Free Republic

I'm not so sure that that is mud...
Once again, these soldiers go places I wouldn't dare!

Dear Sir:

Obviously, you are a veteran of the Vietnam War.

I was a young boy at the time, I remember only some things.

One in particular was how wrong it felt that the people around me didn't support our troops.

The images of the protesters being "less than civil" (putting it mildly) to our returning forces are a permanent part of me.

I was too young to stop them then, but I promise you that I won't ever be quiet about such things again. Maybe in some small way, that makes up for a tiny fraction of the pain that you and the other men suffered at the hands of those anti-Americans. Maybe not.

But please take from me an honest apology for such treatment; you deserved so much better.

Thank You.

PS: I've enjoyed your posts!
Bruce.

"The problem the Arab tyrants have is a that their population is overwhelmingly young, under 25 and they aren't buying into the crap."

I know that's true, bgut in sufficient numbers to make a diffeence (i.e. enough to force the ruling class to change, because they aren't going to do so volentarily!).

(I just got this from Drudge. The Arabs just don't get it)

Arabs Shocked, Relieved at Baghdad's Fall
2 hours, 22 minutes ago

By DONNA ABU-NASR, Associated Press Writer

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - The fall of Baghdad provoked shock and disbelief Wednesday among Arabs, who expressed hope that other oppressive regimes would crumble but also disappointment that Saddam Hussein did not put up a better fight against America.

Why did he fall that way? Why so fast?" said Yemeni homemaker Umm Ahmed, tears streaming down her face. "He's a coward. Now I feel sorry for his people."

Arabs clustered at TV sets in shop windows, coffee shops, kitchens and offices to watch the astounding pictures of U.S. troops overwhelming an Arab capital for the first time ever.

Feeling betrayed and misled, some turned off their sets in disgust when jubilant crowds in Baghdad celebrated the arrival of U.S. troops.

"We discovered that all what the (Iraqi) information minister was saying was all lies," said Ali Hassan, a government employee in Cairo, Egypt. "Now no one believes Al-Jazeera anymore."

In a live report from Baghdad, correspondent Shaker Hamed of Abu Dhabi Television said:"We are all in shock. How did things come to such an end? How did U.S. tanks enter the center of the city? Where is the resistance? This collapse is puzzling. Was it the result of the collapse of communications between the commanders? Between the political leadership? How come Baghdad falls so easily."

Mohammed al-Shahhal, a 49-year-old teacher in Tripoli, Lebanon, said the scenes reminded him of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

"Those who applauded the collapse of Lenin's statue for some Pepsi and hamburgers felt the hunger later on and regretted what they did," al-Shahhal said.

However, Tannous Basil, a 47-year-old cardiologist in Sidon, Lebanon, said Saddam's regime was a "dictatorship and had to go."

"I don't like the idea of having the Americans here, but we asked for it," he said. "Why don't we see the Americans going to Finland, for example? They come here because our area is filled with dictatorships like Saddam's."

Tarek al-Absi, a Yemeni university professor, was hopeful Saddam's end presaged more democracy in the region.

"This is a message for the Arab regimes, and could be the beginning of transformation in the Arab region," al-Absi said. "Without the honest help of the Western nations, the reforms will not take place in these countries."

The overwhelming emotions for many Arabs were disbelief or disillusionment after weeks of hearing Saddam's government pledge a "great victory" or fight to the death against "infidel invaders."

"We Arabs are clever only at talking," Haitham Baghdadi, 45, said bitterly in Damascus, Syria. "Where are the Iraqi weapons? Where are the Iraqi soldiers?"

Many resorted to conspiracy theories to explain the rapid collapse.

"There must have been treason," said Ahmed Salem Batmira, an Omani political analyst.

"It seems there was some deal. Saddam has put himself ahead of his people," said Yemeni government employee Saad Salem el-Faqih, 50.

Three men having tea and smoking in a coffee shop in Riyadh were unsettled as they watched the TV — even though they said they were against Saddam and felt sorry for the long-suffering Iraqis.

"I can't say that I'm happy about what's going on because these are non-Muslim forces that have gone in and I hope they will not stay," said Mohammed al-Sakkaf, a 58-year-old businessman.

Many said they were disturbed by images of U.S. troops lounging in Saddam's palaces or draping the U.S. flag around the head of a Saddam statue.

"Liberation is nobler than that," said Walid Abdul-Rahman, one of the three Saudis. "They should not be so provocative."

In Jordan, hotel receptionist Wissam Fakhoury, 28, said he was disappointed in the Baghdad crowds.

"I spit on them," he said. "Do those crowds who are saluting the Americans believe that the United States will let them live better?" Fakhoury said. Americans "will loot their oil and control their resources, leaving them nothing."

Bahraini physician Hassan Fakhro, 62, said he was saddened.

"Whatever I'm seeing is very painful because although Saddam Hussein was a dictator, he represented some kind of Arab national resistance to the foreign invaders — the Americans and the British," Fakhro said.

After an anti-war march in Khartoum, Sudan, lawyer Ali Al-Sayed said U.S. troops should not misinterpret the relief as an invitation to stay.

"Those people under oppression will not have any national feeling, so they will be happy to see someone removing a dictator and liberating them," al-Sayed said. "But the moment they feel free and liberated, they will not tolerate a foreign presence."

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, an uncomfortable U.S. ally in the war, said the quickest way to achieve stability now would be for U.S. troops to withdraw. "Iraqis must take control over of their country as fast as possible," Mubarak told Egypt's official news agency, MENA.

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud, looking upset at a news conference, called for a quick end to Iraq's "occupation." In a rare departure from diplomacy, Saud responded to a question about Arab anger toward the United States with: "I don't want to talk about anger if you don't mind today."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&u=/ap/20030409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_arabs_4&printer=1

"The sooner we rid the world of the likes of Al Jazeera and Leftist-Press,(wankers) the sooner we can get back to all "GETTING ALONG""

Absolutely correct.

As a whole, the Arab people are fed anti-American lies everyday of their lives, much of it from the Arab-press in countries that are supposed to be our friends! Bottom line; time to start playing hardball with these "friends."

BTW: I heard a report last night (I think it was on FOX News) that Saddam had several major Arab paper editors on his payroll! One example was the primary Egyptian paper! The report went on to say that these editors were paid to make sure that the papers printed favorable stories about him.

"you're a little late to be telling..."

Fine, and no this is not my first post on the subject - I'm not jumping on it to be "cool."

I just wanted to remind everyone to make the effort to say thanks PERSONALLY - when we see members of our armed forces in society (like in stores, gas stations, airports, gatherings, etc...)

I know that there have been times that I missed the chance to say something, felt ebarressed or too busy etc...

But now, I know I'm going to try harder.

Just a quick thought, in addition to sending our troops emails at:
http://www.operationdearabby.net/
and care packages, phone cards (so they can call home), etc.

DON'T FORGET to try to go out of your way to say "thank you" any chance you get (now and in the future) when you see our service men and women out and about. Just a brief but heartfelt "thanks, we are proud of you" can make a world of difference to these folks, and to help them know that it was worth it!

More links for supporting our troops:
http://www.companycommand.com/links/pages/Support_Combat_Troops/

"CNN : Arab TV is reporting massive explosions in the eastern sections of Baghdad"
"sounds right... the BagCam is pointed east."

1st Marines?!?

"Was it an accident or did we mean to bomb it"

U.S. FORCES BLOW UP IRAQI PIPELINE TO SYRIA

(portion of story follows)

ABU DHABI [MENL] -- U.S. special operations forces are said to have blown up an Iraqi pipeline that delivered more than 200,000 barrels of oil a day to Syria.

The Kuwaiti Al Rai Al Aam daily reported on Wednesday that U.S. forces sabotaged the Iraqi oil pipeline to Syria last week in an operation in northwestern Iraq. The newspaper quoted U.S. sources as saying the forces also blew up a railroad link between Iraq and Syria.

Until the start of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, Syria obtained 250,000 barrels of oil per day through two pipelines that stemmed from the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk. One pipeline reached the Syrian port of Banyas for export. The other provided oil directly to the Syrian national energy grid.

The U.S. sources said the destruction of the main pipeline came amid a warning by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for a halt to Syrian military supplies to the regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The newspaper reported that on Monday the pumping station on the Iraqi side of the pipeline had broken down.

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2003/april/04_03_2.html

"I don't think I will ever understand the Russians. Interesting links, mostly lies. Nothing has changed in Russia it appears."

I understand and agree.

It must be difficult for them, but that doesn't excuse what they've been doing...

There are some interesting items on that Russian site, worth seeing how they see things in any event:

Main:
http://www.iraqwar.ru/?userlang=en

News:
http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-news_lenta_d.php?archdts=2&lang=en

Analysis:
http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-analiz_lenta_w.php?archdts=2&lang=en

Polls:
http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-old_polls.php?lang=en

Etc...

Analysis: Russia advises Iraq on U.S. plan
By Martin Sieff
UPI Senior News Analyst
From the International Desk
Published 4/1/2003 3:39 PM

WASHINGTON, April 1 (UPI) -- Russian military advisers have told Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his government that the main Allied drive on Baghdad will not take place until mid-April and will then come around the west of the city, Russian journalists and analysts with strong links to Russian military intelligence now claim.

Strikingly, the Russian analysts, whose work appears on the iraqwar.ru Web site, believe that U.S. and Allied forces are still overwhelmingly likely to win the war and that they are performing in a highly impressive manner. The reports are described as "based on the Russian military intelligence -- the Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU -- reports."

A March 31 report on the site revealed that Iraq was receiving analytical advice from Russian officials. "Russian military analysts are advising the Iraqi military command against excessive optimism," it said.

The Russian analysts stated that "There is no question that the U.S. 'blitzkrieg' failed to take control of Iraq and to destroy its army. It is clear that the Americans got bogged down in Iraq and that the military campaign hit a snag."

But they then went on to caution the Iraqis, "The Iraq command is now in danger of underestimating the enemy. For there is no reason to question the resolve of the Americans and their determination to reach the set goal -- complete occupation of Iraq."

And they continued, "Despite some obvious miscalculations and errors of the coalition's high command, the (Allied) troops that have entered Iraq maintain high combat readiness and are willing to fight. The initiative in the war remains firmly in the hands of the coalition."

Indeed, in a March 30 report the Russian analysts predicted, "The coalition is already planning a new large scale operation that will utilize the new forces currently being deployed in the region."

Russian intelligence believed "this large scale operation will be launched from the general vicinity of Karabela and will develop into a wide maneuver around Baghdad from the west ending in the area of the Tartar lake east of al-Hadid -- or east of the Tartar lake at Samarrah," the Russian analysts' report said. "From this point a part of the force will continue advancing toward Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit and from there it will turn towards Baghdad from the north through Samarrah and Baahkuba; meanwhile the rest of the force will strike the rears of the Iraqi forces fighting in the north near Kirkuk and Mosul."

"Such an operation would require up to 60,000 troops, no less than 300 tanks and 200 helicopters," the Russian analysts concluded. "It is believed that such forces can be put together by April 15 and by April 18 they should be ready for to attack."

It remains to be seen, of course if the war will indeed follow this highly detailed prediction. Current reports indicate that U.S. forces are slowly closing in on Baghdad and probing for weaknesses in Iraqi defenses already.

What is certainly the case is that Iraqi resistance has been impressive and prolonged and that contrary to universally held U.S. media assumptions -- and the confident expectations of Defense Department war planners -- the Iraqis have succeeded in holding up and preventing U.S. conquest and occupation of all major cities to this point, almost two weeks into the war. The main -- and bloodiest -- clashes of the war are clearly still ahead.

With this in mind one other, sobering conclusion of the GRU analysts may prove significant. The March 30 report concluded, "Russian military analysts believe that the critical (point) for the U.S. duration of the war would be over 90 days" -- in other words, after mid-June -- "provided that during that time the coalition will sustain over 1,000 killed. Under such circumstances a serious political crisis in the U.S. and the world will be unavoidable."

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030401-024727-1436r

(had to forward this, brought to my attn via Dan Peirce, Talk 610 AM WGIR):

Can You Back the Troops and Oppose War?
From the April 1, 2002 Dallas Morning News: In a word, no.
by Terry Eastland
04/02/2003 6:20:00 AM

BOUNCING AROUND the Internet is a photo of a huge banner that was carried in the recent "peace" demonstration in San Francisco. The banner says, "We support our troops when they shoot their officers."

Now, the calm response to that banner is that "our troops," were they to shoot "their officers," would be violating the oath they take upon enlisting, which obligates them to obey "the orders of [superior] officers," which don't include shooting or otherwise committing acts of violence against those officers. And such acts, it probably doesn't have to be pointed out, aren't merely violations of the oath of enlistment but duly punishable crimes.

Among the terrible early stories of the war is that of the Army captain who was killed after a serviceman rolled a grenade under his tent. The blast also injured 15 soldiers, one of whom later died. An Army sergeant, in custody, is suspected of the crime. Presumably, he or whoever pulled the pin on the grenade is exactly the kind of soldier some war protesters "support."

To be sure, there are protesters who define their "support" for "our troops" in more appealing terms. Indeed, as The New York Times has reported, "demonstrators [save, it appears, for some in San Francisco] have been careful to express their admiration for those serving in the armed forces." But only for them. The anti-war movement has settled on a formulation that simultaneously expresses its support for "our troops" and its opposition to the president who commands them, George W. Bush.

Rep. Charles Rangel of New York has stated it succinctly: "We support the troops, but we don't support the president."

That is morally better than supporting our troops "when they shoot their officers." Yet what does it mean, what can it mean, to support the troops but not the president?

Not very much. The protesters "support" the troops in the sense that they hope our men and women in uniform will be okay, notwithstanding their dangerous environment. To spell out the obvious, they hope our troops won't suffer death or injury or capture, nor hunger, nor (too much) sleep deprivation, nor (another) blinding sandstorm.

But note that the protesters' "support" doesn't extend to the troops' actual mission. Consider that the oath of enlistment obligates each soldier to obey "the orders of the president of the United States." President Bush's orders to disarm Iraq and effect regime change, given to the Pentagon and our armed forces, are precisely what the protesters oppose. Thus, they are unable to support our armed forces in Iraq in the discharge of the very responsibility they have accepted and that matters most to the country--the execution of their mission.

Those who oppose the war but meanwhile declare their "support for the troops" may feel better for having made that declaration. And they may think that, by voicing such "support," they and their cause will look better to a country overwhelmingly behind the president and that supports our armed forces as they seek to accomplish their mission. But the support the protesters offer our troops is beside the point.

What isn't trivial is the act of a U.S. soldier who actually disagreed with the president's decision to go to war but who nonetheless has accepted his duty and now is carrying it out. The decision to go to war, whether one agrees with it or not, belongs to civilian authority, not the military. It is the responsibility of the soldier to live up to the oath of enlistment and thus to obey the orders that come ultimately from the commander in chief, the president. To refuse those orders would be wrong. The protesters may be astonished to learn that American soldiers may have thought more--and more clearly--about the morality of using force in Iraq than they have.

We may be in for a longer war than many armchair generals once advised. If so, we can expect more demonstrations. And no doubt more statements of "support" that fail to recognize the duties of a soldier.


Terry Eastland is publisher of The Weekly Standard. This article originally appeared in the April 1, 2003 Dallas Morning News.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/474xssjr.asp

Anyone catch the Russian defense minister last night? Heard him quoted as saying that global "security is coming apart at the seams" and that they "would have to increase their defense spending" to compensate...

He also said that the Iraqi army still had some fight left, and the outcome was in no way certain...

Didn't we hear the same kind of stuff back in '91 & GW1?

FYI, from BBC:

B-52 bombers dropped six new precision-guided 1,000-pound (454 kg) "cluster" bombs on Iraqi tanks defending Baghdad, the US military said on Wednesday.

Officials said it was the first ever use of the CBU-105 bombs which each contain 10 armour-destroying bomblets.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2908707.stm

I wonder if we are bypassing/cutting through them to block any retreat into Baghdad?

Obviously, I have no idea what is happing, and I'm hoping the the Iraqi RGs are abandoning their weapons and running for mamma...

But I must admit to being as nervous as an expectant father in a maternity ward; it seems to be going to easy from this view, what nasty things await our forces in Baghdad?

Apache pilot states "first deliberate attack" "things went as expected" "a couple of accidents due to brown out conditions (landing/takeoff)" also said something about the long-bow variant has the ability to make the job easier for the Air Force (target data sharing I think)...

Apache pilot states "first deliberate attack" "things went as expected" "a couple of accidents due to brown out conditions (landing/takeoff)" also said something about the long-bow variant has the ability to make the job easier for the Air Force (target data sharing I think)...

Apache pilot states "first deliberate attack" "things went as expected" "a couple of accidents due to brown out conditions (landing/takeoff)" also said something about the long-bow variant has the ability to make the job easier for the Air Force (target data sharing I think)...