Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

They Shot Down a 2nd Helicopter!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • They Shot Down a 2nd Helicopter!

    I'm talking about yesterday's Blackhawk, I was hoping it was a mechanical failure because I couldn't believe they got 2 in 2 days but it appears it was enemy fire indeed.

    I gotta tell ya, the ferocity of those Iraqi militants makes the Saudis from Al-Quaida look like them schoolboys from the NERF toygun commercials.

    First time since Vietnam the U.S. armed forces are facing a determined opponent that gets a bloody nose and keeps on comming again.
    Last edited by MonsterZero; 08 Nov 03, 06:23.

    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    and that's exactly what the Iraqi resitance intended to do: scare off as many of americas friends and allies as possible, including the numerous aid organisations.

    That'll leave the US military alone in Iraq and although they are good soldiers they can't rebuild Iraq on there own, so the citizens will see no progress, unrest will rise and even more ppl will join the resistance to get rid of the USA because they will hold them responsible for everything that goes wrong in their country.

    The USA is heading straight and with open eyes into another Vietnam.

    Gooood Mooorning, Iraq!
    "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

    Henry Alfred Kissinger

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by MonsterZero
      I'm talking about yesterday's Blackhawk, I was hoping it was a mechanical failure because I couldn't believe they got 2 in 2 days but it appears it was enemy fire indeed.

      I gotta tell ya, the ferocity of those Iraqi militants makes the Saudis from Al-Quaida look like them schoolboys from the NERF toygun commercials.

      First time since Vietnam the U.S. armed forces are facing a determined opponent that gets a bloody nose and keeps on comming again.
      We're not just facing Iraqi militia. There are terrorists, criminals, and God only knows what else all in Iraq. Decades of political and social chaos, subdued by a dictatorship has been unleashed. Tens of thousands of troops are smack dab in the midst of commander's nightmare.

      If Bush decides to challenge these attackers, in all likelihood, the operation will go straight to hell. It is imperative America place great emphasis on rebuilding Iraq. Then, when some jerk blows up something, they, not the Americans will take the fall.

      My concern is that fear of another Vietnam will find America walking away from the problem instead of examining strategy and making appropriate changes. The Iraqi people need to see change, instead of just hearing talk about it. That means getting the vote, and committing more to the humanitarian effort.
      "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

      Comment


      • #4
        Apparently the helicopters were ordered to fly lower and only at night (makes MPSAMs harder to use apparently, don't ask me why I just read that)... so they did... except now they were low enough to be hit by RPGs like in Somalia.
        "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the governmentís purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

        Ė Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MikeJ
          Apparently the helicopters were ordered to fly lower and only at night (makes MPSAMs harder to use apparently, don't ask me why I just read that)... so they did... except now they were low enough to be hit by RPGs like in Somalia.
          Don and Tigersqn are more capable of explaining helicopter countermeasure techniques. From what I understand, you fly low complicate tracking and the ability for the SAM team to set up their shot. Once he does launch a missile, the terrain can be used to protect the helicopter.

          RPGs need no guidance. A fast low-flying helicopter would have a good chance of surviving an attack.

          In any case, it really doesn't matter. Six more soldiers are dead, bringing the total for this week to 37, including one Polish soldier. Bush is in serious trouble if another week like this occurs. The American people will not tolerate those kinds of numbers.
          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Deltapooh
            In any case, it really doesn't matter. Six more soldiers are dead, bringing the total for this week to 37, including one Polish soldier. Bush is in serious trouble if another week like this occurs. The American people will not tolerate those kinds of numbers.
            The Americans donít have enough troops on the ground to lead a good counter-guerilla, even if you only take in account the sunnit triangle. In Algeria the French had 500 000 soldiers. And it seems too that American soldiers donít have real relations with the population, which not help to fight the guerilla, to obtain info, to infiltrate the movementsÖ And at the same time the American army canít do what it want because of the media. During the Battle of Alger the French paratroopers tortured to have info, and they obtained very good results with that. But I donít see the Americans using terror in Iraq. Anyway if they used it, they would lose. The French won the Battle of Alger, destroying the guerilla movements there, but they lost the war because of the media impact in the public opinion, in France and in the world. Apparently the Americans think that the solution is in the use of Iraqi or allied troops.

            LaPalice.
            Monsieur de La Palice est mort
            Mort devant Pavie.
            Un quart d'heure avant sa mort
            Il ťtait encore en vie...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Deltahpooh
              In any case, it really doesn't matter. Six more soldiers are dead, bringing the total for this week to 37, including one Polish soldier. Bush is in serious trouble if another week like this occurs. The American people will not tolerate those kinds of numbers.
              I think Vietnam (sorry, the comparisons are just inevitable ) was something like 150 bodybags a week over the course of the entire American phase of the Vietnam war. I don't know that the Iraqi resistance would be able to get anything near that though. At least, not at the current level of activity which is fairly high but nothing like Vietnam. But it might if Bush can't convince the divisive factions in Iraq that the US is really there in their best interest, not the best interest of Cheney and co. Going to be a tough sell.

              Originally posted by LaPalice
              Apparently the Americans think that the solution is in the use of Iraqi or allied troops.
              I'm kind of mixed on that... I think it'll actually be worse if Iraqis start to fight Iraqis because that'll engineer a full blown civil war eventually once various factions take sides and the people become divided.

              The foreigners fighting the Iraqi militants in the best interest of Iraq as a whole would seem to be the only really way to 'win' (though considering what I think some of the war aims were, they can't win by putting Iraqis first and foremost).

              Back when you war was up close and personal, with melee weapons and such you could decisively put down a population. But these days.. and what with AK-47s being more plentiful than sand in Iraq at the moment, I don't think you can truly occupy a people. The paradigm shift at the end of WW2 towards self-determination around the world has changed everything. Anybody trying to occupy a people who reject being occupied is doomed ot failure. It may take decades, but they'll eventually win.
              "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the governmentís purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

              Ė Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

              Comment


              • #8
                Don't forget that Vietnam was USA on one side and China, USSR and North Vietnam on the other. It was the involvement of the two communist superpowers that had the decisive impact on the course of the war.

                In contrast, the Iraqis are isolated and those mercenary terrorists that supposedly cross the borders would not have made a lot of difference.

                The problem is the US went after the oil fields instead of securing the warehouses brimming with weapons and explosives. Everybody who wanted to could drive away with a van full of that stuff.

                "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
                --Frederick II, King of Prussia

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by MonsterZero
                  Don't forget that Vietnam was USA on one side and China, USSR and North Vietnam on the other. It was the involvement of the two communist superpowers that had the decisive impact on the course of the war.

                  In contrast, the Iraqis are isolated and those mercenary terrorists that supposedly cross the borders would not have made a lot of difference.

                  The problem is the US went after the oil fields instead of securing the warehouses brimming with weapons and explosives. Everybody who wanted to could drive away with a van full of that stuff.

                  Other countries also provided forces for Vietnam including South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and the Phillipines. Over 5000 Canadians joined the US Army to go fight in Vietnam. Other countries such as Thailand, Pakistan and even Taiwan sent support units and civil affairs groups.
                  Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by LaPalice
                    The Americans donít have enough troops on the ground to lead a good counter-guerilla, even if you only take in account the sunnit triangle. In Algeria the French had 500 000 soldiers. And it seems too that American soldiers donít have real relations with the population, which not help to fight the guerilla, to obtain info, to infiltrate the movementsÖ And at the same time the American army canít do what it want because of the media. During the Battle of Alger the French paratroopers tortured to have info, and they obtained very good results with that. But I donít see the Americans using terror in Iraq. Anyway if they used it, they would lose. The French won the Battle of Alger, destroying the guerilla movements there, but they lost the war because of the media impact in the public opinion, in France and in the world. Apparently the Americans think that the solution is in the use of Iraqi or allied troops.
                    As MonsterZero pointed out, the primary objectives initially focused on WMD and oil facilities. Until recently most of our intelligence resources have been devoted to capturing Saddam and find the Weapons of Mass Destruction. So the promblem might not be a lack of manpower, but poor management of limited resources.

                    Originally posted by MikeJ
                    Back when you war was up close and personal, with melee weapons and such you could decisively put down a population. But these days.. and what with AK-47s being more plentiful than sand in Iraq at the moment, I don't think you can truly occupy a people. The paradigm shift at the end of WW2 towards self-determination around the world has changed everything. Anybody trying to occupy a people who reject being occupied is doomed ot failure. It may take decades, but they'll eventually win.
                    I agree that if the people don't accept occupation, the operation will fail.

                    Unfortunately, I'm no longer certain whether or not the attacks are a statement by the Iraqi people. I believe some of the attacks are people who want Americans out. However, people coming back, seem to believe most in the country are neutral.

                    A friend a few nights ago asked me how do you fight a counter-insurgency war without creating a negative impression on the local population. It's not an easy question to answer. Yet, I'm becoming more convinced everyday that the solution might be the key to dealing with this issue.

                    Winning "hearts and minds" is a great ideal. Yet, I don't think we can go in, ramsack someone's house, haul away his kids, while making him lay face down, and still expect Iraqis to support us. The very techniques required to fight a counter-insurgency operation might also be a cause for failure.
                    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tigersqn
                      Other countries also provided forces for Vietnam including South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and the Phillipines. Over 5000 Canadians joined the US Army to go fight in Vietnam. Other countries such as Thailand, Pakistan and even Taiwan sent support units and civil affairs groups.
                      The problem wasn't with the countries who got involved with either side in the Vietnam War. The problem was that America chose not to invade North, and it had serious consequences. America should have invaded North as to force its troops to pull back to defend their homeland. America was supposed to take intiative, not reacting to events unfolding before her eyes.

                      Just look at Korean War, there were several countries involved on both sides, but MacArthur chose to invade North Korea. The result, granted, was mixed at best. However, you have to admit that this did in effect prevented what had would have occurred: the collapse of non-communist South Korea. While it is true, only recently South Korea returned to a democratic form of government after a particularly long authoritarian military government. Therefore in a sense, Korean War was a successful war.

                      It is true, Korean War never saw the scale of guerrilla warfare experienced in Vietnam War, however, this was particularly due to the invasion of North Korea which forced its troops to pull back and react accordingly to the American-led U.N.'s invading forces.

                      In Iraq case, our biggest mistake was in allowing Iraqi Army to melt away, we should have continued to pound on them endlessly, and aggressively identifying each soldier by fingerpointing and taking a mugshot of him, thus keeping records in a database, which would prove to be invaluable in identifying the elements of guerrilla forces. Bremer was wrong in disbanding Iraqi Army, this created an additional unemployed element to an already extremely high unemployment rate -- something close to 70%. We should have assigned Iraqi Army to do some rebuilding and supervise it just to make sure it doesn't resort to torture and abusing its given powers by the occupying forces. We should have kept all of former Baath party members and administrators then go through one by one to discard whosoever was abusing or particularly heinous in their behavior toward the general Iraqi population. The sudden disbands created an instantaneous angry element adding to increasingly difficult situation in Iraq.

                      Nevertheless, I believe America is doing okay by my standards considering how low casualties have been since the end of major combat on May 1. I consider this a mixed success story. I think we should hold back our evaluation of what is going on now in Iraq a little bit longer. Let's wait five years and see what happens. Otherwise, I don't really see any point in speculating what-ifs as long everything is still undergoing a lot of changes.

                      The most important factor in suceeding at all is America has to take intiative in postwar Iraq. She cannot simply stand back and react accordingly to what insurgents are doing to the US troops. I am convinced that once we take back the intiative, we can ride this out, though I will admit it won't be an easy rideout.

                      Dan
                      Last edited by Cheetah772; 08 Nov 03, 18:57.
                      Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                      "Aim small, miss small."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Deltapooh
                        A friend a few nights ago asked me how do you fight a counter-insurgency war without creating a negative impression on the local population. It's not an easy question to answer. Yet, I'm becoming more convinced everyday that the solution might be the key to dealing with this issue.

                        Winning "hearts and minds" is a great ideal. Yet, I don't think we can go in, ramsack someone's house, haul away his kids, while making him lay face down, and still expect Iraqis to support us. The very techniques required to fight a counter-insurgency operation might also be a cause for failure.
                        It may already be too late. With things like the US securing the oil ministry (and nothing else, even though most of the ministries were nearby), the obvious suspicions about conflict of interest coming out of the white house and Wolfowitz's admission after the war that "WMD was just the reason everyone could agree with" I don't think many Iraqis think the US is really there for their benefit first. While that might not drive them into taking up arms, I'm doubtful many Iraqis actually trust the US.

                        I think using Iraqis to fight Iraqis might be a mistake, but whatever the case the best course of action would seem to be for the US to take the punishment its getting until such a time a strong Iraqi government is in place then just leave, no strings attached.

                        Depending on how many of those shooting at coalition troops right now are nationalists and how many are Al Qaeda types, this might work.

                        But if the Whitehouse is right and most of the attacks are perpetrated by terrorists, the US is backed into a corner. They can stay and continue to accept attrition or they can leave once they setup an Iraqi government and watch whatever Iraqi government they leave behind collapse... and it probably will if terrorists, not nationalists are primarily behind these attacks now. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, but the response will simply be damned for going in the first place.

                        It'll be interesting to see where we are a year from now.
                        "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the governmentís purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                        Ė Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Cheetah772
                          The problem wasn't with the countries who got involved with either side in the Vietnam War. The problem was that America chose not to invade North, and it had serious consequences. America should have invaded North as to force its troops to pull back to defend their homeland. America was supposed to take intiative, not reacting to events unfolding before her eyes.


                          Dan
                          A little off topic from this thread but I don't think it was necessary for the US to invade North Vietnam to achieve success there.

                          The war in Vietnam was lost in Laos.
                          If there would have been early interdiction with ground troops of the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos combined with a steady harassment of Viet Cong support bases in Cambodia, heavy bombing of the North without political restrictions and serious pacification efforts in the South, the US and ARVN might have had sufficient time to stabilize the political situation in the South and force the north to the bargaining table.
                          Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The more I think the less the alternative in Iraq:

                            -USA gives money to Iraqies (or let them sell oil) and makes everybody in Iraq rich people in a short timeframe (bribery)
                            or
                            -bringing (non-neighbour) muslim countries to prevent civil war, and let them build up their muslim country (but USA has to leave Iraq)
                            or
                            -there can be a very long alternative, too. Changing Iraqies to modern westernlike people (it can last 20 years).


                            The situation seems to me similar to North-Ireland in 10 years ago. So it seems to me even my last alternative (20years project) can fail.
                            a brain cell

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by laszlo.nemedi
                              The more I think the less the alternative in Iraq:

                              -USA gives money to Iraqies (or let them sell oil) and makes everybody in Iraq rich people in a short timeframe (bribery)
                              Here's the catch, some of Iraqi insurgents don't want that happening. If such thing is allowed to happen, then the Iraqi population will feel U.S. is doing a good job and seeing positive results. No, the Iraqi insurgents are continuing to sabotage the oil pipelines in hopes of destroying any relation between the US troops and Iraqi population who doesn't see immediate positive results. That's why the postwar Iraqi oil levels aren't the same as prewar levels. As long the oil pipelines aren't secured or sabotaged to no end, Iraq will never see her revenues increase.

                              -bringing (non-neighbour) muslim countries to prevent civil war, and let them build up their muslim country (but USA has to leave Iraq)
                              That was what the U.S. was trying to do. America wanted to bring in Turkey, but the Turkish Parliament rejected the idea of deploying Turkish troops in Iraq. As the part of leading Muslim countries, Turkey effectively killed the idea. No other Muslim countries want to get involved with the Iraqi occupation, because of their negative attitudes toward the American troops in general. Even if America left immediately, no Muslim country want to interfere with Iraqi affairs, because they are more concerned with running their own oil empires.

                              -there can be a very long alternative, too. Changing Iraqies to modern westernlike people (it can last 20 years).
                              Right now, this appears to be the case, and probably the best alternative there is, unless one wants a fundamentalist government much like Iran's appearing in Iraq.

                              The situation seems to me similar to North-Ireland in 10 years ago. So it seems to me even my last alternative (20years project) can fail.
                              I believe that eventually North-Ireland wil get tired of killing each other in an entirely pointless civil war, and will find itself isolated from the of Europe, which it obviously doesn't want that from happening at all. Therefore, because of lucrative EU benefits, North-Ireland will and should do everything possible to improve its own conditions.

                              Also, I think I should mention this: North-Ireland's economic conditions are vastly different from Iraq, Ireland has much wider diversity in its economy as opposed to Iraq's single source of revenue -- oil. Ireland has a sort of stable civilian infrastructure despite the scars felt in terrorist attacks, while Iraq is comparatively ruined economically, having gone through three wars in space of mere 10 years. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were dead and thousands more lost their jobs and hope for a better future. While Ireland's situation is tragic, its casualties are quite low compared to Iraq.

                              Thus, we shouldn't compare Ireland and Iraq, it's like apples and oranges, it's just not gonna work that way out.

                              Dan
                              Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                              "Aim small, miss small."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X