Open question as to how many killed

Post #128,358 by JayMehaffey 12/1/03 6:32:03 PM Reply	Open question as to how many killed [link\|http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1001276.htm\|Australian Broadcasting Company] The centre of the Iraqi town of Samarra has been devastated after ambushes of US troops sparked a massive response in which the military claimed 54 insurgents killed, but the only bodies were of eight civilians, according to the local hospital. Elsewhere in Iraq, a US soldier died of wounds he sustained when Iraqi gunmen attacked an army convoy on Monday near Habbaniyah, west of Baghdad, the US military said, taking the toll in combat in the past seven months to 187. Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, the US-led coalition's deputy director of operations in Iraq, said in Baghdad after Sunday's attacks, "There were 54 estimated killed, 22 estimated wounded and one confirmed in detention". But he admitted the toll for Samarra was based on troop debriefings, saying, "The reports that we have are from initial battlefield reports." From what I have seen battlefield reports tend to overstate dead and wounded. It also appears that early reports that the insurgents where wearing Fedayeen militia uniforms may be incorrect also. Personally I suspect that the reality is someplace inbetween the overly optimistic US military report and the highly pessimistic local reports. Probably no way of finding out for sure though. This is rather worrysome though in that it was the largest attack yet on American troops. If it had been better prepared it could have turned out very badly for the US. The attack itself was well planned, but the attackers seem to have been lacking in weapons sufficent to harm US armor. Jay
Post #128,375 by marlowe 12/1/03 8:18:55 PM Reply	No, you've got it backward. The US armor - and tactics - were sufficient to defeat the dead-enders' weapons and tactics. (In certain circumstances, speed plus communications amounts to stealth.) But the terrorists must not have known that, or they wouldn't have attacked. Why didn't they know that? Oh, and by the way, standard practise when you've been ambushed is to drive right through as fast as you can, in order to escape. You only shoot it out when... C'mon, don't you get it? These are reverse ambushes! That convoy was a trap. The loot was bait. Our guys hid their strength and readiness from the would-be ambushers. You'd think after getting deposed they'd be a little less cocksure, but no. These guys don't learn. They've got this superiority complex. They can't admit to themsleves they're being outsmarted. They're probably still telling themselves last April was a fluke and a temporary setback. Just like the idiotarian Left. This is how we lure them out and kill them in detail. One reverse ambush at a time, bag at least a couple dozen each time. The truth is almost certainly closer to one end than the middle. There were enough left alive to come back and drag out most of the corpses of their fallen comrades. That's it. By the way, I think Dubya is up to something similar on the political front. I'm not quite positive yet, but we'll know for sure next election. That last Payback Tuesday sure looked like a reverse ambush to me. I also think he's been attempting a reverse ambush on the UN Security Council, but Tony Blair and the US State Department are mucking it up a bit. The weasels take the bait, but the trap is clumsily sprung. ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEAL WITH IT. "If I may be candid for a moment, and let's see you try to stop me..." - Jay Conrad Levinson Compromise is for suckers. Seeking a middle ground is what led to 9/11. "I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites." - Bill Whittle Never mind all the mass graves. Where's the nerve gas? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
Post #128,410 by JayMehaffey 12/1/03 11:33:54 PM Reply	I thought of that I already thought of that but there it doesn't seem to likely to me. I did notice the recent admission from the US that some of the police and other Iraqi's recruited by the US where passing information to the other side. But I see a lot more against that theory. For one, initial US reporting on the ambush was pretty bad, if they had been staged the information gathering would have been better. Second, it doesn't appear that any air support was available to either attacked group. I find it hard to believe that the US would stage a counter-ambush without a couple of attack helicopters near by. And finally, the US did just drive out of at least one of the attacks, if not both. The Iraqi's tried to block the unit's passage with improvised barriers and explosives, but the barriers where not sufficent to stop US tanks. Jay
Post #128,457 by marlowe 12/2/03 9:37:46 AM Reply	No, your argument doesn't follow in real war. You're ignoring the omnipresent friction of war. Even in the most perfectly executed strategy, there are substantial random variables. The way you win most times is by the averages. Fight in such a way as to win more often than you lose, then keep plugging past the turning point. It's either that, or the sudden appearance of a miracle weapon at the last minute. Maybe this is the fundamental mental defect of those who get all happy about every little cluster of alliance casualties. They think if we lose anyone at all, we must have lost the whole war. No, that's not the bottom of it. The bottom of it is they're so desperate to see America and/or Dubya humiliated that they'll grasp at any straw. And they can't even bring themselves to deny it. How about you? Would you rather see the bad guys win than see Dubya vindicated? Just checking.. ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEAL WITH IT. "If I may be candid for a moment, and let's see you try to stop me..." - Jay Conrad Levinson Compromise is for suckers. Seeking a middle ground is what led to 9/11. "I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites." - Bill Whittle Never mind all the mass graves. Where's the nerve gas? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]
Post #128,487 by JayMehaffey 12/2/03 12:53:11 PM Reply	Re: No, your argument doesn't follow in real war. You're ignoring the omnipresent friction of war. Even in the most perfectly executed strategy, there are substantial random variables. The way you win most times is by the averages. Fight in such a way as to win more often than you lose, then keep plugging past the turning point. It's either that, or the sudden appearance of a miracle weapon at the last minute. That might work against an opposing army, but what we are facing in Iraq now is a guerrilla insurgency. They don't care much how many they lose relative to how many we lose, nor can you effectivly take land from them or attack their infrastructure. The US won the vast majority of the battles in Vietnam but ended up losing the war, if the US loses in Iraq it will be the same way. How about you? Would you rather see the bad guys win than see Dubya vindicated? Just checking.. Personally I see bad guys on both sides of that equation. I'm also wondering how the above is connected to the previous argument about the ambushes and possibility of counter-ambush of American forces. Jay
Post #128,470 by deSitter 12/2/03 10:34:30 AM Reply	PLEASE DON'T FEED PIGEONS AND TROLLS -drl
Post #128,478 by marlowe 12/2/03 11:27:34 AM Reply	Please do get over yourself. I have at least as much right to be here as you have. If you can't handle points of view other than your own, that's your problem. I won't goosestep to your tune. ---------------------------------------------------------------- DEAL WITH IT. "If I may be candid for a moment, and let's see you try to stop me..." - Jay Conrad Levinson Compromise is for suckers. Seeking a middle ground is what led to 9/11. "I do not want to be admired by scumbags and liars and wife beaters. I want to be admired by good and decent, intelligent and just people, and in order to achieve this I need to do things that make me despised by their opposites." - Bill Whittle Never mind all the mass graves. Where's the nerve gas? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfire...arlowe/index.html]

Welcome to IWETHEY!