Bush authorizes "decisive force" in Iraq

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-04-14 07:30am

What's decisive force?

In the first 13 days of April, 84 US troops have been killed, all due to hostile action (not a single accident has been reported this month).

In addition, according to this article, the deaths of scores of mercenaries (called "civilians" and "security contractors" for some fucked up propaganda purpose) has gone largely unreported.

2,500 troops massing outside Najaf

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-14 07:42am

Vympel wrote:What's decisive force?

It's when soldiers never give in and use strategery and determined resolve to smoke them terrorist bandits who have been messin' with Texas out of their holes.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-04-14 08:13am

As opposed to... indecisive force?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-04-14 08:19am

Vympel wrote:What's decisive force?

Its when a politician strikes the podium during a speech.

Vympel wrote:In addition, according to this article, the deaths of scores of mercenaries (called "civilians" and "security contractors" for some fucked up propaganda purpose) has gone largely unreported.

I actually don't take the 'civilian casualty' numbers very seriously, since 'private military contractor' could be some salariman on a junket or a soldier-for-hire. US-GOV sure ain't going to tell us.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-04-14 08:19am

I believe what he means is that President Bush has seen our Poll in this very thread and is about to suspend certain...lighter....aspects of the ROE and allow the troops to "Get medieval on their collective arses".

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-04-14 08:43am

Patrick Degan wrote:As opposed to... indecisive force?

Which is apparently what America has been doing for a year.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-04-14 10:07am

Every time I think Bush couldn't say something stupider, he comes up with shit like last nights speech. I have to say, I am feverently looking forward to the Presidential debates; no matter what you think of Kerry, he has ten times the visable charisma that Gore does and Gore STILL kicked Bush's ass in the 2000 debates.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-14 12:27pm

Baghdad - At least 80 foreign mercenaries - security guards recruited from the United States, Europe and South Africa and working for American companies - have been killed in the past eight days in Iraq.

Jesus.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-04-14 12:51pm

Howedar wrote:
Baghdad - At least 80 foreign mercenaries - security guards recruited from the United States, Europe and South Africa and working for American companies - have been killed in the past eight days in Iraq.
Jesus.

the money must be pretty fucking good to recruit those guys with that kind of losses.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-04-14 01:14pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Howedar wrote:
Baghdad - At least 80 foreign mercenaries - security guards recruited from the United States, Europe and South Africa and working for American companies - have been killed in the past eight days in Iraq.
Jesus.
the money must be pretty fucking good to recruit those guys with that kind of losses.

There are 15.000 of them in Iraq. So that isn't a great percentage of them.
Still, I think the U.S. makes a mistake to allow so much mecenaries in Iraq. These people have no rules of engangement, and could do evrything they feel like to.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-04-14 01:23pm

The Kernel wrote:

Every time I think Bush couldn't say something stupider, he comes up with shit like last nights speech. I have to say, I am feverently looking forward to the Presidential debates; no matter what you think of Kerry, he has ten times the visable charisma that Gore does and Gore STILL kicked Bush's ass in the 2000 debates.

No he didn't, they both came out of the debates looking no better or worse than they had before them.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2004-04-14 04:26pm

Tribun wrote: There are 15.000 of them in Iraq. So that isn't a great percentage of them.
Still, I think the U.S. makes a mistake to allow so much mecenaries in Iraq. These people have no rules of engangement, and could do evrything they feel like to.

Which could be precisely why we're using. Things they do don't look bad on the US Army.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-04-14 04:30pm

Nathan F wrote:
Tribun wrote: There are 15.000 of them in Iraq. So that isn't a great percentage of them.
Still, I think the U.S. makes a mistake to allow so much mecenaries in Iraq. These people have no rules of engangement, and could do evrything they feel like to.
Which could be precisely why we're using. Things they do don't look bad on the US Army.

And you think, that's a good thing?!

God help your simple soul.....

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-04-14 06:53pm

Well, in the conservative mind, its ok to commit atrocities, or dress armed troops in civilian clothing like the "cowardly" insurgents we disparage, or to decieve the public about the extent of losses so long as this is all done by mercenaries and is good by the party line.

What, you were expecting something intelligent?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-04-14 07:39pm

Nathan F wrote:
Tribun wrote: There are 15.000 of them in Iraq. So that isn't a great percentage of them.
Still, I think the U.S. makes a mistake to allow so much mecenaries in Iraq. These people have no rules of engangement, and could do evrything they feel like to.
Which could be precisely why we're using. Things they do don't look bad on the US Army.

Unfortunately, it still looks bad as they're the pasty white people we brought in, and so, the shit they get up to does reflect on the entire enterprise.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2004-04-15 01:10am

I would have to agree anything negative a foreigner, not necessarily American, is going to have a negative impact on our relations there. I don't completely understand the justification for the merc's and hope we can get them the hell out of there so at least we can have a bit more "control" over our people's actions in Iraq.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-04-15 03:48am

Tribun wrote:
Nathan F wrote:Which could be precisely why we're using. Things they do don't look bad on the US Army.
And you think, that's a good thing?!

God help your simple soul.....

Uh, where did he say it was a good thing? He just said that that could be the very reason that those mercenaries were put there.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-15 06:47pm

Tribun wrote:And you think, that's a good thing?!

God help your simple soul.....

God help your simple soul for twisting everything you possibly can into anti-US bullshit.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-04-15 08:40pm

Howedar wrote:
Tribun wrote:And you think, that's a good thing?!

God help your simple soul.....
God help your simple soul for twisting everything you possibly can into anti-US bullshit.

There isnt really much twisting needed there. If it's mostly so bad things dont reflect on the army, it's purely for the people back home, so it's political bullshit...as far as the locals on the ground are concerned, all the foreign nutters with guns we've brought in are about the same, so it makes no difference to them.

Plus the way the pentagon have been bullshitting about not being able to get reports on activities smells all wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's these mercs + some MP's and a marine involved in an incident, then surely the fucking MP's would be "military personell on the ground".

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-04-16 04:41am

Are mercenaries always identified as such in the media? Could mercenary casualties be styled 'civilians' or 'military contrators' by the media? I ask, because a mercenary is indeed a 'private military contractor', but not a civilian.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-04-16 10:01am

Stark wrote:Are mercenaries always identified as such in the media? Could mercenary casualties be styled 'civilians' or 'military contrators' by the media? I ask, because a mercenary is indeed a 'private military contractor', but not a civilian.

They're technically civilian contractors as they are not part of the military. They've no official standing, so they get to be written off as civilians, and then you get to go "Look, the eeeevil iraqis shooting up civilian contractors!".

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-04-16 10:08am

I'm still amused by this, because this is basically a tacit admission by the Bush Administration that their tactics to date aren't working. There are parts of Iraq that are peaceful and under control; unfortunately, those parts aren't the parts which are under American control, because we aren't doing shit to win hearts and minds.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-16 12:50pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:Lest you miss the point, where did Nathan say that this was a good thing?

Oops too late, you already missed it.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-16 12:51pm

Mod, please kill the previous post.
[quote="Keevan_Colton"]*snip*
Lest you miss the point, where did Nathan say that this was a good thing?

Oops too late, you already missed it.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-16 12:52pm

Goddamnit. That one too. I suck today.

Keevan_Colton wrote:*snip*

Lest you miss the point, where did Nathan say that this was a good thing?

Oops too late, you already missed it.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Bush authorizes "decisive force" in Iraq

Bush authorizes "decisive force" in Iraq

Re: Bush authorizes "decisive force" in Iraq