PA, US govt and politicians lie on occassions but in this case, the matter of fallen soldiers hidden from public and hence not respected, is a too big an issue. The stakes are too high to lie.
Gist of your post is that fine you are going to win but at least acknolwedge that Iraqis fought back and they are brave people. It is more like the ego is hurting badly from the broken delusions of grandeur and bravery. I guess you are not listening carefully, someone at the Centcom said today that the resistence they faced in Baghdad is worth their respect. That is what any professional soldier would do unlike the Iraqi Info minister burping like a overfed donkey words like haramzadey, kameeney for an enemy who is challenging you by coming to your home and saying come get me in clear day light.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Yogi: *
Chosen1, there is no doubt soem groups of Iraqi forces have fought back to the best they could. But they are being defeated and will be defeated. Merely fighting back for your survival is not a victory. What matters in war is who won. Does it matter today how long it took to win over Hitler? Does it matter the battles he won? No. Few months from now it won't matter how long it took to totally control Basra. They had it militarily surrounded on the third day but did not pursue inside the city more aggressively for the fear of civilian casualities as most Iraqi fighters were dressed as civlians.
[/QUOTE]
You obviously got the message i was trying to convey wrong or you chose to ignore it. Let me try to explain again. I am not disputing that they have gone into Basra now or that they are in Baghdad. I am referring to the lies of the central command in Qatar. Third day of the war we were told that the invaders were in centre of Basra. Only yesterday did they manage to get to centre of Basra.
Now this is the point. Either they were telling lies then or they were beaten back and never told the world of the beating they took from the Iraqi army. Only one of the two can be correct and in either case they lied, i.e. they never went into the centre of Basra on the third day or they did go in and when they were beaten back conveiniently forgot to tell the world. Your defence that they had it surrounded is not true, becaue the news was that they were in the centre of Basra not surrounded it. GET IT.
"Either they were telling lies then or they were beaten back"
Things are not quite that black and white. Lots of times a military will test and probe an area to see what the enemy is like. In the case of Basra, the British, who have excellent equipment and excellent training could have chased the Iraqi tanks around the city and done away with them, but the injuries to civilians would have been horrible.
The more patient approach that the British took was a much more professional and sophisticated than rolling in and shooting the place up. The British may well have probed to the center of the city to see what a fight would be like, and rather than getting all macho about it decided that they would work on the problem slowly. It ended up working out about as well as they could have expected.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
....
The more patient approach that the British took was a much more professional and sophisticated than rolling in and shooting the place up. The British may well have probed to the center of the city to see what a fight would be like, and rather than getting all macho about it decided that they would work on the problem slowly. It ended up working out about as well as they could have expected.
[/QUOTE]
Whatever their approach was, read what Chosen1 and others are saying. Media was told that "Basra" taken by Coalition forces, "Basra falls" to coalition, on third day while it didn't happen. Is that not a lie? Thousands of troops were marching/travelling south of Baghdad, then there were only a few. etc.
[quote]
Whatever their approach was, read what Chosen1 and others are saying. Media was told that "Basra" taken by Coalition forces, "Basra falls" to coalition, on third day while it didn't happen. Is that not a lie? Thousands of troops were marching/travelling south of Baghdad, then there were only a few. etc.
[/quote]
and ??? :)
In military jargon, there's term tactical withdrawl .. ever heard of it?? I doubt it
Basra was a case of employing tactical withdrawl technique from both sides. When Brits were entering Basra, Iraqi forces present inside the city made a tactical withdrawl while putting up minimum resistance against the invading forces. Later on they re-grouped and started guerilla attacks on Brits from behind who were inside the city. Upon that, Brits simply withdrew from the heart of the city to the outskirts, re-assesed the situation, circled the city and then started to fight their way into city. Not a biggie and no need for heartburns, going around shouting and pointing out the "lies of CentCom" :)