Iraq-US air strikes kill 8

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by spike7451, Dec 3, 2006.

  1. Stepped up?

  2. Decreased?


Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. spike7451

    spike7451 RIP

    BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. airstrikes destroyed two foreign fighter safe houses west of Baghdad on Saturday night, killing five insurgents, two women and a child, the U.S. military said on Sunday.

    Rumsfeld urged scale-back of combat operations in Iraq before resigning

    WASHINGTON (AFP) - Two days before resigning, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recommended a significant scale-back of US combat operations in Iraq, arguing the US strategy in the violence-torn country needed "a major adjustment."

    The recommendation is contained in a classified memorandum the beleaguered defense secretary sent to the White House on the eve of the November 7 legislative elections, in which Republicans lost control of Congress to rival Democrats.


    They lied their way into Iraq. Now they are trying to lie their way out

    Bush and Blair will blame anyone but themselves for the consequences of their disastrous war - even its victims .....,,1957918,00.html

    I dunno if that piece above has been posted before,but it seems to sum up what we & the joe public think.Some of comments posted by other readers are very critical of Bush & Blair.But why does nearly everyone compare Iraq to Vietnam?Could it be cause both the Vietcong & the 'Insurgents' in Iraq have the same ability to evade the troops searchi for them?
    Interesting quote from the article is that as of a few days ago,the US has spent longer in Iraq than in Europe in WWII.
  2. Ive clicked on stepped up, but this option has its difficulties aswell.Stepped up operations will probably mean more civilian casualties, leading to an even greater anti-war feeling.
    However decrease operations and the insurgents will have time to regroup, re-equip and become organised, which will eventually lead to organised attacks on Allied forces in Iraq resulting in a steep rise in deaths.
    I think that it is compared to Vietnam because quite simply in many ways it is very similar.
    America went to Vietnam to support democracy.
    Yes I know its debatable but lets suppose one of the reasons to go to Iraq was to spread democracy(please :) )
    America went to Vietnam without a properly planned strategy on how to achieve its aim and constantly re-adjusted how it operated.
    Sound familiar???
    The Vietnam War was the first real televised war that allowed the public to see what was happening to their forces.
    Due to the internet and head cameras etc the public is again exposed to the same images they were faced with over 30 years ago.
    NVA and VC forces could easily flow into South Vietnam using the neighbouring countries.
    Insurgents are geting into Iraq from all over the bloody place.
    The Death toll in Vietnam was around 52,000(?)
    The current death toll in Iraq for America stands at 2886. Although not of the magnitude of Vietnam it is still one of the highest tolls of any conflict since the Vietnam war.
    There was no end in sight for Vietnam until soldiers, embassy staff and refugees scrambled aboard Hueys on the embassy roof as NVA forces crossed the bridge into Saigon.
    I cant see an end in Iraq in the forseeable future.

    My tuppence worth :)