Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Defiance on March 21, 2003, 06:10:25 PM
-
Hiya's,
Seems confirmed now
Iraqs 51st Div commander had talks with coalition forces earlier
It's now been confirmed in the UK that the whole 51st surrendered en-mass
-
WTG 51st!
-
wow! I guess given the choice between eating and being dead, it was a pretty wise move.
Entire Division of Iraqi Army Surrenders
Mar 21, 6:59 PM (ET)
By MATT KELLEY
(AP) Members of India Co., 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division confront an Iraqi soldiers...
Full Image
WASHINGTON (AP) - An entire division of the Iraqi army, numbering 8,000 soldiers, surrendered to coalition forces in southern Iraq Friday, Pentagon officials said.
Iraq's 51st Infantry Division surrendered as coalition forces advanced toward Basra, Iraq's second largest city. The mechanized division had about 200 tanks before the war, according to independent analysts and U.S. officials.
The 51st was one of the better equipped and trained in Iraq's regular army forces and was the key division protecting Basra, a major transportation and oil shipment hub on the Shatt al-Arab waterway that leads to the Persian Gulf.
-
The 51st was in an extreme bad position.
Its a sunnite regiment. In front of them were the USA troops and their auxiliaries and back in Basra all the shiites who were waiting to kill them too.
So its more than wise that they surrendered.
-
It was a VERY wise move.
No matter what their religion, no matter where they were located, no matter how many tanks they had, no matter whether they just luvvvved Saddam or not.
It was a VERY wise move because they will now live to see the sun come up tomorrow.
-
Yup, the average Iraqi has absolutely nothing to gain by resisting. The only ones that will fight are those that know they'll hang when the government is installed, either by a military tribunal or their own people.
-----------------
"You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the US of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want to go to war."
-
Obviously the Iraqi 51st was trained by the French- the Pentagon says it was the most organized surrender since Paris in WW2.
-
The French suffer only from poor officers. Their troops are brave and fierce.
-
yeah same with the Italians, gave the Brits all they could handle with Rommel's leadership.
Any word if the 11th division has surrendered yet?
-
The division has not surrendered yet - only one brigade out of the 51st has.
-
The French suffer only from poor officers. Their troops are brave and fierce.
I have the pleasure of having known a few French officers.
I'd suggest that the French military suffers from poor political leadership rather than poor officers.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It was a VERY wise move.
No matter what their religion, no matter where they were located, no matter how many tanks they had, no matter whether they just luvvvved Saddam or not.
It was a VERY wise move because they will now live to see the sun come up tomorrow.
LOL coz we americans,. we rock....
Babek post is very good, it explain a lot you dont know about...
but uou probably do not care about internal relations in iraq, coz you are sooo good arent you ?
-
LOL.
Nothing Babek posted was unknown to me. In fact, it's pretty common knowledge. You continually make the assumption that only the Euro's are sophisticated enough to understand geopolitics. Hmmmm.. what's that Euro word for that sort of attitude? Arrogant! Yes, that's it; I find your remark Arrogant!
And it has nothing to do with being Americans per se.
What it has to do with is that we've understood for a long time that there are folks you cannot reason with, that have to me confronted militarily. That in other places in the world, mindless slaughter will be perpetrated and that we will have to become involved in order for it to stop.
We learned plenty in the frontal assault idiocy of WW1 and more in the airwar and landwar in WW2. The results of those conflicts and the following Cold War made it clear to us that a different method was necessary if most of our sons were going to make it home.
We've spent a lot of thought, time and money developing a way to do that with minimal loss of life and in the shortest amount of time.
Now you are seeing the results of that effort.
Ponder this: We are deliberately holding back, particularly in the air war, in order to give them a chance to think through this and surrender.
The 51st made a VERY good decision.
-
Toad will you please STFU?
You are confusing the stupid with your facts and logic!
You need to start throwing out half truths and illogical theories.:p
-
The problem is not to win the war in Iraq. Every of its neighbors would be able to win against this battered army.
The problem is how to win the peace in Iraq.
And this is the reason why so many of Iraqs neighbors wanted a status quo - even with Saddam who is hated by most of the Iranians, Syrians, Saudis, Kuwaitis, Turks and so on.
In the northern iraq the problems already started: The kurdish Talabani-clan had made secret arrangements with the government in Ankara while the Barsani-Clan is getting support from Teheran. The PKK will fight against Turkey and all the minor clans are also ready to fight for their power.
In the south the shiite majority of the iraquis is only waiting until the USA and their auxiliaries have thrown out the sunnite armies. Then they can start their party - and their highest leader is the iraqui Ajatollah Hakim, who live in exile in Teheran.
The sunnite minority is supported by the arab nations who dont want to see Iraq falling apart in three countries or an independent Kurdistan or - much worse - an independent shiite Iraq with all the oil reserves and friendship to the non-arab Iran.
So a new Saddam will have to be put into power. It must be a powerful and ruthless sunnite iraqui. This decision will make the kurds and shiites of Iraq again angry and so we will be in the middle of a nice civil war.
But like in Afghanistan we will just ignore it and let all the people die.
So again: Its absolutely no problem to win this war but its imposible to win the peace for the Iraquis with the actual political strategy.
-
Originally posted by babek-
in Afghanistan we will just ignore it and let all the people die.
DING!
BS Alarm!
I think any objective observation of Afghanistan shows that the nations of the world are still there, still trying to help them set up a workable central government, still trying to help them build an economy (not rebuild; they didn't have much but poppy before) and working hard to keep people from dying.
Other than that blatant piece of..... stuff....... the rest of it lays out the challenges pretty well. The challenges presented, IMO, are still a better choice than leaving Saddam in power untouched.
-
So its BS that Mr. Karsai has no real power in Afghanistan ?
Is it BS that he cant travel without foreign escort troops 2 kilometers outside Kabul without being killed ?
Is it BS that the large western province of Herat is under control of an afghan puppet remote controlled by Iran ?
Is it BS that this war criminal General Dostum, who is supported by the CIA like BinLaden before, is ruling the northeast of Afghanistan with prure terror ?
Is it BS that the southeastern clans of Afghanistan just laid down the name "Taliban" but ruling under the same brutal laws ?
Is it BS that the women in Afghanistan still have no rights, are under fundamentalistic sharia law and still have to wear the Burka ?
Is it BS that until today 4 ministers of Karsai have been assassinated - at least 2 of them by supporters of General Dostum ?
Is it BS that Hekmatiar is again trying to get control of south Afghanisan territories ?
Is it BS that still today Al Quada terrorists are operating in Afghanistan and supported and protected by many clans ?
The only BS is that the press has forgotten Afghanistan after it was "liberated".
Until today 10thousands of Afghanis dies after the liberation.
But you are surely happy that they died as free Afghanis...
-
They don't have any oil.
-
Out of interest, do you reckon enough is being done in Afghanistan, Toad? Note the report about Afghanistan becoming No.1 poppy producer in the world again.
Afghan police 'abusing rights' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2843217.stm)
Afghan security situation 'urgent' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2656761.stm)
Afghanistan's uneasy peace (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2569347.stm)
"Yes, a quarter of girls are back in school, some women have returned to work, and the sounds of music and television permeate the dusty suburbs of Kabul.
But there are no women singers on radio, and musicians talk of beatings when they play.
There has been opposition to girls' schooling
Schools in two provinces have been rocketed and burnt - and night letters delivered to warn teachers of giving instruction to girls.
Outside the capital, private militias impose the will of powerbrokers, in contradiction of the wishes of the central government, and the president.
These men do their masters' work, by looting, imposing duties on trade, and 'protecting' and taxing the people. "
Warlords overshadow Afghan army (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2544091.stm)
"...far bigger warlords are back in power after defeating the Taleban, and some are still fighting in the north and west.
Meanwhile, former Taleban elements in the south could re-equip quickly if the opportunity arose."
Agencies threaten Afghan pullout (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2047675.stm)
"The UN Special Representative in Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, has demanded urgent action from two leading factional commanders - General Abdul Rashid Dostum and General Atta Mohamed - to stop what he calls an alarming level of violence, lawlessness and intimidation."
Afghanistan's unfulfilled dreams (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2460089.stm)
Afghanistan retakes heroin crown (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2814861.stm)
"Afghanistan retook its place as the world's leading producer of heroin last year, after US-led forces overthrew the Taleban which had banned cultivation of opium poppies."
-
in Afghanistan we will just ignore it and let all the people die
No, I said this statement of yours is BS.
I did not say "all the problems are solved".
But the idea that the nations that went into Afghanistan have since "ignored" it and let all the people die is the absolute, purest, refined, Grade A ........ BS.
Here ya go....... read what I said again.
"I think any objective observation of Afghanistan shows that the nations of the world are still there, still trying to help them set up a workable central government, still trying to help them build an economy (not rebuild; they didn't have much but poppy before) and working hard to keep people from dying.
Other than that blatant piece of..... stuff....... the rest of it lays out the challenges pretty well. The challenges presented, IMO, are still a better choice than leaving Saddam in power untouched."
-
so tell us oh great babek, what would YOU do with Afghanistan?
also if you have time , tell us your fix for saddam.
PS: it's my opinion the allies should have left hitler in control of germany, you people deserved him.
-
1. Afghanistan has been forgotten ans IS ignored. Just check out how often Karsai is asking for the promised money of so many countries which forgot that after the country was liberated.
2. What would I do ?
If I would know a solution for solving complicated problems like Afghanistan or Iraq I would really deserved to be called "Great Babek" :D
There is no easy solution.
But I am absolutely convinced that there is no hope if the Warlords are still allowed to have their power and to be son influential in the afghan policy.
This was the price for the Northern Alliance for their help during the war against the taliban.
But the price is too high.
There was a chance to put in the old afghan king into power.
Not that I am fan of monarchy, but this old man has one great power which no other has in Afghanistan: He is able to unite all the clans and communites which were built during the decades of Mujaheddin/USSR war, Civil War, Taliban War and so on.
And he is someone who have been recognized as an political leader by the elders of the clans.
But the Warlords of the Northern Alliance knew what symbolic power this man had. So they strongly opposed the plan.
Finally a weak Karsai was placed as a puppet. He doesnt get effective help from other countries (so I say Afghanistan and their fate is ignored) and so there is no hope for this country.
Face the fact that there are no easy solutions and there also no easy black and white problems.
You really believe that the problems in Iraq will end when Saddam and his regime are eliminated ?
I believe that then the real problems will start.
-
They haven't been forgotten. The monetary, food, agricultural and military aid and support continue.
Now it's possible that what's being done or the rate at which it is being done doesn't suit you but that certainly doesn't mean they're being ignored.
The bottom line is, that while I agree with much of what you said about Afghanistan's problems, they are not being ignored AND there is hope for the future.
You couldn't say that for Afghanistan under the Taliban. It's pretty common to focus on the negative and harder to maintain optimism. But things have improved there. The women have made huge gains, the children as well. They're not starving like they were either.
None of these problems are going to go away with the wave a wand. It's going to take time and lots of it.
The central government will have to slowly gain authority and power. Don't you think it's a bit unreasonable to expect the warlords to just voluntarily give up the power they've held and the position in the society they've had for decades? (Centuries?)
Under the Taliban, there was no hope for these people to have anything like a "normal" life or future.
That hope is there now. That's the biggest improvement. I agree it will be hard to bring it all together and will take years. But is that a reason not to try?
-
You didn't answer my question, Toad.
-
November 24, 2002 The Return of America's Postwar Generosity By JAMES DAO WASHINGTON
IN the movie ''The Mouse That Roared,'' a tiny European duchy called Grand Fenwick declares war on the United States - not because it hopes to win, but because it is certain it will lose. ''There isn't a more profitable undertaking for any country than to declare war on the United States and to be defeated,'' proclaims Grand Fenwick's prime minister, played by Peter Sellers. ''Then the Americans pour in food, machinery, clothing, technical aid and a lot of money for the relief of its former enemies.''
Released in 1959, the British film whimsically reflected a time when the concept of nation-building to combat Communism was ingrained in American foreign policy. Within a decade, that view had faded. After Vietnam, many liberals came to see reconstructing nations as imperialistic. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, conservatives came to see it as big-government waste. By the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush derided the use of American soldiers for nation-building. But the idea that rebuilding other nations can be good for America is now taken for granted again, spurred by fears of resurgent anarchy in Afghanistan and a determination to prove that the war on terrorism can improve life in Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world. Critics who contended the United States had fallen short in the last year can sense a change.
Before adjourning last week, Congress passed the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, providing $3.3 billion for reconstruction over four years. Republican and Democratic lawmakers had complained the United States was doing too little - dedicating less money than it did in the Balkans in the 1990's - and raised the amount that the White House had asked for in its 2003 budget by several hundred million dollars.
The Pentagon unveiled plans to shift resources from hunting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan toward security and reconstruction. The plans, though modest, surprised many because the military has resisted nation-building operations since the debacle in Somalia in 1994 and has been pushing to trim American peacekeeping forces in the Balkans. Recent polls suggest the public is ready to support such efforts linked to the war on terrorism. Surveys by the Pew Research Center, for example, recently found that 56 percent of Americans support reconstruction programs in Afghanistan. ''Very often the response to American wars has been this American generosity,'' said Walter Russell Mead, the author of ''Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World.''
But American munificence toward nations it vanquishes - the trait the novelist Leonard Wibberley gently ribbed in ''The Mouse that Roared'' - raises a more practical question in Afghanistan: how do you rebuild a nation that has not functioned as a nation for years? ''The goal is not to rebuild something, but to build something new,'' said Barnett R. Rubin, an expert on Afghanistan at New York University.
And three things have to happen at once, he said: roads and communications networks have to be built and government has to be able to deliver services, while security is strengthened enough for the work to go forward.
TO create a government, the United States is helping to train administrators and teachers. But there is no electoral system, and no tradition of government-provided services. ''Until that whole concept of government as a provider of public good can be invigorated, people will look for help to those who do provide those things - which is the warlords,'' said J. Alexander Thier, an Afghan expert working with the British Department for International Development.
But there is some progress. A road project linking Kabul, the capital, to Kandahar, the largest southern city, began last month. India, Italy, Japan and Saudi Arabia pledged to help finance roads to Pakistan and Iran. The Army Corps of Engineers is considering managing some of the construction in the north. ''The roads are a symbol that Afghanistan is entering a new phase,'' said Andrew S. Natsios, administrator for the United StatesAgency for International Development.
Other bricks are falling into place. The United States and Germany are training a national army and police force, which are essential to making the country safe enough so people can use the new roads.
Cellphone service - landlines are almost nonexistent - is now available in Kabul,Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif. Radio towers are popping up. Hundreds of miles of irrigation canals have been restored, 10 million textbooks have been distributed, and more than 100 schools have been reopened since the war ended.
But experts say the process is still too slow. Aid has focused too heavily on humanitarian relief instead of reconstruction, they say. And the international peacekeeping force remains limited to Kabul because the United States and other nations won't send additional troops because they say their forces are overextended.
''We've said we have these objectives to stabilize Afghanistan,''Mr. Rubin said. ''Are we putting the resources there to accomplishthose objectives? No.'' THESE problems cause some critics to contend that the Bush administration remains ambivalent about nation-building. Sheldon M. Garon, a professor of Japanese history at Princeton, said that to rebuild Japan after World War II, the United States deployed more than 100,000 soldiers and several thousand civilians in a seven-year occupation. He questions whether that political will now exists. ''Nineteen forty-five was an amazing period,'' he said. ''We thought we could transform societies. Nobody believes that today.'' But John Lewis Gaddis, a professor of history at Yale, argues that many concerns raised today could have been raised about Japan and Germany in 1945. Even if costs are high, Americans are likely to be willing to pay, he said, if they believe the world will be the safer. Certainly that was the image of America in ''The Mouse That Roared.'' ''You can't expect us to give you a measly million - that's less than we spent in Germany in one city alone,'' an American diplomat tells the prime minister of Grand Fenwick during peace negotiations. ''You may have to take a billion.''
Copyright The New York Times Company
New York Times (http://bglatzer.de/nfa/nfa-0211/021129-069.htm#09)
Forgotten? I don't think so. But it WILL take time. How long did it take in Germany and Japan? And those were pretty "organized" societies beforehand that wanted to regain former stability. Afghanistan does not have that history. It'll be tougher. Is that a reason no to try?
-
I think I missed the post while typing, Dowding.
Is enough being done?
When is there EVER enough being done? Pretty pointless question, IMO.
Do you know of some way to turn on the "civilization producer beam" and bathe Afghanistan in it?
It's an extremely backward "4th World" country with a lot of religious inhibitions and and incredibly segmented population due to someone drawing strange lines on a map that suddenly made diverse populations into one country as if the diversity didn't matter.
All that matters not. We're stuck with what it is, not what we'd like it to have been.
So, no, we cannot instantly bring Afghanistan up to even 3rd world status, pacify the ethnic tensions and remove the religious extremism. Therefore, we aren't doing "enough" are we?
What we ARE doing is "something". One might say as much as one can reasonably expect given the state of the entire world economy after 9/11.
And clearly, it is MUCH better than it was under the Taliban and if we stick to it, it will continue to improve.
That answer your question?
-
But experts say the process is still too slow. Aid has focused too heavily on humanitarian relief instead of reconstruction, they say. And the international peacekeeping force remains limited to Kabul because the United States and other nations won't send additional troops because they say their forces are overextended.
''We've said we have these objectives to stabilize Afghanistan,''Mr. Rubin said. ''Are we putting the resources there to accomplishthose objectives? No.'' THESE problems cause some critics to contend that the Bush administration remains ambivalent about nation-building. Sheldon M. Garon, a professor of Japanese history at Princeton, said that to rebuild Japan after World War II, the United States deployed more than 100,000 soldiers and several thousand civilians in a seven-year occupation. He questions whether that political will now exists. ''Nineteen forty-five was an amazing period,'' he said. ''We thought we could transform societies. Nobody believes that today.''
That part of your article is very telling. I'm not asking whether you believe it is worth trying. I didn't ask that in my original post. I'm asking if you believe enough is being done in the attempt.
Also, the short term, estimated cost of nation building (something Bush was very much against not very long ago) has been put at $20 billion.
-
And so?
As I said, I know of no way to suddenly bring them up to even 3rd world status except hard work, time and money.
-
Stop arguing Toad, the US can't do anything properly. If we're there, we're not there enough. If we leave, we're abandoning the problem. There's no way to reason with the unreasonable.
SOB
-
Fair enough. In two years time we'll compare and contrast the amount of money from the international community spent on rebuilding a far more developed Iraq, to that spent on Afghanistan. It might be an interesting comparison.
I like the snipe at the British. I remember your good self dismissing comments regarding US actions in the late 20th century re: Afghanistan as unfair application of 20/20 hindsight. But it's ok to do the same with with British actions in the late 19th century?
Heh. :D
-
You made your post at the same time as I made the post before my last post.
-
We've discussed the lines on maps before; I figured you'd remember. What's done is done. We've all got our crosses to bear, as I think we've also agreed before.
I think you will, however, admit that it is a significant part of the problem. And there's some other lines on a map in Northern and Southern Iraq that are going to be troublesome as well. (Of course, being an American, Orel assured me I have no concept of that sort of thing. Only mid-Europeans understand it, apparently. :D)
SOB.. you're not going to send me to my room without a six-pack, are yah? I'll be good, I promise. ;)
-
I think you will, however, admit that it is a significant part of the problem.
Agreed. Along with a regime supported, nurtured, tolerated and supplied with WMD despite us knowing full well what was happening. :D
But like you say, we all have our crosses to bear.
-
And, in your example, to share.
-
Originally posted by Toad
SOB.. you're not going to send me to my room without a six-pack, are yah? I'll be good, I promise. ;)
Deny you alcohol?! Eee Gads! What you must think of me! :D
SOB