave us this mess in the first place.

Also, "channelize" is not a word 😉

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/channelize

By not having bridges, one decreases the mobility of your enemy. Thus, one can isolate and destroy in turn various pockets of resistance.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, I know what the purpose is, dphantom.

What you've chosen to ignore is that it's symptomatic of insufficient resources to control the countryside in its entirety, so parts have to be destroyed to deny them to the enemy, which also denies them to the civilians. It's also symptomatic of invasion and occupation based on false assumptions. Shinseki claimed it would take 400K troops to pacify Iraq, and was promptly stomped flat for his candor- America wouldn't have gone for it, at all, so now we get the protracted insurgency, simply because the Admin ignored all the warning signs, and the advice of their best generals... They had to, they just had to invade, but lacked the political clout and sufficient cause to do it right, to go big or stay home...

Easily rebuilt? Yeh, right, nuthin' to it. When? by whom? Halliburton? Will we continue tearing down faster than building up?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Lanyap

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: dphantom
Sigh....

Spans in the bridges were either destroyed or damaged. Not the bridge itself. The purpose is to channelize th flow of the terrorists to make them easier to kill.

Standard military tactic, channelize the enemy to force them into your kill zone. The bridges will be very easily repaired.

It is not destroying the village to asve the village aka Vietnam.

try this link to get a better feel for the overall picture of why this is being done.

particulary the River Gates updates of 6 Oct and previous.

Bridge link

Terrorists are not the same thing as armies of enemy troops, "standard military tactics" are not really the best idea...that's the sort of thinking that gave us this mess in the first place.

Also, "channelize" is not a word 😉

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/channelize

By not having bridges, one decreases the mobility of your enemy. Thus, one can isolate and destroy in turn various pockets of resistance.

By making life WORSE UNDER US OCCUPATION than it was under Saddam.. WE are now the Enemy.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_...lick_id=123&art_id=qw1128610260414B262

Obviously, something has gone very, very wrong when we have to target infrastructure in a country we already occupy, to behave as if it's being held by an opposing army...

And it will undoubtedly go a long ways towards winning the hearts and minds of the locals, too...

This whole misadventure is beginning to resemble Vietnam more and more everyday, complete with the same idiocy of having to destroy the village in order to save it, but on a much larger scale...

Bravo, Neocons! Every choice has been the wrong one, every opportunity wasted, every mistake imaginable has been purposely implemented as policy. No wonder history repeats itself.

Originally posted by: dphantom
Sigh....

Spans in the bridges were either destroyed or damaged. Not the bridge itself. The purpose is to channelize th flow of the terrorists to make them easier to kill.

Standard military tactic, channelize the enemy to force them into your kill zone. The bridges will be very easily repaired.

It is not destroying the village to asve the village aka Vietnam.

try this link to get a better feel for the overall picture of why this is being done.

particulary the River Gates updates of 6 Oct and previous.

Bridge link

:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

Ooooooh look, one of the Chief Aplogists comes in right away with an excuse for the Republicans.

Surprised I am not

Hey! Thanks for the recognition. I apologize for no one and have said right up front in other like discussions the Bush admin screwed the occupation up bad. But we are there, and the job needs to be finished.

Take a look at this link for a real success in a Sunni dominated area.

Article

As he describes, not all went well. But thru perseverance, good leadership, Mosul is in much better shape than just a few months ago. In particular, the caliber of Iraqi troops is quite heartening.

I believe Iraq has now stood up the 3rd, 6th and 7th divisions. They are taking over larger sections of the country and are actively taking part in operations throughout the country.

Still a very long way to go, but progress is occurring.

 

[techs]

The insurgents freeedom of movement? The insurgents can get around just as well as any Iraqi. Destroying bridges to stop insurgents movements stops Iraqi movement.
It has the feel of desperation to it.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Witling
Phantom, very interesting link. Thank you. I don't see how your assertion that it is not destroying the village to save it follows from the link article which states only that " Coalition forces continue to clear the cities of Haditha, Haqlaniyah and Barwana." Fallujah and Tal Afar were extensively destroyed to save them. I don't want to change the course of this discussion but, when the war started there used to be a guy on her whose name was approximately Sxggy. He thought that it was ludicrous to suggest that the war would go on for five years. The link to which you cite contains interesting articles. They're completely wrong about the possibility of military victory -- but interesting articles. Thanks.

Thanks for the feedback. I consider a military victory simply an extension of the political will of a country. So if Iraq wins, it will be because they have the political will to do so.

I do not think the US should win this for Iraq militarily; that is not our purpose. I do not think we can with the forces deployed or the level of violence we would have to employ to pacify a nation the size of Iraq.

What we can and are doing is providing time for Iraq to get its infrastructure to the point where it can defeat the terrorists on its own. That will take time. Anyone who thought we would be done in a year or two was in a dreamland. Japan and Germany took many years to get any semblance of a government together.

Here's a pretty unbiased writer who was an embed with a unit in Mosul. He unabashedly likes US troops but writes what he sees and not all is favorable to US or Iraqi interests.

Article

Check it out when you have time.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, I know what the purpose is, dphantom.

What you've chosen to ignore is that it's symptomatic of insufficient resources to control the countryside in its entirety, so parts have to be destroyed to deny them to the enemy, which also denies them to the civilians. It's also symptomatic of invasion and occupation based on false assumptions. Shinseki claimed it would take 400K troops to pacify Iraq, and was promptly stomped flat for his candor- America wouldn't have gone for it, at all, so now we get the protracted insurgency, simply because the Admin ignored all the warning signs, and the advice of their best generals... They had to, they just had to invade, but lacked the political clout and sufficient cause to do it right, to go big or stay home...

Easily rebuilt? Yeh, right, nuthin' to it. When? by whom? Halliburton? Will we continue tearing down faster than building up?

I agreed with Shinseki. In fact, I think it is more likely 500K at this point.

Halliburton, maybe. More likely local Iraqi construciton companies. And we are "building faster than tearing down".

Al Anbar has always been left alone even under the Saddam regime. In fact, he built a highway bypass around one of the major towns in the province because it was too dangerous to go thru. The ruling tribes in the area were left alone so long as they didn't bother Saddam.

Now, many of these same tribes are supporting US and Iraqi forces to get rid of the insurgents and foreign fighters. Other tribes are Baathist and supporting the insurgency. It's a tough fight for which teh admin has never stepped up to its responsibility, but we do need to finish the job.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Lanyap

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: dphantom
Sigh....

Spans in the bridges were either destroyed or damaged. Not the bridge itself. The purpose is to channelize th flow of the terrorists to make them easier to kill.

Standard military tactic, channelize the enemy to force them into your kill zone. The bridges will be very easily repaired.

It is not destroying the village to asve the village aka Vietnam.

try this link to get a better feel for the overall picture of why this is being done.

particulary the River Gates updates of 6 Oct and previous.

Bridge link

Terrorists are not the same thing as armies of enemy troops, "standard military tactics" are not really the best idea...that's the sort of thinking that gave us this mess in the first place.

Also, "channelize" is not a word 😉

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/channelize

That seems pointless, as "channel" all by itself refers to the exact same thing. But I stand corrected.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Lanyap

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: dphantom
Sigh....

Spans in the bridges were either destroyed or damaged. Not the bridge itself. The purpose is to channelize th flow of the terrorists to make them easier to kill.

Standard military tactic, channelize the enemy to force them into your kill zone. The bridges will be very easily repaired.

It is not destroying the village to asve the village aka Vietnam.

try this link to get a better feel for the overall picture of why this is being done.

particulary the River Gates updates of 6 Oct and previous.

Bridge link

Terrorists are not the same thing as armies of enemy troops, "standard military tactics" are not really the best idea...that's the sort of thinking that gave us this mess in the first place.

Also, "channelize" is not a word 😉

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/channelize

By not having bridges, one decreases the mobility of your enemy. Thus, one can isolate and destroy in turn various pockets of resistance.

Yes, I realize that. And if the terrorists were running around making obvious targets of themselves, this might be a good idea. Since they aren't, it doesn't seem too useful, does it?

Edit: I don't know why people refuse to understand that fighting terrorists or insurgents isn't the same thing as slugging it out with Nazis on the beaches. Must be a macho thing or something...I suppose intelligence and police work is much less exciting than landing on the beach and punching a Nazi in the face. Too bad the nature of armed conflict seems to have changed, but we need to adapt, no?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Lanyap

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: dphantom
Sigh....

Spans in the bridges were either destroyed or damaged. Not the bridge itself. The purpose is to channelize th flow of the terrorists to make them easier to kill.

Standard military tactic, channelize the enemy to force them into your kill zone. The bridges will be very easily repaired.

It is not destroying the village to asve the village aka Vietnam.

try this link to get a better feel for the overall picture of why this is being done.

particulary the River Gates updates of 6 Oct and previous.

Bridge link

Terrorists are not the same thing as armies of enemy troops, "standard military tactics" are not really the best idea...that's the sort of thinking that gave us this mess in the first place.

Also, "channelize" is not a word 😉

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/channelize

By not having bridges, one decreases the mobility of your enemy. Thus, one can isolate and destroy in turn various pockets of resistance.

Yes, I realize that. And if the terrorists were running around making obvious targets of themselves, this might be a good idea. Since they aren't, it doesn't seem too useful, does it?

Edit: I don't know why people refuse to understand that fighting terrorists or insurgents isn't the same thing as slugging it out with Nazis on the beaches. Must be a macho thing or something...I suppose intelligence and police work is much less exciting than landing on the beach and punching a Nazi in the face. Too bad the nature of armed conflict seems to have changed, but we need to adapt, no?

It takes a team of military, police and Intelligence work to defeat an insurgency. None on their own will win.

Don;t know your point in the remainder, maybe nothing. There was an article not in mainstream about a standup fight between a Marine platoon and a group of terrorists. The Marine officer commanding said after the fight was over that he felt teh insurgents were at teh same quality of fighter as his Marines. He went on to say that this is rare and he really wants to kill these before they can teach others.

My point being not that things are getting worse as this group was killed, but that mainline police units cannot stand up to mainline insurgents. Military force is needed coupled with solid Intel generated from the local populace as is happening with more frequency even in Al Anbar.

Read the Michale Yon post. He talks at length about the importance of intel, how it failed early on and how it is now working, at least in Mosul.

Michael Yon

It's long, but well worth the read.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
This whole misadventure is beginning to resemble Vietnam more and more everyday, complete with the same idiocy of having to destroy the village in order to save it, but on a much larger scale...

Must have gotten a copy of Ted Kennedy's talking points for Sunday.

Liberals and the old Iraq == Vietnam analogy are falling flat on their ass. Keep up the mantra, elections are coming closer and closer 😀

Perhaps do a little bit of research before spewing your talking points.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
This whole misadventure is beginning to resemble Vietnam more and more everyday, complete with the same idiocy of having to destroy the village in order to save it, but on a much larger scale...

Must have gotten a copy of Ted Kennedy's talking points for Sunday.

Liberals and the old Iraq == Vietnam analogy are falling flat on their ass. Keep up the mantra, elections are coming closer and closer 😀

Perhaps do a little bit of research before spewing your talking points.

I wonder how many on this forum actually lived thru Vietnam. I remember it quite clearly and this is nothing at all like Vietnam.

3-400 dead US per WEEK. 1500 wounded per WEEK.

 

[slyedog]

whacko's think if they keep repeating teddy's thinking, we will one day beleive them. LOL

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: slyedog
whacko's think if they keep repeating teddy's thinking, we will one day beleive them. LOL

And if we keep bombing Iraqi's they will love us too 😉

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Topic Title: US bombs Euphrates bridges
Topic Summary: So much for "Rebuilding"

I've got a Bridge For Sale :laugh: