Collateral Damage...!!

[Ofiicial]

so...the 'friendly war' against Saddam is off and running and coalition forces are steaming towards Baghdad....great stuff....

 

the body bags are however rising....officially now 40 dead or MIA but probably nearer 100 I am reliably informed....the guardianistas will be laughing in their carrot soup today....''we told you so'' will be the cry....'insane' says the 'looney left'....'poor iraqi people' say the harringay lesbian and gay rights association.....

 

fact is....we will lose 100's more coalition troops unless bush and blair stop flapping around with this lot and instead of trying to mitigate damage to civilians and infrastructure...just take the lot out and reduce the risk of danger to our troops.....

 

there is plenty of talk about 'our brave girls and boys'...rightly so....when will the idiots who started it get around to understanding that they need protecting as well and the best way to do that is to let them do their jobs...unhampered and in the way that they have been trained....take out the iraqi armies....full force and firepower...

 

of course there will be civilian casualties and of course buildings will be destroyed.....so what....did they think that the iraqi's would welcome us into their country after we shafted the iraqi opposition leaders in '91....get real politicians...let our troops do the dirty work that war brings......it'll boil down to a free for all in the end anyway......never mind about mitigating collateral damage....mitigate coalition losses.....some of us have kids out there....blair and bush obviously don't......

[Big J R]

Collateral Damage ?

 

Friendly Fire ?

 

Its been around in all wars since time started. I'm afraid S*IT happens, as they say.

 

I understand the latest 'politically correct' description is,

 

BLUE ON BLUE. (What the hell is that supposed to mean !)

[Badger]

Can anyone tell me of an attack involving a quarter of a million troops that has suffered less casualties in the opening few days?

 

Blue on blue I guess is a term used from the wargames the armies play during peace time - blue army versus red army, that sort of thing. Either that or on the screens the military uses, friendly units show up as blue.

[Ofiicial]

'sh*t' does happen and we know that...but already coalition troops have died because of the 'mitigation'....when you send troops to war...they need to be able to fight....no point in sending them otherwise....ever seen a friendly punch up in the pub on a friday night...?

 

this will end up as another mini vietnam unless the coalition troops are allowed to carry out their jobs....a soldiers words... not mine...I agree....there is a saying in the army...''politicians cost lives''....to bloody true....

 

now we're there...do the job properly... kick shi* out of 'em and get out quickly....

 

just on another point...is it my imagination or are most of the news reports now repeats and have earlier up to the minute live reports diminished somewhat..

[Badger]

There quite simply isn't enough news to keep the 24 hour news services running, so they are churning out repeated news items. This makes the loss of one life become a major news item. Sad though the loss is, those in the military would count it as an expected result of war. You kind of expect losses when people start shooting things. But the media forces it into being something much bigger than it is, thus changing peoples perceptions and expectations.

 

So, to put it another way:

Yes, the news reports are mostly repeats.

[Ofiicial]

to make myself clear badger...I have long since come to terms with the risks involved of having a son in a front line regiment...I don't want to sound like a nervous parent cos I'm not (although we are human and of course we are aware of the downside)

 

I was against this war in the first place...not because Saddam's regime isn't worthy of total wipeout but why pick on him.....he's just one of a dozen who deservedly should 'get it'....if we're going to be consistent...there's a nasty bunch just across the irish sea that someone should have sorted out years ago......plenty of others as well to numerous to bother mentioning....

 

my concern is the restrictions that are being placed on our service men and women which undoubtedly is increasing the risk of coalition casualties.....

 

blue on blue is friend firing on friend by the way....bit like an own goal we had on saturday....keep the faith...

 

 

[Badger]

I think it was me who was being ambiguous. I hate the way that the current situation is portrayed in the media, and jumped at the opportunity to make my point, although it was in a thread that wasn't really designed for it. Sorry for any confusion caused.

[Ofiicial]

I hate the media full stop...I expect that most visitors to these forums have sussed that out by now...even our local papers reporting of our matches would have most impartials believe that we play in the dog and duck league......(mind you...looked like it an'all on saturday)...

 

nothing wrong with a bit of ambiguity mate....served me well for over 50 years.....

 

just another strange thing about this current fandango....when did allied troops ever have to fight an enemy and then leave their flag flying over hard won territory....madness...total madness.....

 

I do understand the political issues...but....

[CANV EFM]

maximum violence... i believe that is the term..

harsh tho it seems 'official' is almost certainly correct.. if the 'coalition' want the result they need then its better to go large now and worry about the crap later rather than dick around the edges.. get the job done and get the U.N. in to moniter the peace.. maybe some french peacekeepers dealing with the snipers and suicde bombers (the ultimate irony)

[Ofiicial]

sorry to go on about this but it has really got me into taz mode....(nice to hear from you again Canv......and make sure you finish you're job off tonight by the way....we've got an interest in that).......

 

the whole concept of issuing orders to coalition troops to 'mitigate' casualties is flying in the face of all known military strategies (succesful ones)...get in...kill everyone..... destroy everything....and get out is the only way....thats what I'm saying....by doing so we 'mitigate' the only thing that's important.....coalition lives....Fcku the iraqi infrastructure.....they'll destroy it themselves anyway as we get nearer to allied objectives....

 

everyone knows that the rebuilding of iraq is one of the trophies anyway....why bother.......

 

like the idea about the french forces by the way...nice one....

[AFF]

Do you really believe that cr@p, Official?

 

If so, you need help, old chap.

[Ofiicial]

yes I do believe it AFF...and so do 250,000 coalition troops who are up to their arses in sand storms and hostile fire...tell them its crap next time you bump into a Marine or a Para in the pub.....

 

tell the bereaved parents of those killed in the 'line of duty' that its all crap as well while you're at it.....

[AFF]

Calm down, old chap, calm down.

 

Try to understand that it's one thing to support the Allied forces in the Gulf and to hope and pray for a swift victory with as few deaths as possible.

 

It is quite another thing to seriously suggest that the Armed Forces should go in and wipe out everything in the country including any person who cannot repeat the "God Save The Queen" verbatim.

 

I think you will find that Cromwell tried that in Ireland and, as they say, the rest is History.

[Badger]

I think the problem is that the military are trained to carry out military operations, not political ones. That means that the troops on the ground aren't able to conduct operations in the way they need to, an dend up getting blamed for it when the political objectives aren't met.

[Ofiicial]

I am always calm my friend and I am not offended by your opinion...we are all entitled to one without recourse or rancour.....what I was actually trying to say was that the nature of the instructions being given to our troops is actually endangering their lives...there is no argument there..its a fact....it therefore follows that the only argument that can come out of my statement is this....

 

Can we justify the unmitagated and perilous position that our troops are being placed in on the grounds that the Politicians seek not to offend various parties who have an interest in the post war future of Iraq...

 

my opinion is no we can't justify it and it therefore follows that I believe that we should therefore end the war as quickly as possible......I've already stated how that should be done.....there is only one way......

 

Badger said that people do get hurt when guns start firing...absolutely true......so how can we mitigate iraqi casualties and protect our own....we can't......

 

I admit to being somewhat 'to the right' with my own politics but do not and would never condone the wanton taking of human life...but when you fight....you have to fight to win at all costs or you lose....

 

sorry to be so long winded but hopefully I have explained myself...no offence meant and non taken....

[Badger]

Quote:

but when you fight....you have to fight to win at all costs or you lose....

If something's worth fighting over, it's worth winning.

It would indeed be lovely if Allied and Iraqi casualties are kept to a minimum. This won't happen though, unless Hussein is toppled from within, and I can't see that happening.

[AFF]

Well.

 

Badger.

 

Allied and Iraqi casualties will be kept to a minimum.

It's just a question of ones own definition of minimum.

 

Secondly, you refer to troops on the ground being 'blamed' if political objectives aren't met. Blamed by whom? For me, every drop of blood spilt in this war is on the hands of the two lunatics.

 

Official.

 

Hmmn.

 

I think that we will end up in disagreement, but your view is not worth contemplation when you digress into sweeping statements regarding the situation in Ireland, largely caused by 600 years of English mis-rule in any event. Let's leave that one for another day.

 

You are concerned for the Allied troops, both objectively and subjectively, I don't doubt. However, you surely can't suggest that Bush and Blair should go to their respective Chiefs of Staff and say:

 

"We have an increasingly nasty problem in Iraq...blah...blah...weapons of mass distraction.....9/11.....international Terrorism....Kurds.....Shiites.....Oil....blah...blah. We have to rid the world of Saddam. You're paid to deal with this sort of thing. Go in and sort it out, and let us know when it's done"

 

And then the Brass say "O.K. Leave it to us. We'll go in and wipe the place off the face of the earth and everyone in it"

 

And that's all right?

 

I have to say that while I don't believe that there is just cause for this war [but at the same time, I support the Allied forces out there, now], if something happened to change my view, I consider that the general approach taken: minimum damage to infrastructure, minimum civilian casualties; has to be the right way, surely.

 

This is no game, of course, and with apologies for the analogy, you should have sight of the 'long game'.

 

 

 

[Ofiicial]

My view may not be worthy of contemplation by you or others AFF but it is nontheless my view.....the irish situation as a political issue is certainly best kept away from I agree but it doesn't alter the fact that it was still a problem worthy of being dealt with equally if not more so than the threat from Iraq...... but it never was....on that issue of 600 years of english misrule....possibly ...but who on earth do you think carved up the Iraqi / Arab headlands then after world war 1.....

 

no prizes for the right answer there then....

 

with respect to your opinion on these issues...it still seems that you are missing my original point.....regardless of our individual views on this war.....it is happening and because of political interference and National self interest....our young troops are being compromised in the battle fields and many of them will die needlessly before the politicians realise that there is no way to wage war with 'mitigation' to enemy casualties and infrastructure damage and eventually give the order to the field commanders for a 'free for all' (which...I believe has already happened which is why all press coverage is now being monitored....censored and time lapsed)..... (officially 750 Iraqis dead in Najaf and the count still rising...I am informed that its over a 1000.... maybe more...)

 

not much mitigation there then........

 

do we value an Iraqi life more than a coalition life because it causes more outrage amongst the guardianistas and looney lefties......not in my book we don't.....but that's an opinion that surely exists.....

 

extreme maybe...I accept that... but nonetheless....get the job done and get the troops home....whatever it takes....let the UN mop it all up....they after all started the whole fiasco with their toothless resolutions in the first place.....

 

last comment in this post just to give you more food for thought....who goes to the Gulf first...Bush or Blair...and when.....?

[AFF]

As to your last comment, Official, I suspect neither, ever. Apparently the Arab League has voted by 24 countries to 1 to declare the Allied action unlawful.

 

Your main point appears to be that, regardless of the rights or wrongs of being there in the first place, Allied troops are in an un-necessarily greater level of danger as they have been ordered to, for want of better words, use minimum force. You go on to suggest that the 'primary' objective of removing Saddam from power could be achieved faster with less risk to the Allied forces if they are not required to act under these restraints.

 

Stripped of some of the more extreme language, that's it, isn't it?

 

If only life were so black and white, Official.

 

You suggest that the U.N. should deal with the consequences. The consequences. If society has learned anything from the last 1000 years, it should be that once the war has been won, it is essential to win the peace. The diplomatic efforts to avoid war, the grounds for war in the first place, and the basis upon which the war is fought are all factors in determining the outcome of the fight for peace that must follow.

 

 

[Ofiicial]

what extreme language...I thought I was being quite polite about the whole debate...cor blimey AFF.....you wanna hear me around the boardroom table...

 

only joking....!!!!

 

yes you have got my point....the rights and wrongs of the whole fandango are actually irrelevant because we are there....simply put...do the job...worry about ourselves first and foremost whilst we're doing it and then get the hell out of there....

 

as to making the peace after the war.....having read your views with interest....you are not that naive...

 

there will be no peace in the middle east...especially Iraq because when the borders were...'strategically revised'...by the British after the first world war....there was no consideration given to tribal or religeous issues.... so whatever happens you'll only get another majority party....ie a dictatorship....same as you have in every other arab country....nothing will change except that Saddam will be replaced by.....say....Abdul....if history has taught us anything it is surely the truth of that.....

 

pity really because it is a beautiful country in parts and steeped in ancient history....(it is the place of the creation of Adam and Eve we are told...!!!).....and the peoples are.... for the most part... decent and wanting to just get on with their lives.....

 

did you see Bush on the box this afternoon.....addressing the troops in Florida...great performance....

 

'we are the saviours of the Iraqi people...we are the arbitrators of peace and we will be the sword of justice to the war criminals of Iraq.....'

 

right then....got all that....in the meantime get the job done and get those troops out of there....there's a few criminals in the states and over here that could do with a little 'sword of justice'....

 

have a good night...