"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.]
|
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
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]