PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Troops finally bring out a can of WHOOP AZZ!!!


B2chiefsfan
10-01-2004, 04:34 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134150,00.html



SAMARRA, Iraq U.S. and Iraqi forces battled their way into the heart of this Sunni stronghold Friday and moved house to house in search of militants in what appeared to be the first major offensive to regain control of areas lost to insurgents before the January elections. More than 100 guerrillas were killed and 37 captured, according to an Iraqi official. The military said one American soldier was killed and four were wounded.Backed by warplanes and tanks, some 5,000 troops swept in to seize the city hall, the main mosque and other important sites in Samarra (search (http://search.foxnews.com/info.foxnws/redirs_all.htm?pgtarg=wbsdogpile&qcat=web&qkw=Samarra)), leaving only pockets of resistance after more than 12 hours of combat, according to the U.S. military and Iraqi authorities.The city appeared calm late Friday except for American snipers on rooftops firing at anybody appearing in the streets below. Troops ordered residents to stay inside and announced a 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew. Water and electricity services were severed.U.S. forces also clashed with insurgents in Baghdad, where warplanes and tanks attacked militants in the vast slum of Sadr City (search (http://search.foxnews.com/info.foxnws/redirs_all.htm?pgtarg=wbsdogpile&qcat=web&qkw=Sadr%20City)). A hospital director said 12 Iraqis were killed and 11 were wounded. The U.S. military, which maintains casualties are often exaggerated by Iraqi hospital sources, said only one armed insurgent was killed.google_ad_client = 'foxnews_440x100';google_ad_width = 440;google_ad_height = 100;google_ad_format = '440x100_pas_abgn';google_safe = 'high';http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imp.gif?client=ca-foxnews_440x100&dt=1096669836945&adsafe=high&lmt=1096669836&format=440x100_pas_abgn&output=html&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fstory%2F0%2C2933%2C134150%2C00.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2F&u_h=600&u_w=800&u_ah=566&u_aw=800&u_cd=24&u_tz=-300&u_his=5&u_java=true&event=noiframehttp://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/pagead/imp.gif?client=ca-foxnews_440x100&event=noscript
The Americans said they conducted the operation in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, at the request of the Iraqi government. The attack appeared to trumpet the launch of major military operations to wrest other areas of the country from insurgents ahead of general elections.U.S. military officials have signaled they plan to increase incursions into key Iraqi cities this fall partly as a way for the United States to try to pressure insurgents into negotiations with Iraqi officials. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld alluded to this last week when he said insurgencies in the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi can be solved either diplomatically through negotiations, or through force.Also on the list for U.S. military commanders is Sadr City, scene of almost daily clashes and U.S. airstrikes against armed followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr (search (http://search.foxnews.com/info.foxnws/redirs_all.htm?pgtarg=wbsdogpile&qcat=web&qkw=Muqtada%20al-Sadr)).While Sadr City remains a bastion of Iraq's majority Shiite Muslims, Ramadi, Samarra and Fallujah form part of the Sunni heartland, where resistance to the U.S.-backed government has been the fiercest. It is feared that inability to stage balloting in the so-called Sunni Triangle (search (http://search.foxnews.com/info.foxnws/redirs_all.htm?pgtarg=wbsdogpile&qcat=web&qkw=Sunni%20Triangle)) would severely mar, or even invalidate, election results.Analysts in the United States said an offensive into Samarra was also a way to give Iraqi forces some needed combat experience training before they might have to take on Ramadi and Fallujah, which Secretary of State Colin Powell last week called "the tough one."But both Pentagon officials and defense analysts have said a U.S. military offensive into difficult-to-capture cities, like Ramadi and Fallujah, might still be delayed, or avoided altogether, if Baghdad and Washington decide to settle for partial Iraqi participation in elections in January.The U.S. military believes many suicide bomb attacks and kidnappings are launched from Sunni Triangle, especially out of Fallujah, which has seen weeks of "precision strikes" aimed at followers of Jordanian terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search (http://search.foxnews.com/info.foxnws/redirs_all.htm?pgtarg=wbsdogpile&qcat=web&qkw=Abu%20Musab%20al-Zarqawi))."We will spare no effort to clean all the Iraqi lands and cities from these criminals, and we will pave the way through these operations not only for the reconstruction but also for the general elections," Qasim Dawoud, Iraq's minister of state for national security, told a news conference Friday."We are working on the complete clean-up of the city from all those terrorists," Dawoud said, describing Samarra as an "outlaw city" that had spun out of control.The offensive came in response to "repeated and unprovoked attacks by anti-Iraqi forces" against Iraqi and coalition forces, the U.S. military statement said. "Unimpeded access throughout the city for Iraqi security forces and multinational forces is non-negotiable," it said.Samarra had been a "no go" zone for the American forces since May. U.S. forces returned briefly on Sept. 9 under a peace deal brokered by tribal leaders under which U.S. forces agreed to provide millions of dollars in reconstruction funds in exchange for an end to attacks on American and Iraqi troops. But clashes quickly resumed.The assault on Samarra, a city with an estimated population of 250,000 people, began shortly after midnight. Residents cowered in their homes as tanks and warplanes pounded the city. Loud explosions and the crackle of automatic gunfire continued sporadically into the afternoon. Houses were flattened and cars charred.An AH-64 Cobra helicopter was hit by small arms fire but was able to land safely at a coalition base near Samarra, the military said."We are terrified by the violent approach used by the Americans to subdue the city," said Mahmoud Saleh, a 33-year-old civil servant. "I hope that the fighting ends as soon as possible."Many bodies were strewn in the street but could not be collected for fear of American snipers firing from rooftop of high buildings, eyewitnesses said. U.S. troops searched houses in the city's Jubailiya neighborhood and some shooting was heard in west Samarra.U.S. troops blocked most of the roads, preventing residents from fleeing the city although one exit route was still reportedly open. Some residents fled before the attack, but most stayed behind amid news of intense negotiations to solve the crisis peacefully.Smoke rose from an area around the Imam Ali al-Hadi and Imam Hassan al-Askari shrine, raising fears about one of the holiest sites for Shiite Muslims. But the shrine was not damaged and an Iraqi commando unit took the mosque, capturing 25 armed insurgents, said Maj. Neal O'Brien, a spokesman for the 1st Infantry Division."Coalition forces and Iraqi security forces will do everything possible to protect the valuable site from damage," he said.As Iraqi forces secured the Samarra bridge, American soldiers saw insurgents in speedboats loading ordnance on the banks of the Tigris River, the military said. Soldiers fired warning shots and the insurgents returned fire, prompting U.S. forces to destroy the boats, killing their occupants, a statement said.Dawoud said more than 100 insurgents were killed in the fighting and 37 others captured, including members of Saddam Hussein's (search (http://search.foxnews.com/info.foxnws/redirs_all.htm?pgtarg=wbsdogpile&qcat=web&qkw=Saddam%20Hussein)) deposed regime. No foreign Arab fighters were taken captive, he said.Dr. Khalid Ahmed said at least 80 bodies and more than 100 wounded were brought to Samarra General Hospital, but it was not immediately clear how many were insurgents. The hospital was running out of supplies, Ahmed said.The operation involved about 3,000 soldiers of the U.S. 1st Infantry Division along with 2,000 members of the Iraqi army and Iraqi National Guard.During the Samarra push, soldiers of the 1st Infantry Division rescued a kidnapped Turkish construction worker who was being held in the city. He was identified as Yahlin Kaya, an employee of the 77 Construction Company in Samarra.

Demonpenz
10-01-2004, 04:42 PM
lets see bush try to spin this one!

Rausch
10-01-2004, 04:50 PM
WooWoo

Demonpenz
10-01-2004, 04:51 PM
go chiefs

Mr. Laz
10-01-2004, 05:41 PM
The military said one American soldier was killed and four were wounded.
i'm sorry... but this is all i see


another american soldier dying on foreign soldier for dubious reasons


(no this isn't a bush thing)


but is taking any of these citys worth a single(american) life???

Brock
10-01-2004, 05:44 PM
but is taking any of these citys worth a single(american) life???

Was liberating France?

Mr. Laz
10-01-2004, 05:55 PM
Was liberating France?
so Saddam whoosane = Hitler

the Military Action in Iraq = World War II

???




and haven't we already caught hitler.... err whoosane?

Hel'n
10-01-2004, 06:06 PM
so Saddam whoosane = Hitler

the Military Action in Iraq = World War II

???




and haven't we already caught hitler.... err whoosane?

Wait... this is all getting so political... ewwwww....


For the record, Germany declared war on us after we declared war on Japan for Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor...

We did not "preemptively" attack Germany...

Rain Man
10-01-2004, 06:09 PM
but is taking any of these citys worth a single(american) life???

I guess it depends on how many Americans would be kidnapped and beheaded if they didn't take the cities.

Mr. Laz
10-01-2004, 06:19 PM
I guess it depends on how many Americans would be kidnapped and beheaded if they didn't take the cities.


true...


i dont know... i just dont like american soldiers dying on foreign soil for dubious reasons.




better stop this thread before it gets moved though

Slayer Diablo
10-01-2004, 11:01 PM
true...


i dont know... i just dont like american soldiers dying on foreign soil for dubious reasons.




better stop this thread before it gets moved though

Well, wait...we're not necessarily talking p**iti*s, just basic morals of war. Now tell me, are the regular citizens who we are doing this for not human? Do they not deserve liberty? And if you do believe that indeed they do deserve liberty, how would their malnourished-selves gain it, or at least the supplies to gain it, without help? Now tell me, how can there be a doubt in your mind that a helpless country that had been under a tyranical rule that piled its citizens into mass graves deserves our help gaining liberty? And how can there be a doubt in your mind that such a deserving country also deserves our aid in order to make sure this doesn't happen again? That the terrorists don't go in, do the same thing Saddam did, then "thank" the United States with another 9/11 or something even worse? Human life is fragile and unique; however, the end of one or even a thousand human lives to create millions more and give those millions of human lives a chance at liberty and the persuit of happiness is truely an understandable and honorable price to pay, for we in America and all the other free nations of the world have had our chance...we live, we provide input...and yet many have one reason or another for not wanting to save millions of future lives by risking our own. Is it fear of the afterlife? Is it selfishness? Is it both? Whatever the reason is, it gives those who would risk their lives, or give their life entirely, a sense of honor. Would it be an honor if it were the norm? Yes, but it would be overlooked all too often because everyone would do it...everyone would be in the army...everyone would stand up to rush the terrorist bastage who dares to attempt a hijack rather than sitting there and calling family members while watching the horrible deed carry on...everyone would run into the burning house to rescue neighbors and extinguish th fire...it would be, in simplicity, a utopia.

I hope you find that to be a good enough reason for why we're over there.

alanm
10-01-2004, 11:21 PM
i'm sorry... but this is all i see


another american soldier dying on foreign soldier for dubious reasons


(no this isn't a bush thing)


but is taking any of these citys worth a single(american) life???I'd rather play the game on their home field before they bring the game back to the US.
Dubious reasons? Oh that's right it's all about the oil. No wonder it's gone over $50 a barrel this week.:rolleyes:

Rausch
10-02-2004, 01:45 AM
Was liberating France?

I think that's what finally made us realize Hitler was nucking futs. Anyone who thinks that Jewish blood is worthless and France is somewhere you want to be... :shake:

That guy needs to be shot.

Hel'n
10-02-2004, 01:53 AM
Well, wait...we're not necessarily talking p**iti*s, just basic morals of war. Now tell me, are the regular citizens who we are doing this for not human? Do they not deserve liberty? And if you do believe that indeed they do deserve liberty, how would their malnourished-selves gain it, or at least the supplies to gain it, without help? Now tell me, how can there be a doubt in your mind that a helpless country that had been under a tyranical rule that piled its citizens into mass graves deserves our help gaining liberty? And how can there be a doubt in your mind that such a deserving country also deserves our aid in order to make sure this doesn't happen again? That the terrorists don't go in, do the same thing Saddam did, then "thank" the United States with another 9/11 or something even worse? Human life is fragile and unique; however, the end of one or even a thousand human lives to create millions more and give those millions of human lives a chance at liberty and the persuit of happiness is truely an understandable and honorable price to pay, for we in America and all the other free nations of the world have had our chance...we live, we provide input...and yet many have one reason or another for not wanting to save millions of future lives by risking our own. Is it fear of the afterlife? Is it selfishness? Is it both? Whatever the reason is, it gives those who would risk their lives, or give their life entirely, a sense of honor. Would it be an honor if it were the norm? Yes, but it would be overlooked all too often because everyone would do it...everyone would be in the army...everyone would stand up to rush the terrorist bastage who dares to attempt a hijack rather than sitting there and calling family members while watching the horrible deed carry on...everyone would run into the burning house to rescue neighbors and extinguish th fire...it would be, in simplicity, a utopia.

I hope you find that to be a good enough reason for why we're over there.

My take on it is, if the oppressed won't fight for their own liberty, then they don't want it bad enough... If you're willing to fight for liberty, then I have no problem with us helping. But if we're INSERTING liberty to a people who won't even fight for it, well, it's none of our business...

As Washington once said, "Beware of foreign entanglements."

Rausch
10-02-2004, 01:57 AM
My take on it is, if the oppressed won't fight for their own liberty, then they don't want it bad enough... If you're willing to fight for liberty, then I have no problem with us helping.

If you rememeber correctly we did offer to help them. Then we decided, um.......nah.

A couple people over there died because of that. I don't blame them for not jumping right up to fight when we said we REALLY MEAN it this time.

Slayer Diablo
10-02-2004, 08:36 AM
My take on it is, if the oppressed won't fight for their own liberty, then they don't want it bad enough... If you're willing to fight for liberty, then I have no problem with us helping. But if we're INSERTING liberty to a people who won't even fight for it, well, it's none of our business...

As Washington once said, "Beware of foreign entanglements."

As Rausch said, we offered help then turned away so they could fight their own "revolution", and some of them died as a result. And as I said in my previous post, they are rather malnourished without the proper weapons and supplies for a war. Can you really think that they would be able to sum up enough willpower to go for it? America's always had it easy...look at our revolution for instance: we had the guns, spirit, and enough food...after the British surrendered at Saratoga, the French provided supplies and money so we'd have an even better chance at winning. The people in Iraq who had those conditions were mostly terrorists and Saddam loyalists who wouldn't even dream of changing their dictatorship. And even if the Iraqi people could win, what of their post-war conditions? What would defend them from the terrorists who poured into the country or their neighboring countries turning it into more states for themselves? After we defeated the British, there was an undeveloped Canada to the north, the buffer state of Georgia to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and weakened Indian tribes to the west...yeah, we were pretty well off geographically speaking. Once again, Iraq wouldn't be that well off...they've got Turkey, Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Iran, and Kuwait surrounding them...and Iraq has VERY valuable land that has been fought over since the first civilizations were established. Sumeria, Babylon, Persia, Alexander the Great's Empire, etc...plus I'm sure that I'm missing a few in between those.

alanm
10-02-2004, 09:09 AM
My take on it is, if the oppressed won't fight for their own liberty, then they don't want it bad enough... If you're willing to fight for liberty, then I have no problem with us helping. But if we're INSERTING liberty to a people who won't even fight for it, well, it's none of our business...

As Washington once said, "Beware of foreign entanglements."And Patrick Henry said. "I know not what course others may take. But as for me, Give me liberty or give me death!!" So what's your point Hel'n? :hmmm:

Hel'n
10-02-2004, 09:44 AM
And Patrick Henry said. "I know not what course others may take. But as for me, Give me liberty or give me death!!" So what's your point Hel'n? :hmmm:

My point was quite clear. Patrick Henry fought for HIS liberty and HIS country's liberty... He did NOT fight for Iraq's liberty...

PHOG
10-02-2004, 10:00 AM
"Some residents fled before the attack"....

:hmmm: I hope they detained every last one of them...

Wondering why these "residents" would have prior or exclusive

knowledge, and be able to leave while others were not. :shrug:

alanm
10-02-2004, 10:05 AM
My point was quite clear. Patrick Henry fought for HIS liberty and HIS country's liberty... He did NOT fight for Iraq's liberty...But that's just it Hel'n. Iraqi's are standing up and fighting for their country. On both sides. But the majority siding with the U.S. Only the United States versions of Pravda and Isvestia in the media don't bother to tell you that little story sidebar. That would be a positive and uplifting thing to be made aware of. And we'll have none of that cheery outlook. But look!... Their blowing up kids being handed candy over there!! Film at 11. :shake:

Hel'n
10-02-2004, 10:08 AM
But that's just it Hel'n. Iraqi's are standing up and fighting for their country. On both sides. But the majority siding with the U.S. Only the United States versions of Pravda and Isvestia in the media don't bother to tell you that little story sidebar. That would be a positive and uplifting thing to be made aware of. And we'll have none of that cheery outlook. But look!... Their blowing up kids being handed candy over there!! Film at 11. :shake:


If they are, then hurrah for them. Most of the news accounts have not shown Iraqi's standing up for themselves, or else the insurgents would not stand a chance...

Demonpenz
10-02-2004, 10:29 AM
no blood for oil

BigOlChiefsfan
10-02-2004, 02:00 PM
Appointment in Samarra (http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/10/appointment-in-samarra-and.html)

The International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/541693.html) describes the brigade plus attack on Samarra by US and Iraqi government forces. The objective of the operation was to establish government control after the city council had been disbanded under insurgent threat. Samarra is a city of 200,000 on the Tigris river about 120 kilometers north-northwest of Baghdad. It was the capital of the Abbasid caliphate in the 9th century, when palaces and gardens stretched for 30 kilometers along the river. That history is recalled in numerous archaeological relics whose massive construction make it a potential offensive nightmare. The Great Friday Mosque with its spiral minaret, for example, covers nearly 40,000 square meters -- four hectares, or about 9 acres -- with walls 35 feet high and walls nearly 9 feet thick. It is also the site of a replica of the the Imam Ali Mosque of Najaf, holy to Shi'ites, excepting that it is domed in blue tiles, but with the potential, like its southern counterpart, to become a massive redoubt.

The International Herald Tribune reports that an overnight assault by four American and two Iraqi battalions (for reference note that a division has about 10 battalions) took 80% of the city, killing 100 insurgents outright, and capturing the Shi'ite mosque, the city hall and a pharmaceutical factory site. The assault on the mosque itself was carried out by the Iraqi army in its first major public debut.

In a later statement, the military said that members of 36th Iraqi Commando Battalion had secured the historic Golden Mosque, a sacred Shiite shrine, to safeguard it from insurgents. They also captured 25 rebels at the mosque with weapons, the military said.

Details added by the Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/02/wirq02.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/02/ixnewstop.html) suggests the force had specific objectives when they began the operation. "An Iraqi spokesman said 37 insurgents were captured. During the push, soldiers of the US 1st Infantry Division rescued Yahlin Kaya, a Turkish building worker being held hostage in the city." Remaining resistance appears to be centered on the old city.

American and Iraqi troops backed by tanks and armored vehicles pushed through Samarra's old city as insurgents unleashed mortar attacks and rocket-propelled grenades from the rooftops. ... Apache attack helicopters circled the area, firing rockets at rooftops where insurgents hid as soldiers fought street by street. Several buildings were destroyed. One resident said 10 per cent of the houses in the old city had been destroyed.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the operation was that such a huge force of Americans and Iraqis achieved tactical surprise. "When the 3,500 US troops and Iraqi forces launched the attack they appeared to catch the insurgents by surprise." Reports suggest the insurgents were caught flat-footed.

Guerrillas were seen unloading weapons and ammunition from two speedboats on the Tigris in the town, the military said. Troops opened fire and destroyed the boats. The US military said troops destroyed several mortar sites, rocket-propelled grenade teams and guerrilla vehicles as they closed in on the mosque in the city center.

The fact that the First Infantry Division and the Iraqi Army were able to keep the approach of multi-battalion forces secret from the enemy in the heart of the Sunni triangle is one of the most impressive aspects of this operation. The insurgents were surprised in a stronghold where they could expect to enjoy every intelligence advantage. Nearly as impressive was the lightning seizure of the Shi'ite shrine by the 36th Iraqi Commando battalion. If this feat were achieved in Najaf two month's earlier it would have been the equivalent of Allawi capturing Moqtada al-Sadr and his high command in their underpants. In fact, the entire multinational operation implies a degree of coordination, command and control that speaks volumes about the degree of improvement of the Iraqi Army.

But many difficulties still remain. The "Telegraph" points out the obvious one. Will the victory last?

"Less than three weeks ago the US military entered the troubled city to reinstate its city council, which had disbanded earlier under terrorist threat. Although this was hailed as a great success at the time, insurgents quickly returned and cowed local forces when US forces left."

In that respect the earlier American operation in Samarra resembled any Israeli Defense Force incursion into Gaza or the West Bank -- overwhelming but temporary. In fact, any all-American incursion into Falluja would probably have shared the same temporary character. But the American commitment to building a new Iraqi Army and Iraqi State is the bearing strategic fruit which provides the crucial difference. Imagine if the Israeli Defense Forces and a Palestinian Government Force could jointly seize a terrorist stronghold and then garrison it with a Palestinian Force. What if they could seize and hold? This is what American and Iraqi forces are achieving in Samarra; this is what can be done in October that could not be achieved in April, 2004. The view that Iraq is descending into a quagmire represents a valid concern, but it ignores three crucial achievements by US policymakers.

The piecemeal defeat of the threatened Sunni-Shi'ite uprising in April by holding the Sunnis fixed while militarily and politically defeating Moqtada Al-Sadr; Rebuilding the Iraqi Army from a near-zero condition in April; and Establishing an interim Iraqi government. Both Saddam and Sadr believed they could outmaneuver the Americans, who were, if the press is to be believed, singularly lacking in nuance and intelligence. Doubtless Zarqawi believes he can do the same. Long may he cherish that hope.