Planetarion Forums - "No one should start a war on the assumption that the enemy's army will co-operate"

Gayle29uk · 30 Mar 2003, 05:16

...so says Robin Cook and you know what? He's right, not only is he right but he's stating one of the oldest rules in the military book but apparently one neither Bush nor Rumsfeld nor even Ms Rice are familiar with.

Finding myself agreeing with Robin Cook is a sad state of affairs but as far as this invasion goes he's got it right.

"I want our troops home and I want them home before more of them are killed.", he goes on to say and I couldn't say it better.

Snurx · 30 Mar 2003, 05:19

If it was not so deadly serious, i would be laughing my arse off.
The only problem, is that when it goes badly, more civillians die.
If some off the killers die (On either side), i dont give a ****.

IndiaSour · 30 Mar 2003, 08:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
...so says Robin Cook and you know what? He's right, not only is he right but he's stating one of the oldest rules in the military book but apparently one neither Bush nor Rumsfeld nor even Ms Rice are familiar with.

Finding myself agreeing with Robin Cook is a sad state of affairs but as far as this invasion goes he's got it right.

"I want our troops home and I want them home before more of them are killed.", he goes on to say and I couldn't say it better.

Some how I seriously doubt they completely planned for the Iraqis army to surrender in droves. That was one of the many possibilities (One they hoped for I Imagine).

No this isnt Pro-war drivel. Its just common sense.

Zapman · 30 Mar 2003, 08:27

I'd say that's a bit to late to realise that. Also, quite pointless as I'm sure every person with only the slightest bit of intelligence would know that. Except maybe the Bush administration.

Judge · 30 Mar 2003, 08:45

Quote:

Originally posted by IndiaSour
Its just common sense.

It is a shame you cannot bottle it and sell it, there appears to be a distinct lack of it in both camps.

wu_trax · 30 Mar 2003, 09:46

its all rumsfelds fault.
never let a politician make a decision if there is also someone available who has an idea about the topic.

LHC · 30 Mar 2003, 09:49

Yes I agree. Rumsfeld was the only polititian in the world that was pro-war.

Woof · 30 Mar 2003, 10:05

Some "sh|te and awful" assumptions were made over this war.

Kåre Willoch · 30 Mar 2003, 10:19

I'm not even sure that te assumptions that it'd be an easy war, were heartfelt by the politicians wanting the war.

It was a matter of selling the war to the public, which was not easy, so they had to lie their ass off about what would happen. Trusting of course that in times of war, the people rally around their leaders, no matter how sheit the war goes. They didn't consider it a problem that the same thing would happen on the other side. Arabs never were regarded as people by US or european decision-makers planning things for them...

The Cure's "killing an arab" tune got banned from radio, but they still play Rumsfeld's deadly tune........

MrL_JaKiri · 30 Mar 2003, 19:59

The trouble is when you get Rumsfeld (a corporate whore come politician) ignoring advice from Powell (a general), and doing things HIS way.

Dante Hicks · 30 Mar 2003, 20:08

I think you'll find that most of this conflict has gone as expected. There was a few idiots who thought it'd be a walk-over, but not many - and certainly not many in the upper echelons of government. Obviously prior to the conflict they're hardly going to drum about support with a slogan like "Support the War, Some of our soldiers WILL die"

The war won't be going badly (militarily) for the coalition until US/UK deaths are in the thousands. And that's unlikely to occur, barring some sort of super move by the Iraqi's.

A bigger danger would be poalirising the region even more into an anti-US position to the point where even the Arab governments are forced to act. But they've shown themselves to be either inept, corrupt or plain spineless over the last forty years or so, so i don't expect much.

Embroglio · 30 Mar 2003, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Judge
It is a shame you cannot bottle it and sell it, there appears to be a distinct lack of it in both camps.

You can buy it in cereal form though.

Tactitus · 30 Mar 2003, 20:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
"I want our troops home and I want them home before more of them are killed.", he goes on to say and I couldn't say it better.

He now says that (in his original article in the Mirror) he was not advocating the withdrawal of British forces from Iraq.

Perhaps he was misquoted.

Dante Hicks · 30 Mar 2003, 21:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Tactitus
He now says that (in his original article in the Mirror) he was not advocating the withdrawal of British forces from Iraq.

Robin Cook is a twat. He supported numerous similar actions to this but suddenly grew a spine when media attention was on this.

He's better than Claire Short, but that's little praise.

Gayle29uk · 30 Mar 2003, 22:02

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
The trouble is when you get Rumsfeld (a corporate whore come politician) ignoring advice from Powell (a general), and doing things HIS way.

There's a saying, "Amateurs talk about tactics. Professionals talk about logistics.".

That's why the coalition now have the logistical nightmare of a 300 mile supply line and enemy forces behind the front line, because Rumsfeld ignored Powell.

MrL_JaKiri · 30 Mar 2003, 22:03

You should be on IRC more, you hussy.

Gayle29uk · 30 Mar 2003, 22:15

Quote:

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
You should be on IRC more, you hussy.

Says the slut himself!

I'm at work till 7am so no IRC for me

Emperorn · 30 Mar 2003, 22:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
There's a saying, "Amateurs talk about tactics. Professionals talk about logistics.".

That's why the coalition now have the logistical nightmare of a 300 mile supply line and enemy forces behind the front line, because Rumsfeld ignored Powell.

Pity all the fools who tried to invade Russia never heard that saying. Guess it is pretty hard for Saddam to use the "Scorched Earth" tactic though, as I imagine sand doesn't burn all that well. But he should bloody well torch those oil-fields at least, as history dictates that burning stuff up is a sure-fire way to victory! I mean, how are they going to refuel those tanks without the oil?

(I'm sitting here writing a piece on swedish-russian wars, I feel like sharing this immense knowledge I now possess about world-affairs and modern warfare in general. )

JonnyBGood · 30 Mar 2003, 23:19

If they recall I'm complaining as I'll have nothing to spend my sunday afternoon chuckling at.

MrL_JaKiri · 30 Mar 2003, 23:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
Says the slut himself!

I'm at work till 7am so no IRC for me

Brazen hussy.

I'm going to come down to the generic south and teach you a thing or two!

acropolis · 30 Mar 2003, 23:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I think you'll find that most of this conflict has gone as expected. There was a few idiots who thought it'd be a walk-over, but not many - and certainly not many in the upper echelons of government.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in545725.shtml

Looking at polls etc. from the weeks before the war, there is a definite low-mid 40s % that believed the war would take 'a few weeks.'

I would agree that they are idiots, but "few" doesn't seem the correct word when they make up 42% of the population (the same 42% that said we should invade even if the UN doesn't endorse it presumably).

Anyway, even up to a week ago mainstream pundit-types were predicting that this war would be over by this Tuesday (as per the article). I can't see the future, but I'm guessing we won't have the surrender within the next 48 hours.

Point, the only claim that was getting any media time was that we would be in and out. And with that claim in the media came the support of the ignorant masses. Hence we invaded.

(ps: unrelated, but Saddam is definitely in position to pull off the all-time greatest 'april fools' gag ever)

Tactitus · 31 Mar 2003, 01:46

Quote:

Originally posted by acropolis
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in545725.shtml

Looking at polls etc. from the weeks before the war, there is a definite low-mid 40s % that believed the war would take 'a few weeks.'

I would agree that they are idiots, but "few" doesn't seem the correct word when they make up 42% of the population (the same 42% that said we should invade even if the UN doesn't endorse it presumably).

Anyway, even up to a week ago mainstream pundit-types were predicting that this war would be over by this Tuesday (as per the article).

Not terribly surprising. The smart people know better than to publicly commit to, or even mention, any sort of timeline. That pretty much leaves the field wide open for the hacks and fools. The media will almost always go with "two weeks--tops" soundbite over the "Well, war is an inexact science..."; and then we see the inevitable backlash when the optimistic forecasts don't materialize. :/

We saw the same thing with Afghanistan. A week after the ground war started people were using the "Q" word (quagmire) because they thought it was taking too long.

xtrasyn · 31 Mar 2003, 07:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Gayle29uk
"I want our troops home and I want them home before more of them are killed.", he goes on to say and I couldn't say it better.

On reading this I remembered you are from a military family... And so is Madi...

I just hope you don't have any family over there...

Anaximander · 31 Mar 2003, 10:51

I just read, that more and more exil Iraqi are returning to defend their country. About 6.000 so far are not interested to be liberated by the USA. I didn't find an english written link because I don't know how to translate some of the keywords.

Syria and old Iraq enemy Iran are supporting the Iraqi militia and Powell tries to stop it by threatening them. If he threatens them enough, perhaps other Arab nations will start to silently support the Iraq too.

Besides Al Jazeera other critical sites are under attack aswell.

acropolis · 31 Mar 2003, 18:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Tactitus

We saw the same thing with Afghanistan. A week after the ground war started people were using the "Q" word (quagmire) because they thought it was taking too long.

Eh.

I remember before we hit afghani all you would hear about was how Russia and others had tried to take Afghanistan and it turned into the Q. How we were going to be there for years losing thousands.

And we invaded, and knocked em out in weeks. In fact, if I remember right our damn NA boys took Kabul before they were supposed to (actually angering some people).

And after all was done, the people who had predicted quagmire were summarily mocked by the media.

Point, the reason there were very few predictions of quagmire was that those who predicted 'months' were mocked as being the same people who predicted Q in Afghani. And then ignored.

And what was left for the public to hear were the quacks who would predict swift victory.

Mushroom · 31 Mar 2003, 18:48

when he said that the worst thing we could do is leave saddam in power in Iraq.
Now this war has started, we may as well finish it.