|
Charliegrs posted:Heres something I don't understand about the Iraqi soldiers lack of morale and willingness to fight: Sure the soldiers in Ramadi probably werent from there and probably didnt really care about Ramadi or the citizens very much (I think the Iraqi army is mostly Shiite? That might be why) but arent they worried about the SPREAD of ISIS throughout Iraq? Arent they worried that eventually ISIS might make it to areas they actually care about? If they are running away from the fight does that mean that they wouldnt really care much about living under ISIS rule? Or do they just expect the Shia areas of the country to be a natural impediment to the spread of ISIS and therefore they dont really care too much about losing mainly Sunni areas like Anbar province to them? If we just consider the Sunni areas of Iraq, doesn't this remind anyone else of the situation in Vietnam? Just when you think the soldiers should rally and defend their homes from the advancing communist hordes, the exact opposite happens, the army routs and South Vietnam disintegrates in 4 months? The Shia areas, though, have an entirely different dynamic and I think will stop ISIS dead in its tracks.
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
mlmp08 posted:A brigade sized element deployed armor and infantry into Baghdad and successfully ended organized resistance in Baghdad in a few days' fighting with a very impressive kill ratio. The supply lines were in very real jeopardy but held. You're saying an audacious and successful capture of a strategic city by a brigade is similar to a botched special forces snatch and grab raid. At the individual warfighter level I can imagine a grunt making comparisons to Mogadishu but the operations were fundamentally very different. Well no poo poo. They didn't shoot down any Black Hawks in Baghdad either. That's not the point. First you said Baghdad had "very loving little in common with anything even resembling the Mogadishu operation" and now you're saying, "well to the guys on the ground it might have looked like Mogadishu I guess". Oh ok. Even the generals were making Mogadishu comparisons, like Major General Blount. They were trying desperately to avoid "another Mogadishu" with US units cut off, isolated, and hammered (which actually happened at one of the highway interchanges). I said the Baghdad operation nearly did turn into a botched Mogadishu-style raid. It didn't in the end, but it nearly did, and if the Iraqis had been better prepared, it may have. The Iraqis were not expecting a big unsupported tank column to just brazenly roll right down the main highway into the city and were taken by surprise. The Iraqis could have halted the whole operation if they had set up roadblocks and mines. They set up a very hasty minefield in front of the city but it wasn't enough. They just dropped mines on top of the road (and literally poo poo on some of them) but it wasn't enough. The Americans nearly canceled the raid because of it, as they didn't know what the road looked like up ahead. It turned out to be clear though. The Iraqis were expecting the US to use tanks to surround the city and set up Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) at strategic locations, Vietnam-style, while the 82nd and 101st Airborne would clear the city block by block. The common belief at the time was that tanks didn't perform well in urban fighting, so they were expecting infantry attacks and airborne helicopter raids in the middle of the night. That was the actual US plan too, but they changed it at the last minute. Even with the overwhelming US superiority in just about everything, the element of surprise, and the awfulness of the Iraqi Army on top of that, it was still a very hard-fought struggle. At the end of the raid, some of the US troops said they did not feel like they had won, even though they did. They didn't feel like they had won because their column was in such a sad, shot-up condition and they were shell-shocked, wounded and exhausted, with every vehicle looking like a junkyard wreck filled with holes. The point is that the US military is not some invincible all-powerful force. Some people still argue that the US can stomp ISIS and wipe it out within days or a matter of weeks if they just wanted to hard enough. If the US goes into Iraq again, I think it will be long and bloody, and take years and multiple large, hard-fought battles against fanatical resistance, again like Fallujah (or worse!). It can be really difficult for the US military to even determine the strength of the enemy, despite all the fancy gadgets and surveillance. To use Baghdad again, the US had little idea of what the strength of the Iraqi forces were inside the city. It was a big question mark to them, despite the air campaign. No one in the coalition had reliable intelligence on it, and the generals acknowledged this. When the tanks rolled in, they encountered elaborate trench networks and bunkers manned by hundreds of troops with vehicle support that the US had no clue were even there. You can't kill them all from the air. Going into Iraq again, you would have to locate and then root out thousands of fanatical fighters with years of combat experience.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:They didn't feel like they had won because their column was in such a sad, shot-up condition and they were shell-shocked, wounded and exhausted, with every vehicle looking like a junkyard wreck filled with holes. Whoa, soldiers after a battle are injured, tired, and have damaged units?? How unprecedented! It's almost like war involves violence or something.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Whoa, soldiers after a battle are injured, tired, and have damaged units?? How unprecedented! Yeah and they lost two Abrams tanks! America isn't invincible and can get beat up even by lovely Iraqi army units, who would have thought?!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:Well no poo poo. They didn't shoot down any Black Hawks in Baghdad either. That's not the point. First you said Baghdad had "very loving little in common with anything even resembling the Mogadishu operation" and now you're saying, "well to the guys on the ground it might have looked like Mogadishu I guess". Oh ok. Even the generals were making Mogadishu comparisons, like Major General Blount. They were trying desperately to avoid "another Mogadishu" with US units cut off, isolated, and hammered (which actually happened at one of the highway interchanges). I said the Baghdad operation nearly did turn into a botched Mogadishu-style raid. It didn't in the end, but it nearly did, and if the Iraqis had been better prepared, it may have. The Iraqis were not expecting a big unsupported tank column to just brazenly roll right down the main highway into the city and were taken by surprise. This is a shitload of words that don't refute my point, but the operation is known as a decided success with very few casualties in exchange for taking over the capital of Iraq and killing a couple thousand Iraqi soldiers. I fail to see how what you're saying has anything to do with refuting my correct claim that Mogadishu has very loving little in common with the very successful attack on Baghdad. If all military operations went as well as the US attack on Baghdad, the US would be unfuckingstoppable.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:Yeah and they lost two Abrams tanks! America isn't invincible and can get beat up even by lovely Iraqi army units, who would have thought?! Two whole tanks! Good thing we don't have so many useless loving tanks and related products that the military has to give them away for use as memorials and police vehicles! The US currently has over 6700 main battle tanks. Losing 0.027% of them in a battle ain't exactly a big deal.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This is a shitload of words that don't refute my point, but the operation is known as a decided success with very few casualties in exchange for taking over the capital of Iraq and killing a couple thousand Iraqi soldiers. I fail to see how what you're saying has anything to do with refuting my correct claim that Mogadishu has very loving little in common with the very successful attack on Baghdad. Uh yeah I said that even the loving generals were making Mogadishu comparisons you loving idiot
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:The point is that the US military is not some invincible all-powerful force. Some people still argue that the US can stomp ISIS and wipe it out within days or a matter of weeks if they just wanted to hard enough. If the US goes into Iraq again, I think it will be long and bloody, and take years and multiple large, hard-fought battles against fanatical resistance, again like Fallujah (or worse!). It can be really difficult for the US military to even determine the strength of the enemy, despite all the fancy gadgets and surveillance. To use Baghdad again, the US had little idea of what the strength of the Iraqi forces were inside the city. It was a big question mark to them, despite the air campaign. No one in the coalition had reliable intelligence on it, and the generals acknowledged this. When the tanks rolled in, they encountered elaborate trench networks and bunkers manned by hundreds of troops with vehicle support that the US had no clue were even there. A few weeks into the invasion, the US captured the capital of one of the most militarized dictators in the world, sending him fleeing into a rathole, and killed 2,000 enemy fighters at the expense of some trucks and like 30 American lives. Not exactly Stalingrad. The US could overrun Mosul with ease. The issue is occupation, which requires an army composed of men who are half soldier, half diplomat, and the US does not have one of those available. The first few weeks could very easily be portrayed as a total success, but a year later, things would look a little different.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:Uh yeah I said that even the loving generals were making Mogadishu comparisons you loving idiot Well, if that's your claim, feel free to cite with context beyond someone getting shot up in a city and thinking it seemed like Mogadishu, the last city in which they got shot. If a Vietnam Vet plays paintball in the jungle, it might remind him of Vietnam, but that doesn't loving mean it's just like Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:This is a shitload of words that don't refute my point, but the operation is known as a decided success with very few casualties in exchange for taking over the capital of Iraq and killing a couple thousand Iraqi soldiers. I fail to see how what you're saying has anything to do with refuting my correct claim that Mogadishu has very loving little in common with the very successful attack on Baghdad. "Well there was a 50% chance it could have turned into literal Mogadishu 2 Electric Boogalo, but it didn't therefore it had nothing to do with Mogadishu" Critical thinking's not really your strong suit, is it?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:"Well there was a 50% chance it could have turned into literal Mogadishu 2 Electric Boogalo, but it didn't therefore it had nothing to do with Mogadishu" It's a good thing the leaders in charge didn't have pre-planned withdrawal and abort criteria that they didn't have to execute because they were winning. If that were the case, you'd just be talking out your rear end. Oh, wait...
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:It's a good thing the leaders in charge didn't have pre-planned withdrawal and abort criteria that they didn't have to execute because they were winning. If that were the case, you'd just be talking out your rear end. Sort of like how Mogadishu had pre-planned withdrawal and abort criteria that they didn't execute because they hosed up? It's almost like you somehow don't think it's possible for the US Armed Forces to gently caress up ever despite, well, the last like 60 years of recorded history icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 04:03 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
The death tolls on both sides are similar. That's about it. Mogadishu was a big deal because it wasn't supposed to be anything. Like 1-2 casualties over the duration of the operation not expected to be anything. Then all of a sudden, 20 men are dead and their bodies are being carried around by mobs and broadcast on CNN. Most of the Rangers in Somalia accepted it as part of the job and not some earth shattering tragedy like the media portrayed it, and I've spoken with a few who wanted to stay and finish the job, but political will for it was absolutely gone. Iraq on the other hand was never portrayed as anything less than a full scale invasion with the intent of overthrowing the government, and casualties like that were acceptable. If the Mogadishu raid has happened during the Iraq war in Iraq, it wouldn't even be a footnote in history, like Takur Ghar or Ramadi. Remember the mission itself accomplished its objectives. There was just a really bad complication.
Volkerball fucked around with this message at 04:13 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The death tolls on both sides are similar. That's about it. Mogadishu was a big deal because it wasn't supposed to be anything, and then all of a sudden, 20 men are dead and their bodies are being carried around by mobs and broadcast on CNN. Most of the Rangers in Somalia accepted it as part of the job and not some earth shattering tragedy like the media portrayed it, and I've spoken with a few who wanted to stay and finish the job, but political will for it was absolutely gone. Iraq on the other hand was never portrayed as anything less than a full scale invasion with the intent of overthrowing the government, and casualties like that were acceptable. If the Mogadishu raid has happened during the Iraq war in Iraq, it wouldn't even be a footnote in history, like Takur Ghar or Ramadi. TWO. ABRAMS. TANKS. Thats nearly 130 TONS OF TANKS!!!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
The bottom line is that saying a brigade operation with massive air support was the same as a tiny spec ops operation is loving dumb. I sincerely hope this helps clear things up. Edit: no Abrams lost in Mogadishu ergo totally different.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Also only one tank was lost and the reference to mogodishu by Colonel Perkins was as follows.quote:But staying would mean resupply. It would mean that the thin-skinned fuel and ammunition vehicles would have to enter the city. Perkins figured that the American tanks could operate for about 10 hours before refueling. He would have to make the decision on the operation after four hours, as to whether it would be successful. "What I did not want to do was attack into the city and get cut off and end up with a Mogadishu, Somalia, situation," Perkins said. http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=27039 But other than that spot on.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Yeah, it's weird having people say Baghdad was a bad battle or something. The US could probably take Mosul relatively quickly if enough forces were deployed. The problem is the political program. Any possible political program would basically result in either a Shia or Sunni revolt, possibly both, and any level of insurgency puts a ticking timer on US involvement. US anti-Shia policy strengthens the Iranian hand anyway, by basically shoving Shia political players into the arms of Iran, whose leadership was smart enough to play the long game, knowing that US policy would inevitably strengthen their hand.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
farraday posted:Also only one tank was lost and the reference to mogodishu by Colonel Perkins was as follows. lmao
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:lmao the initial invasion of iraq in 2003 was hilarious but a failure is hardly what i'd call that particular bit
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
farraday posted:Also only one tank was lost and the reference to mogodishu by Colonel Perkins was as follows. No there were two. It says it right on the wiki even. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Baghdad_(2003) I read the book Thunder Run by David Zucchino and it brought up Mogadishu more than that, like with Gen. Blount. There was a whole company cut off and surrounded by hundreds of fighters. There was an 18-hour long battle and the Americans nearly ran out of ammo and were nearly overrun. Both the battles were mobile raids into large hostile cities. Both involved convoys taking wrong turns and getting frequently ambushed and shot up. Both battles involved US forces surrounded and fighting pretty desperately, and both had similar casualty figures. I'm not sure how someone could get really upset about a comparison like that and insist there "is no loving relation!" I don't have that book on hand, but here's another comparison: http://archive.bangordailynews.com/2003/04/22/battle-of-baghdad-three-key-battles-moe-curly-and-larry-turned-the-tide/ quote:Looking back on the battles, commanders said they realized that in the irregular Iraqi forces, they faced a more committed enemy than they’d seen before, more persistent than the Republican Guard divisions that were supposed to be the most potent in the Iraqi defenses. They also saw signs of a strategy based on the success of Somali militiamen against Army Rangers a decade earlier: Cut off the attacking U.S. troops, isolate them on city streets and pour in reinforcements to inflict maximum casualties. Panzeh posted:Yeah, it's weird having people say Baghdad was a bad battle or something. The US could probably take Mosul relatively quickly if enough forces were deployed. The problem is the political program. Any possible political program would basically result in either a Shia or Sunni revolt, possibly both, and any level of insurgency puts a ticking timer on US involvement. US anti-Shia policy strengthens the Iranian hand anyway, by basically shoving Shia political players into the arms of Iran, whose leadership was smart enough to play the long game, knowing that US policy would inevitably strengthen their hand. I never once said it was a bad battle or a disaster or anything, but it was an extremely risky operation and could have been a whole lot worse. I don't think taking Mosul would be that easy. I mean, who knows, because I'm making broad speculations about things that will never happen, but it took the US over a month and 700 casualties to clear just one city. It won't be that easy. Dandywalken posted:TWO. ABRAMS. TANKS.  Oh no! Two tanks! Two tanks is a lot when you only have a small number of them in your column supported by a bunch of Bradleys. And they were taken out by a bunch of untrained Iraqi kids firing RPG-7s.
Ivan Shitskin fucked around with this message at 06:12 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
That's basically all they control though. There's Mosul, Fallujah, and now Ramadi, and with ISIS spread throughout Iraq and Syria, it'd be them at a tactical disadvantage. The US could pick its targets and strike quickly, severing reinforcements sticking out like a sore thumb driving through the desert. Most of those cities have had waves of refugees fleeing the advance, so unlike some of the major battles in the Iraq War, the US could basically go scorched earth on those cities without catching a lot of poo poo for it, although I'd hate to see them go that route. After those 3 cities, your next biggest target is Raqqa, which is about twice the size in square mileage of my hometown of 3,000 people, and a bunch of desert with a few sparsely populated villages, most of which are already sufficiently blown up. It wouldn't take long to accomplish all that and we're back to the hiding in caves firing off popshots and setting off IEDs, waiting for the US to leave so they can come outside, ISIS. The two biggest differences now are the effectiveness that they can now utilize suicide bombers in military operations rather than as one offs, which undoubtedly will kill a lot of Americans, and their ability to retreat to areas that the US will be hesitant to attack, such as Damascus and Aleppo where political issues with the regime might arise.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:That's basically all they control though. There's Mosul, Fallujah, and now Ramadi, and with ISIS spread throughout Iraq and Syria, it'd be them at a tactical disadvantage. The US could pick its targets and strike quickly, severing reinforcements sticking out like a sore thumb driving through the desert. Most of those cities have had waves of refugees fleeing the advance, so unlike some of the major battles in the Iraq War, the US could basically go scorched earth on those cities without catching a lot of poo poo for it, although I'd hate to see them go that route. After those 3 cities, your next biggest target is Raqqa, which is about twice the size in square mileage of my hometown of 3,000 people, and a bunch of desert with a few sparsely populated villages, most of which are already sufficiently blown up. It wouldn't take long to accomplish all that and we're back to the hiding in caves firing off popshots and setting off IEDs, waiting for the US to leave so they can come outside, ISIS. The two biggest differences now are the effectiveness that they can now utilize suicide bombers in military operations rather than as one offs, which undoubtedly will kill a lot of Americans, and their ability to retreat to areas that the US will be hesitant to attack, such as Damascus and Aleppo where political issues with the regime might arise. The US did go pretty much scorched earth in Fallujah didn't they? I thought they just blew the poo poo out of the city, using white phosphorous and everything. Most of the civilians had fled before the battle (70-90%). The Americans let loose and bombarded the city for weeks with air and artillery strikes and still took 700 casualties when they went in. In the end it still came down to getting in there with infantry and bloodily clearing them out of their trenches and tunnel networks by hand. Ivan Shitskin fucked around with this message at 05:37 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, it's weird having people say Baghdad was a bad battle or something. The US could probably take Mosul relatively quickly if enough forces were deployed. The problem is the political program. Any possible political program would basically result in either a Shia or Sunni revolt, possibly both, and any level of insurgency puts a ticking timer on US involvement. US anti-Shia policy strengthens the Iranian hand anyway, by basically shoving Shia political players into the arms of Iran, whose leadership was smart enough to play the long game, knowing that US policy would inevitably strengthen their hand. It sounds like the entire region is hosed no matter what The US/NATO does. Yeah we could probably take out ISIS with ground forces and install (another) new government, but it will just start all the poo poo all over again with whichever group gets left out. If we side with the Shia, ISIS or another radical suni group will rise up and kill any shia they can find and if we side with the Sunni we will have another ghost war with Iran and shia militias will just shoot any sunni they can find. and in both of these scenarios, the Kurds get hosed. and all of this isnt even touching on all the poo poo in Syria. Is there any solution to all of this poo poo? 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
I'm still amazed that no one is just blitzing ISIS with a shitload of disinformation or outright lies. Like forged videos of known commanders doing poo poo in areas they've already been cleared out of that would make their rank and file angry beyond the point of control, or whatever creatives can think of to get ISIS members to turn on each other. Fanatics aren't immune to being hosed with, they just require different triggers.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
S.T.C.A. posted:I'm still amazed that no one is just blitzing ISIS with a shitload of disinformation or outright lies. Like forged videos of known commanders doing poo poo in areas they've already been cleared out of that would make their rank and file angry beyond the point of control, or whatever creatives can think of to get ISIS members to turn on each other. Fanatics aren't immune to being hosed with, they just require different triggers. Hello Putin.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
S.T.C.A. posted:I'm still amazed that no one is just blitzing ISIS with a shitload of disinformation or outright lies. Like forged videos of known commanders doing poo poo in areas they've already been cleared out of that would make their rank and file angry beyond the point of control, or whatever creatives can think of to get ISIS members to turn on each other. Fanatics aren't immune to being hosed with, they just require different triggers. We have no effective history of this and the trouble with kickstarting something like that from scratch is you make a bunch of mistakes and all your propaganda is obvious and laughable. It reinforces the belief that Westerners are all pigshit stupid, flailing impotently against the might of militant Islam. Developing effective psychological warfare requires understanding and respecting the minds of the people you're fighting, and we're too addicted to the worldview of us as the powerful, righteous bringer of light and them as idiot dirt farmers. Which is great for maintaining our own morale (home-based propaganda is something the US actually does pretty well) but loving terrible for understanding the enemy. We have no-one willing or able to really infiltrate these societies and tell us how they think. They, by contrast, can infiltrate us really easily - they can observe our reaction to their propaganda in real time. We broadcast it to them.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 10:42
|
|
|
Wars against insurgencies like IS and the Taliban aren't won by military invasions, but by creating all-powerful Iraqi / Afghani intelligence agencies. And that, my friends, is something the US hasn't focused on the pas decade, which means the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are essentially failures.
Rukeli fucked around with this message at 11:30 on May 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
I'm not sure if a few of the GOP presidential candidates wanted us to send troops back into Iraq, if it was most of them, or all of the declared candidates.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:No there were two. It says it right on the wiki even. Everything I've read cites the one tank that caught fire from an RPG hit on its fuel cells and had to be destroyed since they were leaving it behind. I've seen no other mentions of a lost tank during that battle and the list of ones destroyed combat show no such loss. Earlier one had been lost because it fell into the Wuphrates and your source may have been confused, but I've seen nothing to indicate two tanks were lost as you claim. You're overhyping this poo poo because you're pushign back on ther stupid claim we could just sieze the border, but you're still overhyping this poo poo. [quote]The story was overly centered around C 1-64's wounded men because one tank was on fire in the rear guard, pinning the rest of the convoy during a thunder run. What to do with the burning tank? became the biggest thorn in the side for the convoy not the enemy! Then they poured WATER on a fuel fire...which spreads the fuel...the exact wrong thing to do! Everybody want to kill C company before they even got started. Notice later that C company also gets lost from the delay with the burning tank. Other than the burning tank, the 1st thunder run was indeed a "10" for intensity but you wouldn't have gathered this from Zuchinno's book... he has the second thunder run as more intense when really it was only a "2" on a scale of 1 to 10. Alpha Company 1-64 lead by CPT Hoelms did the lion's share of the fighting and he should write a book since they were in the lead and were everywhere. As the enemy hit us, the first company would fire with every weapon they had and then keep passing targets down the column...every track had at least 3 machine guns! We killed a lot bad guys who fought us hard on the first thunder run because we were suddenly upon them. They feared they were going to die and were cornered frontally...this was a bad idea...when the showed a muzzle flash it was instant death. A learning curve developed that when an Iraqi saw a buddy blown to smithereens that maybe not fighting back head-on was the better choice. Thus, the 2d thunder was nothing compared to first time, word spread not to confront us head-on; so we received sniper, some indirect fire as the enemy hid knowing that our tracks could be avoided, it was not fight or die----maybe he could get us later when we stopped? However Zucchino in his book made the 2d thunder run look like we were fighting the WW2 German Army![/quoote] http://www.combatreform.org/thunderrun.htm
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
Kenzie posted:
No, it isn't, we have literally 6700 tanks to fall back on. Horror of horrors the capture of a country's capital might have had to wait a day!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Shia's already have their own regional defense force in the Iraqi Army. The Iraqi Army cannot be called a regional defense force. It cannot be called a defense force. It cannot even be called a force. You won't find a single Iraqi who would entrust them with his security. Nobody expects them to do anything besides abandoning expensive American equipment to the roaming hordes of murderous fanatics. Saying that Shia militia should be disbanded/outlawed and Shiites should only rely on the Iraqi Army for their defense against Shiite-murdering Daesh is tantamount to saying that Shiites should submit to execution by the terrorists. Which I guess is fine, because all Shiites are fifth columnists for Iran and therefore deserve death. That's just how bad Iran is.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The Iraqi Army cannot be called a regional defense force. It cannot be called a defense force. It cannot even be called a force. Maybe they should convert and embrace Saudi Arabia as their protector?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The Iraqi Army cannot be called a regional defense force. It cannot be called a defense force. It cannot even be called a force. Wrong as usual. Tons of people think the Iraqi Army is the greatest military force on earth. People upload fan videos on YouTube, and write songs about how bad rear end the army is. The army is extremely incompetent given how much money and time has been poured into them, but they certainly qualify as a force. They've had some victories as well, but it's overshadowed by the losses since they're supposed to be one of the more competent forces in the Middle East by now. They're more than capable of defending Shia regions while the US fights ISIS, because the US will be fighting ISIS sooner or later. quote:Which I guess is fine, because all Shiites are fifth columnists for Iran and therefore deserve death. That's just how bad Iran is. A strawman? Cat Mattress, how could you
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Idlib: The rebels began their assault on ariha today, four hour slater fighting was effectively over. The route west wans't closed prior tot he attack and the regime trooops look to have collapsed fairly quickly and started streaming west, many of them on foot. Video is Perfectly safe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzIjwXgyH0s Reports are coming in now that the rebels have followed the troops retreating and unconfirmed that at least one of the road towns to the west has been captured. It is 20km in a straight line to Frikka which is probably the first location that will be able to hold for any appreciable length of time. That's a very long way to get on foot while being chased. Unsurprisingly we're also seeing unconfirmed reports coming in of troops being captured. The battle in Idlib province is effectively over. The only remaining appreciable regime position is the cut of Abu Dhuur air base south of Aleppo.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Peel posted:Madness I will buy an account upgrade for the person who creates the best posts on Bleach or Attack on Titan as a metaphor for the Iraq war.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
The Middle East: I love a bleach and attak the titan
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
They may like the Japanese equivalent of lovely after school cartoons, but they didn't list any creepy pedo bait shows, so ISIS is still better than weeaboos.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra7mHzBodvM
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
Volkerball posted:The Middle East: I love a bleach and attak the titan Muffiner posted:
There was also the time some ISIS guy talked about liking Jumanji on twitter (it was after Robin Williams died).      This is the dude tweeting all that:  This guy watched the Bambi and the Lion King growing up. Think about that for a minute. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 00:45
|
|
