Whilst Iraqi troops will undoubtedly put up a brave fight, and gain sporadic successes, it is a simple statement of fact that Iraqi forces do not have either the training or the equipment to be a match for US/UK forces.

The US and UK want the end of Saddam's regime. All it takes for the war to end is for Saddam to go into exile.

Instead, Saddam stays in place while the Iraqi people suffer. Many hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqi troops have been killed, and several thousand more taken prisoner. Iraq forces have taken a mere handful of US/UK prisoners.

Saddam should leave Iraq now. To stay longer is to delay the inevitable and will lead to further hardship and death for Iraqis.

You do not seem to understand Mephistopheles ..
Majority of Iraqis are supporting Saddam and everyday they support them more and more .
The Bombing of civilians by the US and Brits troops killing children and women creates a rage and turns all hatered towards US/Brits troops.
Saddam is a smart man and he is using that against them .. let me remind of of a proverb" A wolf you know better than a dog you dont know"
Look whats happening in Basra and Najaf and Karbala and Baghdad .. Why did the US troops bomb villages and market places ..
The hope that Iraqi had about freedom is getting thinner every day.

I understand very clearly, DP.

One way or another, Saddam's regime will end. It could either end now, with minimal further deaths and damage to Iraqi infrastructure, or it can end at some time in the next few weeks, with further deaths and massive destruction to the Iraqi economy. The longer it goes on, the longer the period of post-war reconstruction, therefore the longer that US/UK forces will be in Iraq.

Saddam may well be a smart man, but he hasn't yet figured out that his time is up. Either that, or he has figured it out, and doesn't care what happens to Iraq/Iraqis in the meantime.

Mephistopheles,

Lets assume that Saddam decided to step down do you think there wont be some percentage of people who are against the US/Brits troops around Iraq?
Dont you think that there will be another Afghanistan in the region ?

"do you think there wont be some percentage of people who are against the US/Brits troops around Iraq?"

Sure. At the end of WW2 I guess there must have been some Germans and Japs who weren't too happy about it either. That isn't the point, though. The point is that its necessary to take the bad people out and put good people in, leading ultimately to democracy.

That's what's happening in Afghanistan, btw.....not as fast as we'd all like, but happening nonetheless.

Originally posted by Mephistopheles
"do you think there wont be some percentage of people who are against the US/Brits troops around Iraq?"

Sure. At the end of WW2 I guess there must have been some Germans and Japs who weren't too happy about it either. That isn't the point, though. The point is that its necessary to take the bad people out and put good people in, leading ultimately to democracy.

That's what's happening in Afghanistan, btw.....not as fast as we'd all like, but happening nonetheless.

Mephistopheles,
Surely you can not compare WW2 and now as at that time the media was not up to date ...What the world see now ( babies dead women killed , civilians injured ) creates un-easiness and more hatred and things could last a life time , infact it could never heal and it wont be easy at all to control any uprising from Iraq .
As the means of communication is a major tool ( for example Al Qaeeda) with all the sophisticated radars and technology USA still can not trace number one man OBL and his threats and you may never know when he may strike again.
Imagine you are dealing with a nation here.

Originally posted by Mephistopheles


Many hundreds, if not thousands, of Iraqi troops have been killed, and several thousand more taken prisoner. Iraq forces have taken a mere handful of US/UK prisoners.




Iraqi forces have not yet seen the British & American soldiers to fight with. True there is no match with Iraqi soldiers once their is then perhaps we can witness a fight. For your information Iraqi people have thus far been killed by cowardise bombadiers. Dare come to the field ?

Now that would be bloody ..
I think the Anglo Troops are aware of if . But how many are they willing to sacrifice to reach their real goals and what words do sooth the mothers once they hear Bush says" We are with you and pray for you”. And get the coffins of their loved ones back home .

Originally posted by Dark Project
Now that would be bloody ..

what words do sooth the mothers once they hear Bush says" We are with you and pray for you”. And get the coffins of their loved ones back home .


Yeah, yeah, that is very sad. Sad indeed, and absolutely pathetic that the UK forces should be seen to die in a far land for the failure of their politicians to come up to the political solutions. Particularly when the Inspectors role was proving to be effective. Sad also, that Blair should have insisted to send those troops when he himself knows that his political career is nearing to an end.

Has the Primeminister been bribed like the rest of the world that has been bribed by Mr Bush ?

Beats me Desert_sloth I can not simply understand why Blair has shoved his nose in to this war.

possibly conflict of interest. why doesn't FBI, Karachi branch, carry out a small investingation to determine motive behind the insistance for war ? Cheney at least has started cashing in for the fire, am told Helly-burtone has worn a 1 billion contract in putting off fire over oil well in and around Um Qasr.

Who granted them the contract i wonder ?

Of course D.Cheny did as he was the former Chairman of HalliBurton .
Willian Cohen is the Chariman now ( Former Minister of Defence)
Wow the list is getting bigger everyday .

"Iraqi forces have not yet seen the British & American soldiers to fight with"

Somewhat inaccurate, Des. 14 UK tanks took on and destroyed 14 Iraqi tanks last week, among other engagements.

It might also interest you to learn that the point of making war is not to die for your country, but rather to make as many of the opposition as possible die for their country.

The Iraqi troops are not able to confront Coalition forces in the theatre, which is why they prefer to retreat into the towns and cities and terrorise the civilian population by exploding missiles in markets. Strange that a few film crews are always on hand, eh?

Of course, this tactic is doomed to failure as the Coalition will not be drawn into street fighting and the Iraqis are severing their own supply lines by such action.

There is also no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Saddam Hussein was not killed during the first wave of attacks. Has anyone seen him (and I don´t mean on TV)?

Originally posted by Shakoosh Kabir
The Iraqi troops are not able to confront Coalition forces in the theatre, which is why they prefer to retreat into the towns and cities and terrorise the civilian population by exploding missiles in markets. Strange that a few film crews are always on hand, eh?

Of course, this tactic is doomed to failure as the Coalition will not be drawn into street fighting and the Iraqis are severing their own supply lines by such action.

There is also no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Saddam Hussein was not killed during the first wave of attacks. Has anyone seen him (and I don´t mean on TV)?

What are your sources that Iraqi troops are not able to confront the coalition forces? As we see and hear that the Coalition forces do not confront the Iraqi forces ( Bombing only from B52 , battleships etc..).
What would you do if a force or troops attack you and you are no match with their sophisticated weapons you would do the same wouldnt you ? It would be unwise to puff your chest to be a target for bullets !!

Again what i syour evidence that Saddam is killed?

At such a time, it is customary for a great leader to appear before his people to bolster their confidence and exhort them to make even greater efforts.

Surely Saddam Hussein could do that, if he were alive.

Originally posted by Mephistopheles


It might also interest you to learn that the point of making war is not to die for your country, but rather to make as many of the opposition as possible die for their country.



Mephi,

Somehow philosophical, but what does that mean in terms of human rights

look look look who is here, and what he says:




posted by Shakoosh Kabir [/i]


The Iraqi troops are not able to confront Coalition forces in the theatre,


what are those chickens that USA and UK administrations are crying for to be treated according to Geneva Convention.

Sloth

Name and date please of one Iraqi theatre victory thus far. The POWs to whom you make reference were mostly captured as a result of accident or ambush.

"what does that mean in terms of human rights"

This is a war, Des, and in times of war it is traditional to bring violence to bear on the enemy. It is also traditional to do this is such a way as to minimise the possibility of the reverse happening. As to human rights, there are rules of war codified under the Geneva Convention.

"what are those chickens that USA and UK administrations are crying for to be treated according to Geneva Convention"

Not quite sure what you're driving at here. Iraq is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, as are the UK and US, thus all POWs are entitled to be treated under its terms.

"The Iraqi troops are not able to confront Coalition forces in the theatre"

If Iraqi troops attempt to meet US and UK troops in open battle they will, quite simply, be annihilated. This is not a reflection of their courage (or otherwise), but recognition of the fact that Iraqi troops have neither the training nor weapons to meet Alliance forces in open conflict.

Originally posted by Mephistopheles
"what does that mean in terms of human rights"

This is a war, Des, and in times of war it is traditional to bring violence to bear on the enemy. It is also traditional to do this is such a way as to minimize the possibility of the reverse happening. As to human rights, there are rules of war codified under the Geneva Convention.

"What are those chickens that USA and UK administrations are crying for to be treated according to Geneva Convention"

Not quite sure what you're driving at here. Iraq is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, as are the UK and US, thus all POWs are entitled to be treated under its terms.

"The Iraqi troops are not able to confront Coalition forces in the theatre"

If Iraqi troops attempt to meet US and UK troops in open battle they will, quite simply, be annihilated. This is not a reflection of their courage (or otherwise), but recognition of the fact that Iraqi troops have neither the training nor weapons to meet Alliance forces in open conflict.

Dear Mephistopheles ,
I will use your term of this thread Winning/ Losing ..
Now the Americans wants to win to prove their point and the Iraqi want to win to prove their point too You said :
As to human rights, there are rules of war codified under the Geneva Convention.

My reply to you :
Just think for a second who has violated the Geneva convention here .. Showing POW's you did it first and still do it on TV I saw it again yesterday and in groups ( hands up) who blew up the TV station and the media ( twice) Your troops did.
Who blew up the communication center ( telephones etc..) you did so Iraqi families can not communicate .. Aren’t these acts against Geneva Convention and human rights?

Again you said: Not quite sure what you're driving at here. Iraq is a signatory to the Geneva Convention, as are the UK and US, thus all POWs are entitled to be treated under its terms.

My reply to you :
Why pick some rules and forget the other rules? Which ever it suits the troops they will cry loud ( shows how one track mind they have).

You said as well :"The Iraqi troops are not able to confront Coalition forces in the theatre"
My reply to you :
Now that would be stupid if I know that you got a gun in your hand and I come to fight you with a knife in my hand ( unbalanced situation).

You said :If Iraqi troops attempt to meet US and UK troops in open battle they will, quite simply, be annihilated. This is not a reflection of their courage (or otherwise), but recognition of the fact that Iraqi troops have neither the training nor weapons to meet Alliance forces in open conflict.

My most definate reply to you :

Precisely !!

Originally posted by Shakoosh Kabir
Sloth

1:

Name and date please of one Iraqi theatre victory thus far.

2:

The POWs to whom you make reference were mostly captured as a result of accident or ambush.


1: 'If' you do have an iota of recognition for the role of the UNO as a body entrust to preserve world peace and maintance of understanding between nations. Then that could be taken as a 'theatre of victory' which Iraq has scored against the perpetrators of aggression towards a member nation. Remember 'nation' and not an organised group of people as was in the case of Taliban.

2: Irrespective of how POWs are netted those shown by the Iraqis, I suppose they were never stopped at the market place. Ofcourse, "ambush" is a fighting term used by fighters and not white-color staff. Don't you think Iraqis have played the game according to the rules ? They have challenged invasion forces according to their (invaders) rules.

Please don't hurt the civilians.

No civilians are being targeted by Coalition forces and every effort is made to limit collateral civilian damage.

What a pity that the Beast of Baghdad and his thugs do not abide by similar rules of conduct.

Originally posted by Shakoosh Kabir
No civilians are being targeted by Coalition forces and every effort is made to limit collateral civilian damage.

What a pity that the Beast of Baghdad and his thugs do not abide by similar rules of conduct.


Something is wrong here !!!
Well either your smart bombs can not tell the difference or either your bombs are as dum as your media.

No civilians are being targeted ?? Give me a break small buses are being hit by a missile .. hello ..
Dont you see people departing from the cities walking ? dont they have cars ?

"Give me a break"

Don't be ridiculous. The coalition wants Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. They want to build confidence among ordinary Iraqis that they are on THEIR side.

This will hardly be achieved if civilians believe that they are being targeted.

Of course, Saddam wants Iraqis to think they are being targeted. It's in his interests. Evidence is building that the bomb in the market in Baghdad was an Iraqi bomb.

If coalition forces DID want to target civilians, destroying the Saddam regime would be the easiest thing in the world. All they would have to do is drop an H bomb on Baghdad.....

But they don't, which is why they are putting coalition lives at risk in a ground war.

Did you really think that a war can happen without innocent civilians being killed? If so, it would be a world first.....

Originally posted by Mephistopheles
[B]"Give me a break"

Don't be ridiculous. The coalition wants Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. They want to build confidence among ordinary Iraqis that they are on THEIR side.] Mark my words .. in their dreams

This will hardly be achieved if civilians believe that they are being targeted.But ofcourse they do believe they are targetted

Of course, Saddam wants Iraqis to think they are being targeted. It's in his interests. Evidence is building that the bomb in the market in Baghdad was an Iraqi bomb.[/COLOR] Another Westeren media bluff

If coalition forces DID want to target civilians, destroying the Saddam regime would be the easiest thing in the world. All they would have to do is drop an H bomb on Baghdad.....Too risky for their interest and to the world

But they don't, which is why they are putting coalition lives at risk in a ground war.Nothing for free

Did you really think that a war can happen without innocent civilians being killed? If so, it would be a world first..... [/B}
You tell me as you have ridiculed my statement

"in their dreams"

No DP, in actuality. I have seen many instances on tv of Iraqis welcoming the coalition troops. A groundswell will build that, eventually, will sweep through Baghdad.....

Though my guess is that the coalition troops hope to get to Saddam first....

"But ofcourse they do believe they are targetted"

Of course, some will. Saddam's propaganda machine will ensure that.

"Another Westeren media bluff"

You may prefer to believe Saddam's state controlled media, I prefer not to.

"You tell me as you have ridiculed my statement"

Ok, I'm telling you now. 1 civilian casualty is always a tragedy, but, in truth, civilian casualties have been tiny. Coalition forces have made huge efforts only to hit military targets. Mistakes will inevitably be made, but the policy is to limit civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible.

Originally posted by Mephistopheles


Evidence is building that the bomb in the market in Baghdad was an Iraqi bomb.




What was Iraq to achieve by bombing it's own ppl ?

There are 2 theories, Des.

1/ Saddam wants to foment anti-American feelings.

2/ An anti-aircraft rocket misfired.

It is interesting to note that, shortly after the bomb in the market, the military officer in charge of anti-aircraft batteries was dismissed.

Of course, I do not rule out the possibility that the bomb was American, but I absolutely rule out the possibility that the market was targeted.

Well, both theories sounds possible but unable to confirm.

Similar incident took place on Kuwait, before or after this one in Baghdad. One of the busy shopping center in Kuwat was striked by a missile under "mysterious circumstances".

Some say the missile was launched from the sea side of Kuwait and that the missile was American with similar motives as you have stated of SADDAM.

Don't you agree, if that is what you could think of SADDAM can do, the "coalition forces" infact did that one on Kuwait ?

Des, the coalition forces do not have a history of deliberately targeting their own people.

Ok, so sometimes they ACCIDENTALLY kill their own.....

Saddam, on the other hand, has never been too picky about the people he kills. Sometimes Kuwaitis, sometimes Kurds, sometimes Marsh Arabs, sometimes Shi'ites, sometimes his sons-in-law.....

You may prefer to believe Saddam's state controlled media, I prefer not to.
I never watch Iraqi TV I watch Al Jazira and sky news and BBC and Euro news . There you go and all of them state that the bombs are hitting the civillians

Ok, I'm telling you now. 1 civilian casualty is always a tragedy, but, in truth, civilian casualties have been tiny. Coalition forces have made huge efforts only to hit military targets. Mistakes will inevitably be made, but the policy is to limit civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible.

Civilian casualty has been tiny ?? What media or news channal do you watch ?
There is a difference between policy and executing the policy .Imagine you drop bombs thousands of them heavy stuff on a city what do you expect tiny casualty ?