Chemtrail Central
Member's Area
Member List
Who's Linking
What's Popular
Image Database
Search Images
New Images
Link Database
Search Links
New Links
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Flight Explorer
Silver Orbs
News Archive
Top Websites

  Chemtrail Central Forum
  Other Trails
  Gulf War II (Page 28)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 45 pages long:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
 41 42 43 44 45
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Topic:   Gulf War II

Topic page views:

Proud Veteran
Senior Member

United States
205 posts, Jan 2003

posted 04-02-2003 09:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Proud Veteran     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Sorry for the double post

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-02-2003 05:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Pizza Man Tries To Stop Man Removing Anti-War Signs..almost pays with his life.

Date: Apil 1, 2003

Source: KRQE News 13 / AP
Location: Santa Fe, N.M.

A Santa Fe pizza deliveryman says he was nearly run over by a motorist after he tried to stop the man from tearing down anti-war signs. Santa Fe police say it's the first formal complaint they've received of a violent act related to war demonstrations.

The police report says Robert Guerro was returning to his store Sunday night when he saw the man tearing the signs down from the side of a shopping center. Guerro told police he got out of his car and told the man to stop.

But Guerro says the man then drove into his car and tried to hit him. Guerro says he jumped out of the way, suffering only minor injuries.

Police Chief Beverly Lennen says the incident shows how high emotions are running in the capital city. No arrests have been made.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-02-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-02-2003 06:09 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

U.S. strikes hit Baghdad maternity hospital

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. aircraft have hit a Red Crescent maternity hospital in Baghdad, killing several people and wounding at least 25, hospital sources and a Reuters witness say.

The attacks occurred at 9:30 a.m. (6:30 a.m. British time) and caught motorists by surprise as they ventured out during a lull in the bombing. At least five cars were crushed with drivers burned to death inside, Reuters correspondent Samia Nakhoul said.

At least three doctors and nurses working at the Iraqi Red Crescent hospital were wounded in the blasts. Among the wounded were patients who had come to hospital for help.

The missiles also obliterated wings of Baghdad's trade fair building, which lies next to a government security office that was apparently missed in the bombings.

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-02-2003 06:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote


by VOX

George W. Bush just thirty some short years ago, during his crucial formative years, reveled in putting firecrackers in the orifices of bullfrogs and throwing them up in the air and watching them blow up. Friends recall that on rainy days George could often be seen out the back of his farm shooting and killing the many frogs that would be playing in the rain. A boyhood friend of Bushes added, “There would be thousands of frogs so George really couldn’t miss, because if he would miss the one he was shooting at, the one behind it would catch the brunt of Georges shot. The creatures never had a chance.”

Now he is the leader of the free world, about to lead us into an industrio/religious shooting and looting spree and mock religious crusade for control of the oil fields of Iraq. He’s moved on from the days of shooting frogs on the back porch - Now it is people, leaders, countries he can shoot at and blow up. Now there are new threats, new leaders who are not with us but against us that Bush can attack. And of course there’s the French to deal with.

Oh, and there’s one more group, one more pesky annoyance...


Bush, the so called leader of the so called free world is demanding that all the world’s leaders defy the will of their own people and join in Bushes looting spree. And for absolute certainty, the Bush reelection team will have the audacity and defiance of the intelligence of the people of the world and will sloganeer next election, “Bush, the builder of democracy!” And not one single CNN/CIA “Journalist” will challenge Bush on his real record of being the single biggest threat to the principles of democracy ever.

Yes is no. Black is white. Up is down. Wrong is right. Welcome to Bushes New World Order.

What will Bushes legacy be? For starters, he’ll be noted as a criminal fascist who gutted the precious Constitution. He’ll be noted as the evil one who achieved the enmity of the entire world. Bush will be known as the only man in the world capable of making Osama Bin Laden look like a folk hero in comparison. (only Bush could do that.) Bushes legacy will be the scorn from a billion deeply religious and seriously committed Islamic people for decades to come. Bush will leave behind a broken and divided European alliance and alienate us from all our friends in the world. But most of all, Bush will be known as the president who destroyed the Republic of the United States of America.

Bush will leave us the bill for the deeply entrenched bunkers necessary to protect him during the coming apocalypse. Bush and his friends will undoubtedly be dug-in, well protected and well fed while we the people face the fire when the bombs are ignited in our faces and in our cities.

All because Bush really hasn’t come that far from those days on the back porch. Instead of Daisy BB guns, it’s daisycutters. Instead of shooting at frogs, it’s impoverished women and children and heads of state, and possibly journalists he’ll be shooting at. He's moved on to destroying decades old alliances that have kept the peace between the great empires of Europe and America. He’s racing to undermine and destroy the fragile democracies in South East Asia and elsewhere. And it’ll be business as usual with our Latin American vassals. As for the UN, who knows what the New World Order types have planned for them. Could be anything. Maybe a dirty bomb.

Whether his beliefs regarding the "problem," of populations is Malthusian or Social Darwinist in origin or as I suspect, just plain simple racist eugenicist, Bush is undoubtedly preparing the world and the United States for a massive population reduction. Sorry folks but that’s what Bush is setting us up for. What’s happening here is good old fashion population reduction through global warfare. And he aims to be the fullest instrument of this population reduction idea that these New World Order types secretly wax about.

There needs to be more than thirty some years between the time someone is shooting bullfrogs on the back porch to leading the only superpower on earth.. Thirty some odd years is not enough time between the two events. There needs to be a law that disqualifies deeply perverted souls from leading the free world. There needs to be a more thorough screening process to assure that people of such low caliber never make it into the high offices of power. And most of all there needs to be some system in place that guarantees that draft dodging, cheerleading, frog shooting, chicken hawking, s^^^ for brains, scumbag, pimps like George W. Bush never pervert our precious democracies with their daddies’ penis envy complex.

Desperately seeing their window of global conquest slipping away, these New World Order types proped up this Bush jerk, to kill us all, rather than loose one square inch of their stolen property or one penny of their stolen loot. Welcome to George Bushes legacy. Welcome to the New World Order!

Know your enemy
Turn off the “news”
and get the f^^^ off your knees.


IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-02-2003 06:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Fifteen members of family killed in Apache attack in Iraq:

Fifteen members of a family have been killed when their pickup was blown up by a rocket from an Apache helicopter near Hilla south of Baghdad, the sole survivor of the attack said.

The family was fleeing fighting between Iraqi forces and the US-led coalition in Nasiriyah, 350 kilometres south of Baghdad, when the US helicopter fired on the jeep in Haidariya, 80 kilometres south of the capital, he said.

Razek al-Kazem al-Khafaj showed an AFP photographer the coffins he said held the bodies of his wife, his six children, his father, mother and three brothers and their wives.

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-02-2003 06:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Red Cross confirms dozens dead after US bomb attack

The Red Cross has confirmed that dozens of Iraqi people, including women and children, have been killed in a US bombing attack on a town south of Baghdad.

Iraqi officials have claimed US helicopters attacked a residential neighbourhood, killing 33 people.

At least 280 injured are being treated in Hillah Surgical Hospital, 60 miles south of Baghdad, said Florian Westphal, spokesman for the International Committee of the Red Cross.

"The dead bodies and the nature of the injuries would suggest that at least some of them are the result of bombing," Mr Westphal said.

Iraqi officials say US Apache helicopters attacked a neighbourhood in Hillah. The US Central Command says it is investigating the claim.

Mr Westphal says he understands some of the casualties come from fighting over the past 48 hours in the town of Hindiya, into which US Army troops fought their way on Monday.

© Associated Press

Story filed: 12:49 Wednesday 2nd April 2003

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-02-2003 06:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
WARHAWKS "WILLING TO PAY HIGH PRICE" (CASUALTIES) TO "LIBERATE" IRAQ..........,0,1352158.story?coll=ny-nationworld-world-utility

STAFF CORRESPONDENT; Ken Fireman of the Washington bureau contributed to this story.

April 1, 2003

Camp As Sayliyah, Qatar - As furious street fighting drew closer to Baghdad, a senior official with the U.S. military command here insisted the United States is willing to suffer "a lot of casualties," if necessary, to achieve its goal of toppling Saddam Hussein's regime.

"We're prepared to pay a very high price," said the Central Command official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Because we are not going to do anything other than ensure that this regime goes away. And if that means there will be a lot of casualties, then there will be a lot of casualties."

The comments came as U.S. forces began a slow push closer to Iraq's capital city and U.S. soldiers guarding a checkpoint in central Iraq opened fire on a civilian vehicle carrying more than a dozen people when the driver refused orders to stop.

Officials at Central Command said last night that seven women and children in the vehicle were killed near Najaf, although other reports said 10 had died near Karbala, about 50 miles north. Saturday, a suicide bombing at a checkpoint near Najaf killed four U.S. soldiers and sowed suspicion among U.S. troops toward the Iraqi populace.

In the checkpoint incident yesterday, the soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division first motioned the vehicle to stop, then fired warning shots into the engine and finally opened fire when it kept coming, the Pentagon said. It was unclear why the vehicle didn't stop, though the Pentagon said it appeared the soldiers had followed proper procedures.

Around the Shiite holy city of Najaf yesterday, one U.S. soldier from the 101st Airborne Division was killed in intense fighting after Iraqi fighters dressed as civilians opened fire. About 100 Iraqi fighters either were wounded or killed.

Farther north, U.S. Army soldiers pushed within 50 miles of Baghdad to probe the strength of Hussein's elite Republican Guard units in the city of Hindiyah. It was the toughest sort of urban-style combat - exactly what U.S. officials have long said they hoped to avoid in Iraq - as soldiers traded fire with Iraqis hiding behind brick walls and hedges, sometimes at a range of just 200 yards.

U.S. officials ordered the push in the hope of securing a bridge over the Euphrates River. An armored unit from the 3rd Infantry Division rolled into the town of 80,000 at dawn, only to be met by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades from Iraqis in hiding. Soldiers reported seeing pickup trucks filled with children interspersed among the Iraqi fighters.

U.S. troops killed or captured dozens of Republican Guard members, including some from the Nebuchadnezzar Brigade, based in Hussein hometown of Tikrit. U.S. officials took that as an encouraging sign that days of heavy bombardment had significantly weakened the Medina Republican Guard division south of Baghdad, forcing Iraqi leadership to divert troops from the north.

A mix of U.S. warplanes - from sleek, modern B-1s and B-2 bombers to the Vietnam-era warhorse B-52s - have been bombing Baghdad this week, and attacks continued yesterday. One target was a presidential palace used by Hussein's son Qusay, who leads the Republican Guard.

Despite days of bombing, Iraqi state TV remained on the air yesterday, showing pictures of Iraqi soldiers staffing their posts in the face of allied attacks as well as pictures of Hussein and his two sons. It was impossible to verify the date of the Hussein video.

Several military analysts have criticized the coalition's failed efforts to knock out the TV stations, saying it allows Hussein's regime to send a powerful message that it still exercises some control.

In Philadelphia, President George W. Bush sought to reassure the Iraqi people that U.S. forces would stay in Iraq until their mission was complete. "Many dangers lie ahead, but day by day we are moving closer to Baghdad. Day by day, we are moving closer to victory," Bush said.

In Washington, the State Department said Secretary of State Colin Powell would travel to Turkey and Belgium today for talks on the war as well as postwar reconstruction of Iraq. Turkey is permitting use of its air space for combat aircraft but rejected a U.S. request to allow ground troops to invade northern Iraq from Turkish territory.

The head of another key U.S. ally in the region, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, said the war had inflamed passions in the Arab world. He predicted it would spawn "100 bin Ladens," a reference to al-Qaida network leader Osama bin Laden.

Even in Britain, anger brewed over an apparent friendly-fire incident in which British troops say an American A-10 Thunderbolt opened fire Friday on their position outside Basra, then circled to fire again, killing one. The U.S. pilot acted as though "he was out on a jolly. He had absolutely no regard for human life," British Lance Cpl. Steven Gerrard said yesterday, calling the pilot a "cowboy." U.S. officials said they were investigating.

In Doha, the senior Central Command official acknowledged shortcomings in U.S. efforts to win the battle for the hearts and minds of everyday Iraqis, as well as others in the Arab world, despite a massive campaign inside the country and out to assure people that the U.S. merely wanted to rid Iraq of "one of the most miserable leaders" in Arab history.

Incidents like the shooting of the women and children yesterday appear certain to fan the flames of anti-American sentiment, in much the way two market bombings in Baghdad have caused outrage in the region, even though the origin of the bombs that caused them remains unclear.

Part of the Iraqis' wariness of Americans is due to the Iraqi regime's decade-long history of brutal control over the population, seen in its use of human shields and execution squads, the official said. But he also conceded that the U.S. failure to support a Shiite uprising in southern Iraq after the Persian Gulf War in 1991 has made some Iraqis reluctant to rise up this time.

"I think that we bear a certain responsibility for what we didn't do in 1991, and it's playing itself out on the battlefield," the official said. "I mean, you let someone down once, you don't want to let them down twice." This time, the official added, "We're not going to walk away from this thing."

The official offered no estimates of possible dead and wounded during an Iraqi campaign, which so far has seen more than 40 Americans killed. The Pentagon has refused to speculate about a possible casualty count, though opinion polls have shown that support for the war, now running high, could dip if the toll on the battlefield begins to mount significantly.

Harking back to nights during World War II "when we'd lose 1,000 people," the senior Central Command official said, "There will come a time maybe when things are going to be much more shocking."

The official also said signs of "weaknesses" among Republican Guard troops around Baghdad, along with growing restiveness among the Iraqi citizenry, mean Hussein's days in power are numbered.

The official acknowledged that Hussein's regime has been "pretty resilient" in the face of punishing allied attacks so far, but he said key Iraqi cities such as Basra and Nasiriyah are reaching a "tipping point," with Iraqis closer to turning on the regime, as U.S. officials had hoped.

"Once the tipping point comes," the official predicted, "it starts to spread."

Ken Fireman of the Washington bureau contributed to this story.

Copyright © 2003, Newsday

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-02-2003 10:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-03-2003 04:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Blair at odds with US over Syria and Iran threats

By George Jones, Political Editor and Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 03/04/2003)

Differences between London and Washington over the future of the Middle East intensified yesterday when Tony Blair implicitly condemned the Pentagon's bellicose language against Syria and Iran.

The Prime Minister was challenged in the House of Commons by anti-war Labour MPs over speculation that the Bush administration might spread military action to Iraq's neighbours.

Blair: 'Iraq should be run by Iraqis'

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, has warned Syria against supplying military equipment to Saddam Hussein's regime.

He also said the entry into Iraq of "military forces, intelligence personnel, or proxies" from Iran would be treated as a hostile act.

British diplomats said Mr Rumsfeld's harsh language was likely to inflame Arab opinion and be counter-productive in Syria and Iran.

President George W Bush has already identified Iran as part of an "axis of evil". However, American officials do not intend to take military action against Iran and hope instead that there will be a popular revolution there.

The Prime Minister said Britain had "absolutely no plans" for military action against either country. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said earlier that the Government would have nothing to do with such an approach.

Mr Straw told BBC radio that Iran was an emerging democracy and "there would be no case whatsoever for taking any kind of action".

He said Britain had good co-operation from the Iranian government. The Iranians had more reason to know of the terror imposed by Saddam than almost any other country, including Kuwait.

Britain was working hard to improve relations with Syria. But he urged the Syrian government not to allow its territory to be used as a conduit for military supplies to Iraq. Mr Blair later emphasised that Britain would not find it acceptable if Syria supported elements in Iraq attacking allied forces.

Mr Straw was asked whether he was worried that an impression was being created that once Iraq had been tackled, Syria and Iran might be next in line.

"It would worry me if it were true," he said. "It is not true, and we would have nothing whatever to do with an approach like that."

Mr Straw has made extensive personal efforts to improve relations between Britain and Iran, while Mr Blair has worked to improve contacts with Syria.

But Washington views the leadership of both countries as part of the global terrorist network.

Mr Blair assured the Commons that Iraq should be run by Iraqi people as soon as possible after the war ended, an approach also favoured by the Pentagon.

He supported a "broadly representative" Iraqi government that protected human rights rather than the country being run by the UN or America.

At Question Time, Mr Blair acknowledged that there were differences over who would run an interim post-war administration in Iraq. Britain wants a bigger UN involvement in the interim body to be set up before Iraqis can take control.

Challenged by Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory leader, about the post-conflict situation, Mr Blair said: "As soon as possible, Iraq should not be run either by the coalition or by the UN - it should be run by Iraqis."

Mr Blair said he wanted to develop an interim authority that would be "Iraqi in nature".

Downing Street said it envisaged that there would be a three-stage transition towards a new Iraqi government. As soon as the war was over, the military would be in charge, followed by an "interim Iraqi authority", leading to a "fully representative Iraqi government".

Mr Blair told MPs: "It is in everyone's interest to get to the fastest possible point where the Iraqi government is indeed Iraqi."

Mr Blair also paid tribute to British forces, saying they had performed "magnificently".

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-03-2003 08:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-03-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-03-2003 08:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Pentagon plans for worst nightmare,2763,928456,00.html

Disastrous casualties, both civilian and military, feared in street-by-street fight for Baghdad
From Babylon to Vietnam: the hard lessons of city warfare

Oliver Burkeman in Washington, Stuart Millar, and Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow
Thursday April 3, 2003
The Guardian

American and British military tacticians rarely tire of invoking the name of Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese philosopher of war credited with laying the groundwork for everything from "decapitation strikes" to the policy of "shock and awe". But as coalition troops push north for an assault on Baghdad, through stubborn opposition from the most highly trained of Saddam Hussein's fighters, it is another aphorism of Sun Tzu's that may be ringing in the ears of their commanders. "The worst policy," he wrote, brooking no argument, "is to attack cities."

There is nothing encouraging about the list of bloody, high-casualty urban entanglements that strategists on both sides of the Atlantic have been scrutinising for lessons they might apply if drawn into a street-by-street fight for the Iraqi capital. From Stalingrad, Manila and Seoul to Beirut, Grozny and Mogadishu, the history of what the US marines call Mout - military operations on urbanised terrain, known to the British as Fibua, for fighting in built-up areas - is one of massive civilian and military casualties with incendiary effects on public opinion back home.

The Pentagon's gravest nightmare in Baghdad would be what is coming to be known as a "mega-Mogadishu", hundreds of times worse than in 1993, when rebel fighters triumphantly dragged the corpses of American servicemen through the Somali capital, prompting a humiliating US withdrawal. Its own bible on the topic, the 150-page doctrine for joint urban operations, published in September, reminds readers of the bloody, drawn-out battle for the central Vietnamese city of Hue in 1968 which resulted, after four weeks, in the US seizing control of just seven city blocks. And there are troubling reminders of conflicts in Beirut and Lebanon, where battling forces sometimes fought room-by-room for control of individual hotels and apartment blocks.

"Nearly all operations in urban areas _ take significantly longer than expected," the doctrine warns. In training exercises in the swamps of Louisiana, where the marines have built a mock city to practise urban combat, soldiers playing the enemy routinely "kill" or "injure" 60% of the invading force.

"The Iraqis have chosen to try to fight in an urban area because they can - it's the one area where our advantages are somewhat negated," said Colonel Gary Anderson, a retired US marine who fought in Somalia and has trained soldiers for urban combat.

The narrow streets of Baghdad would render useless much of the advanced technology championed by Donald Rumsfeld, while bringing into sharp focus the coalition's political need to avoid major civilian casualties. It would be, as one US colonel put it, like a knife fight in a phone booth.

The biggest advantage the Iraqi forces will have is a relatively intimate knowledge of the "unseen battlefield" inside homes and buildings, on rooftops and beneath the streets. "It's no secret that our intelligence-gathering capabilities are very limited [in Baghdad]," said Colonel Randy Gangle, who, as director of the Centre for Emerging Threats and Opportunities, a marines thinktank, has devised much of the forces' urban training. To attempt to counter this, marines in Baghdad are expected to deploy the Dragon Eye, a hand-launched miniature airplane with a 45in wingspan that can peer around corners.

American strategists freely acknowledge that they are borrowing much of their thinking this time round from the British, with the experience of three decades in Northern Ireland and 10 years of peacekeeping from the Balkans to Africa.

The British model views the city not as a single military objective, but as a series of bite-sized chunks, perhaps as small as a single building or a street. After the first chunk is taken, forces move in to consolidate their control, setting up strongholds used as launchpads for the attack on the next chunk. At the same time, it is essential to build relationships with the local population in the chunks already taken.

"It's very much like viewing the city as a chessboard," said Garth Whitty, a retired lieutenant-colonel and now a defence analyst at the Royal United Services Institute in London. "You move into one square, you hold it and you use it as a base to move on to the next square. You have to be patient."

Col Gangle said gathering intelligence to counter the Iraqi regime's tactic of basing military command points among civilians was already happening in Iraq. "The key is starting to develop intelligence from the population - patrols can go in, and clan destinely talk with people and say, 'We don't want you to expose yourselves, but we do want you to tell us who the bad guys are, and we'll go deal with them.' As people begin to realise that they can provide information without repercussion, the effect will grow exponentially. It's not this room-by-room, building-clearing thing that we used to do."

The benefits of firepower are limited: blasting buildings with artillery or air strikes may take out any enemy positions, but it also creates debris which has to be negotiated and which offers cover for enemy forces. This means urban warfare is infantry-intensive. "It's rifles and bayonets stuff," one senior British trainer said. Troops "get tired fighting at this sort of intensity. It's not just physically exhausting, it's mentally exhausting."

In Iraq, there will be one major difference from previous urban warfare situations: the stated objective of minimising civilian casualties. "You have immediately changed the rules to your disadvantage because you have to be more selective about targets but also you subject your people to greater danger," Mr Whitty said.

The controversial alteration to US rules of engagement seen outside the cities of Iraq - where troops are cleared to fire on approaching civilians if they cannot make them halt and fear a suicide attack - would be much more fraught inside Baghdad. "It's one thing to have a defensive position and say, 'You may not come any closer,'" said Col Gangle, "but it's a different scenario when you're patrolling a city and people are coming into close contact all the time."

In this chaos, it will be virtually impossible for commanders to keep track of everything happening on the ground, so the British approach is to devolve command to the lowest possible level. Tactical decisions on the ground will be taken by the patrol commanders, usually corporals or lance corporals. "The principle is intent," Col Gangle said. "You expect, even if you lose contact, your subordinates to continue to operate within your intent."

But some British military experts argue that the Americans may be less prepared for this kind of structure, since their training focuses on implementing a gameplan decided by senior officers.

"The British troops will have got their heads around what is expected of them before they hit the ground," said John MacKinlay, a former senior British officer and now a research fellow at Kings College's centre for war studies. "The American GI, by contrast, will have been brought up in a total war machine."

The disastrous consequences of getting it wrong were illustrated in the Russian military's attempts to take the city of Grozny in 1994 and 2000.

General Alexander Vladimirov, vice-president of the Association of Military Experts and an infantry specialist, said Russian experiences during Grozny's first assault in December 1994 showed how vital it was to properly reconnoitre the city before an assault, using scale models based on satellite photographs. "Our reconnaissance was absolutely ineffective in Grozny in 1994," he said. "We did not work out where the enemy had placed the snipers, machine guns and RPGs. I think the same thing will apply to Baghdad." The failed first operation against Grozny led to its carpet bombing in January 1995.

For the second siege, five years later, a humanitarian corridor was left open so the population could flee. "We warned them to get out," said Gen Vladimirov, and "honestly told them we would flatten the city. We waited for a long time."

And yet despite extensive planning by the Russian army, based on their past mistakes, Russian assault groups were still cut to pieces as they entered Grozny in 2000 by rebels targeting their tank columns, picking off vehicles one by one.

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-03-2003 09:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote


Apr 3 2003

By James Hardy, Political Editor

TONY BLAIR yesterday vowed to stop George Bush imposing a puppet state on Iraq.

The PM revealed that coalition forces would set up a military government in Baghdad but insisted it would switch "as soon as possible" to civilian administration.

He told the Commons that a US dominated regime would be only temporary.

And in a rare show of defiance against Washington the Government warned it would not tolerate action against Syria or Iran.

US hawks want to impose an interim administration on Iraq with former American generals running Ministries. But the Government insisted that US officials should be only advisers.

After days of ducking the question Mr Blair was finally pinned down by anxious MPs.

He said Britain would work for a UN resolution "endorsing" the interim government but remained vague on the timetable.

"The UN has made it quite clear itself it doesn't want to lead an Iraqi government.

"There will be difficulties as to when we make the transition to the interim authority, as to precisely what negotiations in the UN bring.

"But the one point in common ... is that everybody understands it has got to be UN endorsed."

Labour MPs fear a US dominated administration would wreck coalition claims to be "liberating" the people of Iraq.

They were deeply alarmed at leaks from Washington showing hawks plotting to run the country by installing retired general Jay Garner as governor.

Ex-Minister Joan Ruddock said: "We cannot win hearts and minds when there is an announcement from the US that the immediate postwar Iraq will be run by a former general who is the president of an arms company, a declared supporter of Israel."

Outside the Commons Foreign Secretary Jack Straw claimed the Americans agreed the UN must back an interim government.

"We will be seeking an interim Iraqi authority moving to a more representative government drawn from the Iraqi people.

"There could be advisers from other countries but there will not be foreign nationals running the Iraqi government."

Mr Straw also made it clear that Britain would not back any US attack on Syria or Iran - accused of aiding Saddam in a new bout of sabre rattling by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

He would be deeply uneasy if the Americans were planning action.

"It would worry me if it were true. It is not true and we would have nothing whatever to do with an approach like that."

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-03-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-04-2003 02:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The president's real goal in Iraq


The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.

In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions.

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.

In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.

And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, they are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so should we.

Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.

Part of it's laid out in the National Security Strategy, a document in which each administration outlines its approach to defending the country. The Bush administration plan, released Sept. 20, marks a significant departure from previous approaches, a change that it attributes largely to the attacks of Sept. 11.

To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.

It dismisses deterrence as a Cold War relic and instead talks of "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities."

In essence, it lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region on the globe, unfettered by international treaty or concern. And to make that plan a reality, it envisions a stark expansion of our global military presence.

"The United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia," the document warns, "as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. troops."

The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.

"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. stated two years ago. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "

Familiar themes

Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.

It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.

It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.

It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.

That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.

Paul Wolfowitz is now deputy defense secretary. John Bolton is undersecretary of state. Stephen Cambone is head of the Pentagon's Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. Eliot Cohen and Devon Cross are members of the Defense Policy Board, which advises Rumsfeld. I. Lewis Libby is chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Dov Zakheim is comptroller for the Defense Department.

'Constabulary duties'

Because they were still just private citizens in 2000, the authors of the project report could be more frank and less diplomatic than they were in drafting the National Security Strategy. Back in 2000, they clearly identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as primary short-term targets, well before President Bush tagged them as the Axis of Evil. In their report, they criticize the fact that in war planning against North Korea and Iraq, "past Pentagon wargames have given little or no consideration to the force requirements necessary not only to defeat an attack but to remove these regimes from power."

To preserve the Pax Americana, the report says U.S. forces will be required to perform "constabulary duties" -- the United States acting as policeman of the world -- and says that such actions "demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations."

To meet those responsibilities, and to ensure that no country dares to challenge the United States, the report advocates a much larger military presence spread over more of the globe, in addition to the roughly 130 nations in which U.S. troops are already deployed.

More specifically, they argue that we need permanent military bases in the Middle East, in Southeast Europe, in Latin America and in Southeast Asia, where no such bases now exist. That helps to explain another of the mysteries of our post-Sept. 11 reaction, in which the Bush administration rushed to install U.S. troops in Georgia and the Philippines, as well as our eagerness to send military advisers to assist in the civil war in Colombia.

The 2000 report directly acknowledges its debt to a still earlier document, drafted in 1992 by the Defense Department. That document had also envisioned the United States as a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush.

Effect on allies

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.

The potential implications of a Pax Americana are immense.

One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.

Donald Kagan, a professor of classical Greek history at Yale and an influential advocate of a more aggressive foreign policy -- he served as co-chairman of the 2000 New Century project -- acknowledges that likelihood.

"If [our allies] want a free ride, and they probably will, we can't stop that," he says. But he also argues that the United States, given its unique position, has no choice but to act anyway.

"You saw the movie 'High Noon'? he asks. "We're Gary Cooper."

Accepting the Cooper role would be an historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.

For the same reason, Kagan and others shy away from terms such as empire, understanding its connotations. But they also argue that it would be naive and dangerous to reject the role that history has thrust upon us. Kagan, for example, willingly embraces the idea that the United States would establish permanent military bases in a post-war Iraq.

"I think that's highly possible," he says. "We will probably need a major concentration of forces in the Middle East over a long period of time. That will come at a price, but think of the price of not having it. When we have economic problems, it's been caused by disruptions in our oil supply. If we have a force in Iraq, there will be no disruption in oil supplies."

Costly global commitment

Rumsfeld and Kagan believe that a successful war against Iraq will produce other benefits, such as serving an object lesson for nations such as Iran and Syria. Rumsfeld, as befits his sensitive position, puts it rather gently. If a regime change were to take place in Iraq, other nations pursuing weapons of mass destruction "would get the message that having them . . . is attracting attention that is not favorable and is not helpful," he says.

Kagan is more blunt.

"People worry a lot about how the Arab street is going to react," he notes. "Well, I see that the Arab street has gotten very, very quiet since we started blowing things up."

The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.

The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.

Now, more than a decade later, the events of Sept. 11 have given those advocates of empire a new opportunity to press their case with a new president. So in debating whether to invade Iraq, we are really debating the role that the United States will play in the years and decades to come.

Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?

If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.

That's what this is about.

"Rebuilding America's Defenses," a 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century, listed 27 people as having attended meetings or contributed papers in preparation of the report. Among them are six who have since assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. And the report seems to have become a blueprint for Bush's foreign and defense policy.

Paul Wolfowitz
Political science doctorate from University of Chicago and dean of the international relations program at Johns Hopkins University during the 1990s. Served in the Reagan State Department, moved to the Pentagon during the first Bush administration as undersecretary of defense for policy. Sworn in as deputy defense secretary in March 2001.

John Bolton
Yale Law grad who worked in the Reagan administration as an assistant attorney general. Switched to the State Department in the first Bush administration as assistant secretary for international organization affairs. Sworn in as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, May 2001.

Eliot Cohen
Harvard doctorate in government who taught at Harvard and at the Naval War College. Now directs strategic studies at Johns Hopkins and is the author of several books on military strategy. Was on the Defense Department's policy planning staff in the first Bush administration and is now on Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board.

I. Lewis Libby
Law degree from Columbia (Yale undergrad). Held advisory positions in the Reagan State Department. Was a partner in a Washington law firm in the late '80s before becoming deputy undersecretary of defense for policy in the first Bush administration (under Dick Cheney). Now is the vice president's chief of staff.

Dov Zakheim
Doctorate in economics and politics from Oxford University. Worked on policy issues in the Reagan Defense Department and went into private defense consulting during the 1990s. Was foreign policy adviser to the 2000 Bush campaign. Sworn in as undersecretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Pentagon, May 2001.

Stephen Cambone
Political science doctorate from Claremont Graduate School. Was in charge of strategic defense policy at the Defense Department in the first Bush administration. Now heads the Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation at the Defense Department.

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-04-2003 05:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote


IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-04-2003 06:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-04-2003 10:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP Logged

Chemtrail Information Agent

1245 posts, Oct 2000

posted 04-05-2003 11:33 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for David     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The legacy of Bush the butcher

Red Cross horrified by number of dead civilians
canadian Press

OTTAWA — Red Cross doctors who visited southern Iraq this week saw "incredible" levels of civilian casualties including a truckload of dismembered women and children, a spokesman said Thursday from Baghdad.

Roland Huguenin, one of six International Red Cross workers in the Iraqi capital, said doctors were horrified by the casualties they found in the hospital in Hilla, about 160 kilometres south of Baghdad.

"There has been an incredible number of casualties with very, very serious wounds in the region of Hilla," Huguenin said in a interview by satellite telephone.

"We saw that a truck was delivering dozens of totally dismembered dead bodies of women and children. It was an awful sight. It was really very difficult to believe this was happening."

Huguenin said the dead and injured in Hilla came from the village of Nasiriyah, where there has been heavy fighting between American troops and Iraqi soldiers, and appeared to be the result of "bombs, projectiles."

"At this stage we cannot comment on the nature of what happened exactly at that place . . . but it was definitely a different pattern from what we had seen in Basra or Baghdad.

"There will be investigations I am sure."

Baghdad and Basra are coping relatively well with the flow of wounded, said Huguenin, estimating that Baghdad hospitals have been getting about 100 wounded a day.

Most of the wounded in the two large cities have suffered superficial shrapnel wounds, with only about 15 per cent requiring internal surgery, he said.

But the pattern in Hilla was completely different.

"In the case of Hilla, everybody had very serious wounds and many, many of them small kids and women. We had small toddlers of two or three years of age who had lost their legs, their arms. We have called this a horror."

At least 400 people were taken to the Hilla hospital over a period of two days, he said -- far beyond its capacity.

"Doctors worked around the clock to do as much as they could. They just had to manage, that was all."

The city is no longer accessible, he added.

Red Cross staff are also concerned about what may be happening in other smaller centres south of Baghdad.

"We do not know what is going on in Najaf and Kabala. It has become physically impossible for us to reach out to those cities because the major road has become a zone of combat."

The Red Cross was able to claim one significant success this week: it played a key role in re-establishing water supplies at Basra.

Power for a water-pumping station had been accidentally knocked out in the attack on the city, leaving about a million people without water. Iraqi technicians couldn't reach the station to repair it because it was under coalition control.

The Red Cross was able to negotiate safe passage for a group of Iraqi engineers who crossed the fire line and made repairs. Basra now has 90 per cent of its normal water supply, said Huguenin.

Huguenin, a Swiss, is one of six international Red Cross workers still in Baghdad. The team includes two Canadians, Vatche Arslanian of Oromocto, N.B., and Kassandra Vartell of Calgary.

The Red Cross expects the humanitarian crisis in Iraq to grow and is calling for donations to help cope. The Red Cross Web site is:

[Edited 1 times, lastly by David on 04-05-2003]

IP Logged

Proud Veteran
Senior Member

United States
205 posts, Jan 2003

posted 04-05-2003 03:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Proud Veteran     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The paranoid David posts. Aren't you afraid someone will find out who you are and what you do?

Do you know for sure that the coalition forces did this or did this butchering regime (saddam's ) dismember all the bodies?

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Proud Veteran on 04-05-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-05-2003 03:46 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"US Forces take Baghdad"....A PR MANUVER?? LIE?

'No sign' of US in Baghdad

05/04/2003 16:54 - (SA),6119,2-10-1460_1343684,00.html

Baghdad - There was no sign of a US military presence in Baghdad on Saturday despite American officials' claim that coalition troops were in town to stay, AFP correspondents reported.

On the west bank of the Tigris river where most government buildings are based, quiet had returned after a tense morning, enforced by patrolling soldiers and other heavily armed men.

Many of them were seen heading toward Saddam International Airport on the southwestern outskirts of the city, which US forced announced they captured Friday and now held "secure".

Iraqi Information Minister Mohammad Said al-Sahhaf had said earlier that President Saddam Hussein's crack Republican Guard had driven coalition forces out of the facility in a prelude to a final rout in the capital.

Navy Captain Frank Thorp, a spokesperson for the US Central Command, said earlier of the early-morning thrust into Baghdad: "This wasn't a patrol - go in and come out.

"We had the opportunity and we moved in," Thorp said. "It was done in a deliberate way. When we had the opportunity we took it and moved forward into the middle of the city."

The city seemed strangely normal in the afternoon.

While some militia fighters equipped with automatic weapons and anti-tank rocket launchers manned city intersections, others were less visible, holed up in entrenched positions.

Soldiers and elite Republican Guard members and militiamen were posted at a major intersection leading out of the city but appeared as steely nerved as ever.

In the Dora-Yarmuk in the southwest of the city, there were traces of combat earlier in the day, including blown-up cars and casings of heavy machine guns where Iraqi armoured tanks and anti-aircraft artillery had been that morning.

Even in the Al-Mamun district near the airport, motorists took to the roads and no explosions were heard.

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-05-2003 03:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Rumor Mill News Reading Room Forum


Posted By: nFormedSources
Date: Saturday, 5 April 2003, 6:45 a.m.

Acording to Ragi Omar (BBC Correspondent) speaking live on BBC NEWS 24 at 6:10am EST Saturday, he had driven all around Baghdad and saw no signs of US Forces, and encountered no civillians reporting presence of US forces or fleeing from areas under US control.

He also said that in conversations with other correspondents who had also travelled around Baghdad and the outskirts of the city --NONE OF THEM HAD SEEN ANY US FORCES.

"The contradictions are enormous," according to the BBC NEWS 24 anchor.

In earlier comments, a local US-UK commander describing his forces actions at the Baghdad Airport said their next objective was to "surround" the airport.

He immediately corrected himself to say their objective was to take control of the areas "surrounding" the airport.

The Iraqi Information Ministry is still maintaining that US forces have been expelled from the airport.

--nFormedSources 6:45AM EST Saturday

IP Logged

Proud Veteran
Senior Member

United States
205 posts, Jan 2003

posted 04-05-2003 06:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Proud Veteran     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
U.S. Forces Move Through Iraqi Capital
U.S. Forces Move Into Baghdad to Show Coalition Ability to Move Into Iraqi Capital at Will

The Associated Press

April 5 —
U.S. armored vehicles drove through Baghdad on Saturday, smashing through Iraq's Republican Guard to reach at least briefly the ultimate destination of their two-week surge across southern Iraq. In one skirmish, Marines with bayonets battled Arab fighters from abroad in a marsh on Baghdad's outskirts.

The U.S. incursion was not an attempt to capture large sections of Baghdad, which remained under tenuous Iraqi government control. Rather, said Air Force Maj. Gen. Gene Renuart, "it was a clear statement of the ability of coalition forces to move into Baghdad at the time and place of their choosing."

The intent, Renuart said in a briefing at Central Command in Qatar, was to show the Iraqi leadership "that they do not have the control they speak about on their television."

A huge explosion resounded across the central part of Baghdad on Saturday night. Armed men troops, militiamen, Baath Party loyalists took positions at major intersections and on main roads leading to the city's western, southern and southeastern exits. Tanks, machine guns and artillery were deployed inside the city. Many civilians were on the streets carrying Kalashnikovs. Other parts of the city were nearly deserted.

On the airport road, Iraqi troops posed for Iraqi photographers standing atop what they said were U.S. armored personnel carriers destroyed in battle Friday and Saturday.

Red Cross workers in Baghdad reported several hundred war wounded and dozens of dead had been brought to four city hospitals since Friday, the International Committee of the Red Cross said. The ICRC could not say how many were civilians.

"The hospitals are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the continuous influx of wounded," the ICRC's Muin Kassis said Saturday in Amman, Jordan.

Iraqi TV played patriotic music, and soldiers and militiamen loyal to Saddam Hussein vowed to keep fighting. Renuart said the American armored unit encountered "pockets of very intense fighting" from Republican Guards and irregular fighters using rocket propelled grenades and air-to-air artillery weapons.

Fox News reported that 26 M1A2 Abrams tanks and 10 Bradley fighting vehicles with the 3rd Infantry, 2nd Brigade moved inside the city limits Saturday morning, where they fought paramilitary forces and Republican Guards. Fox correspondent Greg Kelly said one U.S. tank was destroyed.

In southern Iraq, two coalition aircraft struck the Basra residence of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid, Central Command said.

Al-Majid is a member of Saddam's inner circle and commander of southern forces, U.S. military officials said. They said he had once ordered Iraqi forces to use chemical weapons on Kurds in northern Iraq and was known as "Chemical Ali." The airstrike's effectiveness was being assessed, they added.

Thousands of U.S. troops had gathered on Baghdad's outskirts the 3rd Infantry Division arriving from the southwest and the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force from the southeast.

The Iraqi military, in a statement read on satellite television, said U.S. forces were repulsed when they tried to advance on Baghdad from the south. "We were able to chop off their rotten heads," the statement said.

On the southern outskirts, Marines engaged in close-quarters fighting with pro-Saddam volunteers from Jordan, Egypt, Sudan and elsewhere, according to Lt. Col. B.P. McCoy of 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines.

"It's like a jihad. They were given a rifle and told to become a martyr," said McCoy, whose troops used bayonets while battling in the reeds of a marsh.

As other Marine units advanced north, Iraqi civilian vehicles fled south, packed with bundles and bearing improvised white flags made from torn-up towels or T-shirts.

Long lines at gasoline stations in Baghdad underscored a sense of crisis in a city that has been without power since Thursday night. At markets, vendors did a brisk business selling batteries and flashlights.

At Baghdad's airport, captured by U.S. troops Friday, soldiers used explosives to clear abandoned buildings and examined an extensive underground complex below the airfield.

Lt. Col. Lee Fetterman, a battalion commander with the 101st Airborne Division, said several hundred Iraqis were killed at the airport, including some with bombs strapped to them who apparently intended to attempt suicide attacks.

Renuart said the Americans' hold on the airport was firm, despite Iraqi counterattacks Saturday, and he indicated one runway would soon be usable. Yet Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf contended the Americans were ousted from the airport.

"Today, we butchered the force present at the airport," al-Sahhaf said. He also indicated that Iraqi fighters would stage "creative operations," including suicide attacks.

Much of the military activity around Baghdad appeared aimed at preventing any regrouping of Republican Guard forces in the coalition rear.

Southwest of the capital, units of the 3rd Infantry captured the abandoned headquarters of the Republican Guard's Medina division one of Saddam's best-trained units in the town of Suwayrah.

As U.S. forces entered Baghdad, there was no definitive word on Saddam's whereabouts. A statement attributed to him Saturday, read by al-Sahhaf, urged Iraqi fighters to destroy the "lost and shocked" enemy.

"Saddam Hussein is no longer really a factor in this war," said Group Capt. Al Lockwood, a spokesman for the U.S.-British forces. "If we capture Saddam Hussein alive, so be it. We will put him on trial for war crimes. But if he is not alive, that will not affect the way we carry out this campaign."

Though U.S. casualties in the attack on Baghdad have been light, two Marine pilots were killed Saturday when their Super Cobra attack helicopter crashed in central Iraq.

Also, the Pentagon confirmed the first combat death of an American woman in the war Pfc. Lori Ann Piestewa, 23, of Tuba City, Ariz. Her body, and those of six colleagues from the 507th Maintenance Company, were found during the rescue of American POW Jessica Lynch in Iraq this week. Their unit was ambushed March 23.

Huh, imagine that, all the above posts are LIES as usual.

IP Logged

Chemtrail Information Agent

1245 posts, Oct 2000

posted 04-05-2003 06:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for David     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
PV. Placing ones head up their rectal cavity lends one sightless, pull out before you do permanent damage...

IP Logged

Proud Veteran
Senior Member

United States
205 posts, Jan 2003

posted 04-05-2003 06:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Proud Veteran     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

U.S. forces rush into center of Baghdad
From the International Desk
Published 4/5/2003 10:36 AM

U.S.-led forces in large numbers rushed into the heart of Baghdad for the first time Saturday, showing an ability to "move at the time and place of their choosing," U.S. Central Command said.

Coalition forces reached the empty headquarters of at least one major Iraqi military unit in the capital city without facing more than sporadic resistance, officials said.

Substantial U.S. forces quickly spread elsewhere in Baghdad, continuing to flow in through the day Saturday, although some parts of the city remained unexplored by the coalition offensive.

Coalition forces conducted a daytime raid of Baghdad to "send a message," said Maj. Gen. Victor Renuart at a Centcom briefing in Doha, Qatar.

"It was a clear statement of the ability of coalition forces to move at the time and place of their choosing," Renuart said. But he insisted Operation Iraqi Freedom is "far from finished in Baghdad."

The U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division, backed by some 20 Abrams tanks and 10 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, raided Baghdad from the south. The 1st Marine Expeditionary Force arrived from the southeast.

Live television pictures of downtown Baghdad's east side Saturday afternoon local time showed scattered Iraqi army soldiers and isolated military vehicles, with sounds of gunfire in the background.

On the southeastern edge of Baghdad Saturday, United Press International's Rick Tomkins reported steady artillery fire directed deeper into the city as helicopter gunships and planes bombed and attacked. The 5th Marines regiment cut through Iraq's al Nida division, eliminating another bulwark of Baghdad's defenses, U.S. officials said.

At Baghdad's international airport, captured by U.S. troops Friday, soldiers worked to secure their hold on the facility.

"That does not mean that there is not a threat from artillery from enemy forces who have continued to attack throughout the course of today to varying degrees and varying sizes but with no success," Renuart said.

"The airport gives us a fairly substantial area to operate from, and I believe we will continue to operate from that field. Whether we make it a main base of operation or not, time will tell."

He said at least one of the damaged aiport runways will be functional "very rapidly" and that the rest of the facility's infrastructure appears to be intact.

But Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf said Saturday Iraqi forces repulsed coalition forces and had regained control of the airport.

"Today, we slaughtered the force which dared and was at the runaway of the airport. Now they are outside the faraway airport fence," al-Sahhaf told reporters in Baghdad. "The heroic Republican Guards are now in control of the airport's land in full."

He also said coalition forces had not entered Baghdad. "You can go and visit those places...nothing there at all."

The rapid and mostly unrestrained U.S. dash into the deep interior of Baghdad was at least partially a long-planned operation, Centcom said.

But there also appeared to be an element of sudden opportunity seized by U.S. forces after initial probes into the city failed to find entrenched military units firing back.

Reporters embedded with units to the southeast of Baghdad reported that at least some of the Shia population inside the city, not necessarily friends of the Saddam regime, welcomed U.S. troops while hundreds of other citizens were seen fleeing in autos.

Centcom spokesman Frank Thorp said U.S. troops were not seizing territory as they traveled Baghdad streets. "We continue to be very deliberate about our actions," he said. "There's no celebration yet.

"The movement into Baghdad, while important, is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal of this," he continued, "is to bring down a regime. We won't celebrate until we know that's done."

To the south, at the chokepoint of Karbala, previously vigorously defended by Iraqi irregulars, the city was swept by the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne Saturday. One defender with rocket propelled grenades was firing from a building while helicopters circled Saturday.

The assault by Black Hawk helicopters, with supporting Apache attack helicopters, found little widespread resistance in Karbala where days earlier it had been relatively fierce.

Likewise in Basra, far to the south, the 101st Airborne reported light resistance in the middle of the city where stubborn fighting had been taking place all week.

"At this point we're not trying to capture any territory," Thorp said. "This is an effort to move through the heart of the city and destroy any opposition forces we see."

Early Saturday the Pentagon confirmed fears that the unit comrades of rescued maintenance company Pfc. Jessica Lynch had been killed. Eight of the 11 bodies discovered at the hospital from which she was extricated Tuesday were identified as those of U.S. soldiers. All had previously been listed as missing in action.

Also early Saturday, two Marine pilots were killed in the crash of their "Super Cobra" helicopter in central Iraq, apparently the result of some mechanical problem, not hostile fire.

By early Saturday, the Pentagon was listing 75 U.S. soldiers dead in or around Iraq so far, 62 of them the result of hostile fire.

(Reported by Martin Walker in Camp Doha, Kuwait; Richard Tomkins with the 5th Marines at Baghdad; Ghassan al-Kadi in Baghdad, Iraq; Pamela Hess at the Pentagon and William M. Reilly at the United Nations)

Gee, and this from UPI. I don't know what bullshit news sources you use but I'm sure they are all related to the propaganda war waged on America

IP Logged

Proud Veteran
Senior Member

United States
205 posts, Jan 2003

posted 04-05-2003 06:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Proud Veteran     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I can see you've been there too long already David

IP Logged

Proud Veteran
Senior Member

United States
205 posts, Jan 2003

posted 04-05-2003 06:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Proud Veteran     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And this little ditty from the BBC:

US forces raid Baghdad
US tanks and armoured vehicles have launched their first raid into Baghdad city - and fought skirmishes with Iraq's elite Special Republican Guard, US officials say.
Two task forces went up to the Tigris river from the southern outskirts of the city before moving west towards the airport, Major General Victor Renuart told a news briefing at US central command in Doha, Qatar.

General Renuart said the intention was to indicate to the Iraqi leader that coalition forces could move in and out of Baghdad whenever they wished.

Earlier, a US spokesman described the operation as the beginning of "rolling patrols".

BBC correspondents say they have not seen US troops in the centre of Baghdad.

Meanwhile President Saddam Hussein has urged the Iraqi army and people to step up their attacks on US and UK forces, according to a statement read out on state television.

By the way David is that why your eyes are so brown?

IP Logged

This topic is 45 pages long:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
 41 42 43 44 45

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Chemtrail Central

Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c