In case you missed it.
"The Iraqis fought a delaying action in the Karbala Gap... Iraqi combat losses were horrific, and in short order, the Nebuchadnezzar and Medina Divisions of the Republican Guard melted back into Baghdad..."
Not that I want to get into this, but really? I believe the melting back into Baghdad part, but these other assertions are completely unfounded. And just what the U.S. wants people to believe. There was no resistence in the Karbala Gap, and this is one of the most important pieces of evidence that there was a behind the scenes deal cut between U.S. and Republican Guard generals.
This is important because it takes the teeth out of this [amazingly strange] assertion at the end of the article (from a quote by Michael Keaney): "But quite honestly, for the time being and until it is proved otherwise, Saddam Hussein and his cohort are a part of the anti-imperialist movement." Not even considering the regimes track record, they clearly can't be anti-imperialists if they cut a deal with the imperialists. The Ba'ath party sold out anyone who might hope to have seen the U.S. imperialists taught any sort of lesson.
In my opinion, of course.
Cutting a deal with your enemy doesn't necessarily make them not your enemy , does it?
I've met Goff & he's no dummy, a commie maybe, but no dummy. As far as fact checking goes he's got about as much traction as anyone else . The anti-imperialist clap-trap is intended almost solely to piss off them lily livered liberals he whines about. Is his assertion about the Karbala gap any more unfounded than your assertion about cutting a deal?
Well, we know how long it took the US to break through the gap (less than 1 day) and we know roughly how many casualties the US took: almost none.
Doesn't really sound like fierce fighting.
But the main thing that makes me believe this battle never happened is that the US never produced any photos of hundreds of burned out T-72s that would have been in those divisions. And they have good reason to do so, since the T-72 is really the only creible battle field weapon the US might have to face.
If they really knocked out two full RG divisions in less than a day with almost zero casualties, this would be VERY big news. Remember that Najaf and Nasaria, not to mention Basra, all experienced heavy fighting, took WEEKS at least a week to defeat, inflicting dozens of US casualties. And this was with, at best, laughable T-52s as armor.
It just doesn't make sense.
[edited for typos, I was on my mobile.]
A "deal" would also explain these paragraphs, which got my attention and I'm yearning for a second opinion on: There are still thousands of tanks and armored personnel carriers unaccounted for in Iraq, and they didn't drive themselves away. Hundreds of thousands of small arms. Up to 3,000 wire-guided anti-armor missiles. Over 1,500 artillery pieces, a half dozen SCUD launchers, 1,000+ MOWAG light anti-aircraft weapons as well as a decent supply of unfired Surface to Air Missiles, a dozen Hind attack helicopters, several dozen smaller choppers, and up to two dozen PC-7 and PC-9 fixed-wing aircraft.
These numbers haunt US military commanders, as they should.
Sorry, off topic, but Tom, did you preview or edit that comment. I didn't get notified of it on the front page. I'm trying to track down this problem.
I think I double posted it and deleted the second post.
I printed Goff's piece out and read it a couple of times and agree with a lot of it. He's good at analyzing how the neocons and "cruise missile liberals" are just different faces of the same problem, which is the industrial north bleeding the developing south. I don't really care at this point whether Saddam is a fellow anti-imperialist or not; it's doubtful he'll have much to do with whatever resistance movement emerges in Iraq while he cools his heels in a Moscow apartment (or wherever). There does seem to be a danger that the US will cynically tap ex-Baathists who remained for leadership roles--we'll see in the coming months how anti-imperialist the party is/was. I do like that term "anti-imperialist" for those of us who question US militarism; it sounds so much better than "isolationist," which has a bad ring in our therapy-drenched culture. ("Don't isolate yourself; talk to me.") I've never been isolationist in the sense of the US doing business abroad (fairly, if that's possible); I just disagree that we have to have military bases in every country in order to participate in a global economic system. I realize Goff is saying the system (including Europe, Canada, and other exploiters from the West/North) is a rigged game, dependent on our continued power; I guess I'd argue for a phased transition to a healthier system of international trade. In other words, major swords-to-plowshares, and screw Paul Berman and his attempts to scare us with a new "implacable enemy." Such a transition has got to be possible, but for sure we'll never get it with CheneyCo in charge.
I read it a few times as well. I like most of it too (except the parts I mentioned.)
As for tapping ex-Baathists, we are already are. And I'm not so sure about the "ex" part. They are the U.S.'s guys, despite the spin coming from Washington. In a struggle between "ex" Baathists and fundamentalists (promoting sharia) who do you think the U.S. is going to back? And I think (although this is sort of going over the deep end) that we cut a deal with them (RG generals) in large part so that we wouldn't have to destroy all their weapons so that when we put them back in power they are all ready to go.
Rumsfeld has already been saying things like (this isn't a direct quote obviously, I'm looking) "Well, not all the Baathists were bad."
No reason to believe me now, but watch for it...
Randy said he had personally met this Goff fellow; didn't that set off a warning light? It should.
He was a regular notorious figure on the Chapel Hill campus back in the day but then so was the Reverend Jeb Smock. That was about the time I was nearly a rock star. I drove the van for Zen Frisbee, no one else had a driver's license. Recently Goff was thrown off the campus for having an Anti-Imperialism teach-in. We really had it out for Jesse Helms but looking back on it Jesse Helms
was a pretty reasonable character compared to these current clowns. Like I said I wish the south had won the civil war.
i.e. The South may have lost the war but now they run the country. Or did you mean something else.....?
Only in the interest of ending the circle jerk, o the impotence of being earnest, I will say I meant it as a nearly perfect example of iambic pentameter, as much styrofoam as testosterone. The notion that the south runs the country is ludicrous unless you consider Harvard & Wall Street the south.
The figurine of the southern theocrat fits conveniently on the shelves of Piggly Wiggly & Quickway like an extruded polyester bust of President Starbuck Rushmore fresh from the dark satanic mills of Guangdong.
I hardly ever lol but I just did.
|
- frank 4-26-2003 6:40 am
"The Iraqis fought a delaying action in the Karbala Gap... Iraqi combat losses were horrific, and in short order, the Nebuchadnezzar and Medina Divisions of the Republican Guard melted back into Baghdad..."
Not that I want to get into this, but really? I believe the melting back into Baghdad part, but these other assertions are completely unfounded. And just what the U.S. wants people to believe. There was no resistence in the Karbala Gap, and this is one of the most important pieces of evidence that there was a behind the scenes deal cut between U.S. and Republican Guard generals.
This is important because it takes the teeth out of this [amazingly strange] assertion at the end of the article (from a quote by Michael Keaney): "But quite honestly, for the time being and until it is proved otherwise, Saddam Hussein and his cohort are a part of the anti-imperialist movement." Not even considering the regimes track record, they clearly can't be anti-imperialists if they cut a deal with the imperialists. The Ba'ath party sold out anyone who might hope to have seen the U.S. imperialists taught any sort of lesson.
In my opinion, of course.
- jim 4-26-2003 8:16 pm [add a comment]
Cutting a deal with your enemy doesn't necessarily make them not your enemy , does it?
I've met Goff & he's no dummy, a commie maybe, but no dummy. As far as fact checking goes he's got about as much traction as anyone else . The anti-imperialist clap-trap is intended almost solely to piss off them lily livered liberals he whines about. Is his assertion about the Karbala gap any more unfounded than your assertion about cutting a deal?
- frank 4-26-2003 10:55 pm [add a comment]
Well, we know how long it took the US to break through the gap (less than 1 day) and we know roughly how many casualties the US took: almost none.
Doesn't really sound like fierce fighting.
But the main thing that makes me believe this battle never happened is that the US never produced any photos of hundreds of burned out T-72s that would have been in those divisions. And they have good reason to do so, since the T-72 is really the only creible battle field weapon the US might have to face.
If they really knocked out two full RG divisions in less than a day with almost zero casualties, this would be VERY big news. Remember that Najaf and Nasaria, not to mention Basra, all experienced heavy fighting, took
WEEKSat least a week to defeat, inflicting dozens of US casualties. And this was with, at best, laughable T-52s as armor.It just doesn't make sense.
[edited for typos, I was on my mobile.]
- jim 4-26-2003 11:12 pm [add a comment]
Sounds pretty good but ughhhh! I'm warblogging & it really upsets me innards. Over & out Commander Himmy.
- frank 4-26-2003 11:36 pm [add a comment]
A "deal" would also explain these paragraphs, which got my attention and I'm yearning for a second opinion on:
- tom moody 4-26-2003 8:29 pm [add a comment]
Sorry, off topic, but Tom, did you preview or edit that comment. I didn't get notified of it on the front page. I'm trying to track down this problem.
- jim 4-26-2003 8:48 pm [add a comment]
I think I double posted it and deleted the second post.
- tom moody 4-26-2003 9:05 pm [add a comment]
I printed Goff's piece out and read it a couple of times and agree with a lot of it. He's good at analyzing how the neocons and "cruise missile liberals" are just different faces of the same problem, which is the industrial north bleeding the developing south. I don't really care at this point whether Saddam is a fellow anti-imperialist or not; it's doubtful he'll have much to do with whatever resistance movement emerges in Iraq while he cools his heels in a Moscow apartment (or wherever). There does seem to be a danger that the US will cynically tap ex-Baathists who remained for leadership roles--we'll see in the coming months how anti-imperialist the party is/was. I do like that term "anti-imperialist" for those of us who question US militarism; it sounds so much better than "isolationist," which has a bad ring in our therapy-drenched culture. ("Don't isolate yourself; talk to me.") I've never been isolationist in the sense of the US doing business abroad (fairly, if that's possible); I just disagree that we have to have military bases in every country in order to participate in a global economic system. I realize Goff is saying the system (including Europe, Canada, and other exploiters from the West/North) is a rigged game, dependent on our continued power; I guess I'd argue for a phased transition to a healthier system of international trade. In other words, major swords-to-plowshares, and screw Paul Berman and his attempts to scare us with a new "implacable enemy." Such a transition has got to be possible, but for sure we'll never get it with CheneyCo in charge.
- tom moody 4-27-2003 9:53 pm [add a comment]
I read it a few times as well. I like most of it too (except the parts I mentioned.)
As for tapping ex-Baathists, we are already are. And I'm not so sure about the "ex" part. They are the U.S.'s guys, despite the spin coming from Washington. In a struggle between "ex" Baathists and fundamentalists (promoting sharia) who do you think the U.S. is going to back? And I think (although this is sort of going over the deep end) that we cut a deal with them (RG generals) in large part so that we wouldn't have to destroy all their weapons so that when we put them back in power they are all ready to go.
Rumsfeld has already been saying things like (this isn't a direct quote obviously, I'm looking) "Well, not all the Baathists were bad."
No reason to believe me now, but watch for it...
- jim 4-27-2003 11:37 pm [add a comment]
Randy said he had personally met this Goff fellow; didn't that set off a warning light? It should.
- jeff 4-28-2003 12:46 am [add a comment]
He was a regular notorious figure on the Chapel Hill campus back in the day but then so was the Reverend Jeb Smock. That was about the time I was nearly a rock star. I drove the van for Zen Frisbee, no one else had a driver's license. Recently Goff was thrown off the campus for having an Anti-Imperialism teach-in. We really had it out for Jesse Helms but looking back on it Jesse Helms was a pretty reasonable character compared to these current clowns. Like I said I wish the south had won the civil war.
- frank 4-28-2003 1:39 am [add a comment]
i.e. The South may have lost the war but now they run the country. Or did you mean something else.....?
- bruno 4-28-2003 3:42 pm [add a comment]
Only in the interest of ending the circle jerk, o the impotence of being earnest, I will say I meant it as a nearly perfect example of iambic pentameter, as much styrofoam as testosterone. The notion that the south runs the country is ludicrous unless you consider Harvard & Wall Street the south. The figurine of the southern theocrat fits conveniently on the shelves of Piggly Wiggly & Quickway like an extruded polyester bust of President Starbuck Rushmore fresh from the dark satanic mills of Guangdong.
- frank 4-28-2003 7:23 pm [add a comment]
I hardly ever lol but I just did.
- Tom G 4-30-2003 1:10 am [add a comment]
Just what do you mean ? I see you loll all the time ! Well , that is when you're not working the slicer
or painting your bed.
- frank 4-30-2003 2:10 am [add a comment]