NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4514414.stm


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41104000/gif/_41104342_lifegra203.gif

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41104000/gif/_41104336_pessimism2gra203.gif

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41104000/gif/_41104742_optimism_gra203.gif


Oxford Research International did the survey on behest of the BBC, ABC and others.
Sample Size was 1711 Iraqis, in October and November 2005.

Seems to be one of the more credible polls to come out of Iraq, so I thought you might care.

Cute title. Says it all. :p

Gimme a B....gimmme a UMP

Yeah, that's about what I'd expect... the insurgents aren't half as successful in causing general panic as the media would have it, and no one enjoys being occupied by a foreign power, whether they believe in their promises or not.

That seems to be what the US would want. More trust in the Iraqi military and police means US troops can get out faster. The new national government doesn't have the support you'd hope, but that could change.

Good poll. If I were an Iraqi, I wouldn't have much faith in American forces either, actually. Actually I don't have confidence in anything American these days, not that as a Brit I *should* have such confidence, but I'm quite disappointed with the low level of training our partners in crime across the pond put into their military. Reporters talking to Iraqis always seem to come back with the impression that the Iraqi people feel much safer around British troops than around our American counterparts. Same old story as ever, I guess.

Either way, as a pro-Iraq War liberal (that's not an oxymoron outside of America), I'm pleased to see that the people are relatively happy with the conditions. Concerning statistic there though that people have quite a bit of faith in religious leaders, but then I again I suppose if you pay Stone Age, you get Allah. Never mind.

Reporters talking to Iraqis always seem to come back with the impression that the Iraqi people feel much safer around British troops than around our American counterparts. Same old story as ever, I guess.

Kinda helps that they're deployed in the less-volatile regions, and that there are fewer of them to begin with, decreasing the number of Iraqis who have had bad experiences with them.. I don't think the problems there are related to a lack of training of the militaries involved, so much as the overall PR war and general politics.

Kinda helps that they're deployed in the less-volatile regions, and that there are fewer of them to begin with, decreasing the number of Iraqis who have had bad experiences with them.. I don't think the problems there are related to a lack of training of the militaries involved, so much as the overall PR war and general politics.

So the friendly fire incidents during the second gulf war were purely coincidental were they??

That seems to be what the US would want. More trust in the Iraqi military and police means US troops can get out faster. The new national government doesn't have the support you'd hope, but that could change.

Not bad. If Iraqis thought that everything sucked, it would be a major, major problem.

I have the feeling that over the next year or so, there's going to be a drawdown of US forces in Iraq, so they're going to get what they want.

I already took participation in elections as a sign that Iraqis just want to get on with being Iraqis. And now that Sunnis are apparently participating in the current elections, it's a very good sign indeed.

I wonder what people will be saying when the US is leaving and the Iraqi government is working fine.

Not bad. If Iraqis thought that everything sucked, it would be a major, major problem.

I have the feeling that over the next year or so, there's going to be a drawdown of US forces in Iraq, so they're going to get what they want.

I already took participation in elections as a sign that Iraqis just want to get on with being Iraqis. And now that Sunnis are apparently participating in the current elections, it's a very good sign indeed.

I wonder what people will be saying when the US is leaving and the Iraqi government is working fine.

So you are not considering the poosiblity of a three way split of Iraq between the Kurds, Sunni and Shia?

So you are not considering the poosiblity of a three way split of Iraq between the Kurds, Sunni and Shia?
That is always a possibility.

But consider this.

Shias and Kurds seem to get along well enough.

Sunnis are coming to the realization (at least some of them) that they had better take part in the new Iraq or be marginalized.

In a real sense, the Sunnis are screwed - they don't have most of the oil and they don't have access to a freshwater port if the Shias want to screw them.

A separate Sunni nation just isn't practical, and they know it.

That is always a possibility.

But consider this.

Shias and Kurds seem to get along well enough.

Sunnis are coming to the realization (at least some of them) that they had better take part in the new Iraq or be marginalized.

In a real sense, the Sunnis are screwed - they don't have most of the oil and they don't have access to a freshwater port if the Shias want to screw them.

A separate Sunni nation just isn't practical, and they know it.

True, but what about the fall out of an independent Kurdistan on turkey, the wests closest ally in the region?, and any shia dominated state will always float towards the Iranian camp, the new Iraq is not necessarily in the west's interest and is'nt that why we sent the troops, to defend our interests?

True, but what about the fall out of an independent Kurdistan on turkey, the wests closest ally in the region?, and any shia dominated state will always float towards the Iranian camp, the new Iraq is not necessarily in the west's interest and is'nt that why we sent the troops, to defend our interests?
I think the Kurds will bide their time on the separate state thing, largely because of US pressure on the Turkish issue.

I think that a lot of Iraqis, regardless of their affiliation, are sick and tired of war, bombing, shooting, death squads, torture, etc. I think they'll take a long break.

I think the US is more interested in a less aggressive Iraq than it is about who is in charge (and the theory is that with a democratic government, they'll be less aggressive than with a dictator).

Yeah, that's about what I'd expect... the insurgents aren't half as successful in causing general panic as the media would have it, and no one enjoys being occupied by a foreign power, whether they believe in their promises or not.
True. Provides a bit of incentive to make the infrastructure come together as quickly as possible, yes? :)

So you are not considering the poosiblity of a three way split of Iraq between the Kurds, Sunni and Shia?
If they want to go their own separate ways, let them go their own separate ways. There's nothing worse than forcing them to remain together. And Turkey will just have to back-off and let the Kurds be.

If they then want to join Iran or Saudi Arabia, or not, then let them do as they please. It's all the machinations and political games and interventions that has caused most of the problems in the region.

they trust the police more than we do :p

So the friendly fire incidents during the second gulf war were purely coincidental were they??Yup... On all sides. That's what happens when you've got multiple military forces operating in the same theater with incompatible communications equipment... Sh!t happens. And it happens at a more-or-less consitent rate. That means those nations with larger forces in the region (those who carry most of the load) will have sh!t happening in larger numbers than will happen for their junior partners.

Welcome to Reality 101.

Yup... On all sides. That's what happens when you've got multiple military forces operating in the same theater with incompatible communications equipment... Sh!t happens. And it happens at a more-or-less consitent rate. That means those nations with larger forces in the region (those who carry most of the load) will have sh!t happening in larger numbers than will happen for their junior partners.

Welcome to Reality 101.

What most people fail to realize is that every war has friendly fire incidents.

And that the rate of friendly fire incidents in recent US conflicts is lower than it has been in previous US conflicts.

But, because of precision weapons, the lethality of friendly fire incidents has gone up.

they trust the police more than we do :p
That's because far fewer of them do drugs. :eek:

Yup... On all sides. That's what happens when you've got multiple military forces operating in the same theater with incompatible communications equipment... Sh!t happens. And it happens at a more-or-less consitent rate. That means those nations with larger forces in the region (those who carry most of the load) will have sh!t happening in larger numbers than will happen for their junior partners.

Welcome to Reality 101.

Did the US forces suffer any freindly fire incidents at the hands of the British forces

What most people fail to realize is that every war has friendly fire incidents.

And that the rate of friendly fire incidents in recent US conflicts is lower than it has been in previous US conflicts.

But, because of precision weapons, the lethality of friendly fire incidents has gone up.

I agree we Brits should stop helping you were getting the Sh!t kicked out of us!:p

how come your missiles always hit us what ever happened to shooting at the people wearing blue camo in the desert

Did the US forces suffer any freindly fire incidents at the hands of the British forces
Not to my knowledge.

Another thing that raises the odds of friendly fire incidents is the automation of certain weapon systems.

The PAC-3 missile (which replaced the older Patriot) was used in combat for the first time during this invasion.

It was extremely good at hitting incoming ballistic missiles. The reason it was so good was that its battle management is completely controlled by computer, not humans. That is, the fire/no fire decision is made by a computer. It can also estimate that the previous missile will miss (before the miss occurs) and fire a second or third missile at a revised intercept point. This ripple fire capability makes it extremely deadly.

Deadly for any aircraft in range that has a bad IFF transponder. An RAF Tornado was shot down early during this Iraqi invasion. Neither the missile officers nor the pilot of the aircraft really had any chance to react.

If the system wasn't built that way, it wouldn't be able to react to incoming missiles.

Did the US forces suffer any freindly fire incidents at the hands of the British forcesFrom the UK forces..? Not that I'm aware of. Of course, the UK forces were so minor in number by comparison, that that's not surprising. OTOH, a number of nations scored 'own goals' on their own people.

Not to my knowledge.

Another thing that raises the odds of friendly fire incidents is the automation of certain weapon systems.

The PAC-3 missile (which replaced the older Patriot) was used in combat for the first time during this invasion.

It was extremely good at hitting incoming ballistic missiles. The reason it was so good was that its battle management is completely controlled by computer, not humans. That is, the fire/no fire decision is made by a computer. It can also estimate that the previous missile will miss (before the miss occurs) and fire a second or third missile at a revised intercept point. This ripple fire capability makes it extremely deadly.

Deadly for any aircraft in range that has a bad IFF transponder. An RAF Tornado was shot down early during this Iraqi invasion. Neither the missile officers nor the pilot of the aircraft really had any chance to react.

If the system wasn't built that way, it wouldn't be able to react to incoming missiles.

Still does not account for the US's many instances of friendly fire incidents especially if the US did not suffer any at the hands of the Royal Air Force!
what happened to Reality 101?, up in smoke?

From the UK forces..? Not that I'm aware of. Of course, the UK forces were so minor in number by comparison, that that's not surprising. OTOH, a number of nations scored 'own goals' on their own people.

Minor?, sure with 60'000 ground troops (is it that many?) and god knows how many combat planes, oh and the Royal Navy in the persian gulf, yeah minor sure...

Still does not account for the US's many instances of friendly fire incidents especially if the US did not suffer any at the hands of the Royal Air Force!
what happened to Reality 101?, up in smoke?
No, it's a matter of numbers. Far, far more US troops with far more deadly weapon systems. Relatively few UK troops with less sophisticated weapons.

Still does not account for the US's many instances of friendly fire incidents especially if the US did not suffer any at the hands of the Royal Air Force!
what happened to Reality 101?, up in smoke?

Here's one improvement the US made - a computer system to control artillery fire to eliminate artillery friendly fire incidents.
http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2004/07/0407Top5_AFATDS.html

It worked with a 100% success rate.

Here's one improvement the US made - a computer system to control artillery fire to eliminate artillery friendly fire incidents.
http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/2004/07/0407Top5_AFATDS.html

It worked with a 100% success rate.

Sounds pretty good, mind you if i was a british squaddie on the ground i probably would be more scared of those A-10's my god they are fearsome looking..

Sounds pretty good, mind you if i was a british squaddie on the ground i probably would be more scared of those A-10's my god they are fearsome looking..
The A-10 is a ground attack aircraft used in very limited numbers. Like ground attack aircraft used in the close support role in the past, it relies on the pilot's vision, judgment, and good communication with either a forward air controller or troops on the ground. As such, it is more prone to friendly fire than say, a deep strike aircraft that attacks deep into enemy territory where no friendly forces exist.

The RAF fielded no close air support aircraft (the Tornado isn't suited to that role - it's a deep strike aircraft in its ground attack role). So the odds of an RAF friendly fire incident is essentially zero.

The A-10 is a ground attack aircraft used in very limited numbers. Like ground attack aircraft used in the close support role in the past, it relies on the pilot's vision, judgment, and good communication with either a forward air controller or troops on the ground. As such, it is more prone to friendly fire than say, a deep strike aircraft that attacks deep into enemy territory where no friendly forces exist.

The RAF fielded no close air support aircraft (the Tornado isn't suited to that role - it's a deep strike aircraft in its ground attack role). So the odds of an RAF friendly fire incident is essentially zero.

Thanks for the clarifacation, god those A-10's look fearsome:)

Thanks for the clarifacation, god those A-10's look fearsome:)
As a former infantryman, I can tell you that it's not the looks, it's the bombload that scares me about any tactical ground attack aircraft.

One 2000 lb bomb is more than enough to scare the crap out of me. A planeload is even worse.

Yup... On all sides. That's what happens when you've got multiple military forces operating in the same theater with incompatible communications equipment... Sh!t happens. And it happens at a more-or-less consitent rate. That means those nations with larger forces in the region (those who carry most of the load) will have sh!t happening in larger numbers than will happen for their junior partners.

Welcome to Reality 101.

So the Whole NATO compatability thing is just a myth? Better hope the americans don't try to talk to anyone over Link16 then...
Of course the american case wasn't helped by John Simpson's foottage of a F-14 dropping an LGB on its own FAC postion intead of the iraqi tanks a mile away.
its an accepted fact of life in UK that in a war in the middle east we will liekly take more casualties from the Americans than the enemy.

As for CAS aircraft the RAF deployed both its Harrier Gr7s and its Jaguar GR3s, both of which are priamrily CAS aircraft (although the jaguar has developed into more of a multi role ground attack platfrom). Actually just about every Aliied aircraft capable of dropping bombs was pressed into a CAS role during GW2, even the B-52s were cab ranked waiting for FACs to find them targets.
And where do you get the less sophistacted weapons bit from? Enhanced paveway is every bit as advanced as JDAM and StormShadow is more advanced than JSOW, while smaller in overall number the RAF do provide a lot of assets that made allied operations possible and RAF aircraft were active in the entire GW2 theatre not just in British sectors.

As a former infantryman, I can tell you that it's not the looks, it's the bombload that scares me about any tactical ground attack aircraft.

One 2000 lb bomb is more than enough to scare the crap out of me. A planeload is even worse.

AMEN

I have known the BBC for a long time.

Since Grade and Thompson took over and the Hutton report was manipulated by the government, the BBC has been adopting an increasingly centre-right America-friendly stance.

It has ceased to be the reasonably reliable source of news that it once was. The report on Iraq waa typical of Simpson's shoddy and biased work.

In Iraq, insurgency continues to be a major problem, the death toll is still high and nobody can predict what will happen when the coalition forces withdraw, if they ever do. Infrastructural repairs have not been carried out, except to then oil industry. Many commentators can see US troops there on a permanent basis to protect oil production. That means constant insurgency for an indefinite period.

This board seems to be full of people who know a lot more about weapons systems than geopolitics and the reasons behind the invasion of Iraq.

In Iraq, insurgency continues to be a major problem, the death toll is still high and nobody can predict what will happen when the coalition forces withdraw, if they ever do. Infrastructural repairs have not been carried out, except to then oil industry. Many commentators can see US troops there on a permanent basis to protect oil production. That means constant insurgency for an indefinite period.

Well, then no matter what anyone in the world does, we're screwed, by that assessment.

I know people there who have built several elementary schools. Is that not infrastructure repair to something other than the oil industry? I know people who have restored power and water to Basra (they are UK troops).

I know people there who have built several elementary schools. Is that not infrastructure repair to something other than the oil industry? I know people who have restored power and water to Basra (they are UK troops).

A few token gestures have been made, but the oil industry took precedence from the start. The Iraqis can see this, and, unlike the Americans and the Brits, many of them are not stupid. Already, enough has been done to fuel insurgency and terrorism for the rest of the century.

Things were 'screwed' when the gluttonous petro-chemical dependent American economy ran out of oil. There will be no peace in the world until the USA, Europe and the rapidly industrialising nations such as China re-think their ways of life and their sources of energy.

All this premature optimism is the height of stupidity.

A few token gestures have been made, but the oil industry took precedence from the start. The Iraqis can see this, and, unlike the Americans and the Brits, many of them are not stupid. Already, enough has been done to fuel insurgency and terrorism for the rest of the century.

Things were 'screwed' when the gluttonous petro-chemical dependent American economy ran out of oil. There will be no peace in the world until the USA, Europe and the rapidly industrialising nations such as China re-think their ways of life and their sources of energy.

All this premature optimism is the height of stupidity.


HAH hahahahahahaha!

*hands Glutopia a tinfoil hat*


:p :D

Still does not account for the US's many instances of friendly fire incidents especially if the US did not suffer any at the hands of the Royal Air Force!
what happened to Reality 101?, up in smoke?Don't be obtuse.

The vast majority of air-ground ops are US, therefore, the vast majority of air-ground fratricide will be by US fire. Duh. The UK Jaguars were pulled out of close ground action when they suffered an unacceptably high loss-rate (mostly due to mishap).

However, I reiterate that everyone suffers from the proble... For instance: British tank crew fires-up another British tank crew...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,922141,00.html

It has always amused me how civilian casualties are "regretable, but inevitable" to Americans who actually know about them, and the fucking end of the world for the families of said casualties.

It doesn't surprise me that the Iraqis are actually participating in the farce of a political process in the new Iraq. The alternative is the chaos created by the invading Americans and the insurgency which hadn't a hope of existing under Saddam.

It's genius. You can be as immoral, brutal and manipulative as you like...so long as you make sure you're the only realistic alternative, and praise the people who work with the thugs and murderers and administrators in your ranks as "heroes" working for the "future of Iraq" after the brutal dictatorship of Saddam. That way, the people you brutalised with sanctions, air strikes and an all out invasion can be shown up as a model of good governance, and the common American can feel good about themselves and their country, with the disgusting number of deaths and maimings only a small price to pay for such a stunning success.

Christ. Somewhere, Saddam's sitting there and thinking "man, these guys are GOOD."

Not bad. If Iraqis thought that everything sucked, it would be a major, major problem.

I have the feeling that over the next year or so, there's going to be a drawdown of US forces in Iraq, so they're going to get what they want.

I already took participation in elections as a sign that Iraqis just want to get on with being Iraqis. And now that Sunnis are apparently participating in the current elections, it's a very good sign indeed.

I wonder what people will be saying when the US is leaving and the Iraqi government is working fine.

you just mentioned the key: Sunnis getting involved.

It's good that Shi'a and Kurds now have a chance at a say-so, but if it comes totally at the expense of Sunnis then we've simply changed the oppression ratio (oppressed to non-oppressed) from 3:1 to 1:3.

It has always amused me how civilian casualties are "regretable, but inevitable" to Americans who actually know about them, and the fucking end of the world for the families of said casualties.

It doesn't surprise me that the Iraqis are actually participating in the farce of a political process in the new Iraq. The alternative is the chaos created by the invading Americans and the insurgency which hadn't a hope of existing under Saddam.

It's genius. You can be as immoral, brutal and manipulative as you like...so long as you make sure you're the only realistic alternative, and praise the people who work with the thugs and murderers and administrators in your ranks as "heroes" working for the "future of Iraq" after the brutal dictatorship of Saddam. That way, the people you brutalised with sanctions, air strikes and an all out invasion can be shown up as a model of good governance, and the common American can feel good about themselves and their country, with the disgusting number of deaths and maimings only a small price to pay for such a stunning success.

Christ. Somewhere, Saddam's sitting there and thinking "man, these guys are GOOD."

i think when they have stable security (which will be greatly helped if Sunnis continue with positive involvement in the new Iraq) and a stable elected leadership (bonus: NO SADDAM TO OPPRESS THEM), most Iraqis will indeed be thankful for what's been accomplished.

you just mentioned the key: Sunnis getting involved.


Apparently, many Sunnis are involved in the current elections. Go figure.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GL14Ak01.html

Sounds like they got their advice directly from Nancy Pelosi.

WASHINGTON - Leading Sunni clerics and insurgent organizations are unofficially encouraging Sunnis to vote in Thursday's parliamentary elections for a slate of candidates who are calling for a timetable for US troop withdrawal.

The decision to support participation in the election is the latest step in an evolving Sunni strategy that now combines armed struggle, participation in electoral politics and negotiations for a peace settlement - all aimed at ending the occupation and gaining bargaining leverage for Sunnis in post-Saddam Hussein politics.

The policy in favor of Sunni participation in the polls has been facilitated by an agreement worked out between armed militants and the slate of Sunni candidates running under the banner of the "Iraqi Accord Coalition". Those candidates are pledging to call for a timetable for foreign troop withdrawal and to oppose the "federal" provisions of the constitution once they are elected to parliament.

i think when they have stable security (which will be greatly helped if Sunnis continue with positive involvement in the new Iraq) and a stable elected leadership (bonus: NO SADDAM TO OPPRESS THEM), most Iraqis will indeed be thankful for what's been accomplished.


They will be thankful that there is stability, certainly. But the rise of Saddam was facilitated by the Americans and the CIA way waaaaay back. And I think there would have been better, more subtle and long-term ways of promoting democracy in Iraq. Instead, they were under UN imposed and vigorously US and UK enforced sanctions for more than a decade (contributing to a million deaths, it is said), the subjected to an invasion which rduced them even further to the statu of a third world country. All this to install a sham democracy which can't defeat the insurgency wholly without becoming a police state itself.

Suggesting that the Iraqis should be thankful for the eventual (we hope) stability is like saying that a women should be thankful to someone who breaks down the door to her house, kills her abusive husband, rapes and abuses her for awhile, then is kind enough to fix the door on the way out, after robbing the place.

It's an argument which completely ignores the unpunished brutality of the occupation and the sanctions preceding it, and assumes that long-term stability will excuse war crimes. It shouldn't. It doesn't.