Control - GoFuckYourself.com

theking · 03-29-2003, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted By The King
03-17-2003 02:25 AM

"Our forces will have control of the country in less than 10 days. There will not be the prolonged bombing campaign that took place during the first Gulf War."

That was my prediction and it is apparent that coalition forces will not have control in this time frame. It is being reported that coalition forces only have control of approximately 40% of the country.

For those of you that equate control and secure, they are not synonymous. I have explained this in other posts. Once coalition forces have control of the country it does not mean that Iraq will be secure and I suspect that Iraq will not be a secure environment for years, if ever. I have stated that militarily taking control of Iraq will be the easy part but winning the peace will be the difficult part.

Why haven't we taken military control of the country up to this point in time?

Weather has been a factor. Several days of sand storms pretty much brought the advance on Baghdad to a halt, as well as the logistic units which supply the spearhead. In addition weather delayed the massive bombing of the Iraq Divisions arrayed on the outskirts of Baghdad. The first days of the Air Strikes were not directed at Iraqi forces but were directed at military/government infrastructure. When the Air Strikes were just beginning to be directed at Iraqi Divisions several days of sand storms delayed this operation.

Another factor has been the fact that hardcore cadre apparently has been "embedded" among the Iraqi forces and they are forcing them to fight at gunpoint. This is not an unheard of tactic and has been used in past conflicts by certain military and paramiltary forces. How unexpected this factor is to the planners of this campaign I do not know.

Another factor has been the coalitions unwillingness to get bloodied and taking blood (which includes the blood of civilians) which has delayed taking full control of the port cities and cities along our "logistics tail". Those powers that be are going to have to become less reluctant and fight this war as it should be fought, as recluctance and delay often causes greater loss of life than engaging as they should engage.

My big concern about this campaign from the word go was that we were going in "light in the ass". It may be that we now intend to delay until force multipliers come into play in the North as well as in the South. It is being reported that up to another 130,000 troops are being inserted and this will take some time, but I favor this move if it is in fact the strategy.

As long as the weather holds the majority of the sorties being flown are now being directed at Iraq Divisions arrayed outside of Baghdad so if this proves to be effective enough, the advance may resume without waiting for force multipliers to be inserted in country.

My new prediction is that we will have military control of the country within 30 days.

theking · 03-29-2003, 02:13 PM

I am surprised. Where are all of the "I told you so people" and the USA haters, bashers, and "you are getting your ass kicked" types?

sexyclicks · 03-29-2003, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

It is being reported that coalition forces only have control of approximately 40% of the country.

40% of the desert you mean

and btw I'm not an american basher

DarkJedi · 03-29-2003, 02:15 PM

pathfinder is a gangster !!

Theo · 03-29-2003, 02:16 PM

i'm here my friend

mjrools23 · 03-29-2003, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkJedi
pathfinder is a gangster !!

mika · 03-29-2003, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
I am surprised. Where are all of the "I told you so people" and the USA haters, bashers, and "you are getting your ass kicked" types?

hmmm.. no comment
but at least you seem to admit that logistics is slowing it down.
remember I told it to you before the news did, ha

Sly_RJ · 03-29-2003, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
I am surprised. Where are all of the "I told you so people" and the USA haters, bashers, and "you are getting your ass kicked" types?

They're so shocked you're admitting your mistakes, they don't know what to say.

The militias are causing troubles. We need to regroup and cater our gameplan to their guerrilla tactics and then go in for the kill.

If it wasn't for the guerrilla tactics, we'd be kicking their ass. However, this is "war", they're doing what they need to to survive. We'll just need to change that...

Theo · 03-29-2003, 02:21 PM

theking since you know more things on how the whole operation takes place, can you explain me what causes so many accidents?

Most british soldiers got killed from friendly fires. I have a feeling that combined forces in such operations do not offer anything. Probably the result with only US soldiers would be pretty much the same now with less accidents.

Fletch XXX · 03-29-2003, 02:25 PM

friendly fire accidents happen in every war.

fuck, imagine how many soldiers killed their own in the old days, specially in the sword swinging days, battles axes are hard to stop once youre in full swing or Civil War type of battles.

not sure why it happens or causes it, but its happened since day one of war.

TDF · 03-29-2003, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soul_Rebel
theking since you know more things on how the whole operation takes place, can you explain me what causes so many accidents?

Most british soldiers got killed from friendly fires. I have a feeling that combined forces in such operations do not offer anything. Probably the result with only US soldiers would be pretty much the same now with less accidents.

2 marines were killed yesterday when they were run over by a tank...while sleep..

theking · 03-29-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soul_Rebel
theking since you know more things on how the whole operation takes place, can you explain me what causes so many accidents?

Most british soldiers got killed from friendly fires. I have a feeling that combined forces in such operations do not offer anything. Probably the result with only US soldiers would be pretty much the same now with less accidents.

Accidents happen, period. During the 1st Gulf War there was almost as many, maybe even more, as I have forgotten the exact number, killed by accident during the Desert Shield build up as their were KIA's during Desert Storm and of course during Desert Storm a large percentage were victims of "friendly fire", which is an oxymoron. "Shit happens."

mule · 03-29-2003, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
I am surprised. Where are all of the "I told you so people" and the USA haters, bashers, and "you are getting your ass kicked" types?

After you made yourself as ridiculous as you did, we all just felt too sorry for you

Theo · 03-29-2003, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by toodamnfli

2 marines were killed yesterday when they were run over by a tank...while sleep..

i havent heard it till now......

I see, probably the media coverage at the moment brings more attention to the accidents than ever.

theking · 03-29-2003, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by toodamnfli

2 marines were killed yesterday when they were run over by a tank...while sleep..

I was run over the second day into the ground battle during Desert Storm. Ended my military career and fucked me up for the remainder of my life.

theking · 03-29-2003, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mule

After you made yourself as ridiculous as you did, we all just felt too sorry for you

Well I was right about the fact that the ground war and air campaign would be almost simultaneous, no prolonged bombing campaign as in the 1st Gulf war, and if it were not for the "ifs" I could have been correct. What has been accomplished up to this point in time has never before been accomplished in the history of war.

Sly_RJ · 03-29-2003, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soul_Rebel

i havent heard it till now......

I see, probably the media coverage at the moment brings more attention to the accidents than ever.

This really has nothing to do about the war, but it's an interesting thing to hear about the media...

Since you're not from the United States, you might not have heard of this, BUT a couple summers ago (I'm thinking 2000), there was a huge shark scare in the United States. A couple people were attacked by sharks. I think a few even died.

Anyway, the media was reporting new attacks and potential attacks practically every day. Every year before this particular summer, you never heard anything about shark attacks. Well, people started to get really upset about this "epidemic of shark attacks" and many thought there were too many sharks in the ocean, maybe it's time to kill some of them.

After doing a little research, I learned that this particular summer actually had LESS shark attacks than most summers and the shark population was actually declining to dangerous levels, instead of the opposite. Turns out the extra coverage of the media made the people upset. You really can't blame the people, if you suddenly see all kinds of shark attacks, what would you think?

theking · 03-29-2003, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

This really has nothing to do about the war, but it's an interesting thing to hear about the media...

Since you're not from the United States, you might not have heard of this, BUT a couple summers ago (I'm thinking 2000), there was a huge shark scare in the United States. A couple people were attacked by sharks. I think a few even died.

Anyway, the media was reporting new attacks and potential attacks practically every day. Every year before this particular summer, you never heard anything about shark attacks. Well, people started to get really upset about this "epidemic of shark attacks" and many thought there were too many sharks in the ocean, maybe it's time to kill some of them.

After doing a little research, I learned that this particular summer actually had LESS shark attacks than most summers and the shark population was actually declining to dangerous levels, instead of the opposite. Turns out the extra coverage of the media made the people upset. You really can't blame the people, if you suddenly see all kinds of shark attacks, what would you think?

I remember that. I have said it before and will say it again, the media exploits the news and in the case of the shark attacks their exploitation resulted in misleading people into thinking that there was something out of the ordinary about the number of shark attacks, when there wasn't. Much like their coverage of this war.

aflex · 03-29-2003, 05:39 PM

theking is a coward

you're no war hero.. you're just pathfinder, a message board personality that faked his own death =]

iroc409 · 03-29-2003, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch XXX
friendly fire accidents happen in every war.

fuck, imagine how many soldiers killed their own in the old days, specially in the sword swinging days, battles axes are hard to stop once youre in full swing or Civil War type of battles.

not sure why it happens or causes it, but its happened since day one of war.

don't you ever play any online games? someone runs in front of you, or in an urban environment you're running helter-skelter, run into a teammate and perforate them, because they came by surprise or what-not?

i'm pretty good at not tking, but there's a lot of chaos out there some time. i fear it, but it will probably get worse when they enter baghdad.

Scootermuze · 03-29-2003, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
I am surprised. Where are all of the "I told you so people" and the USA haters, bashers, and "you are getting your ass kicked" types?

I think they're just waiting til the end of 30 days as we continue to fight, to see what your next prediction will be..

Updated predictions are always right.. eventually..

theking · 03-29-2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by aflex
theking is a coward

you're no war hero.. you're just pathfinder, a message board personality that faked his own death =]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by theking
It is difficult for me to understand why some of you people are so obessed with PF. It is difficult for me to understand why you cannot accept the fact that a seventy year old man died of a stroke. Doing a quick search of PF's posts I quickly found at least one post where he had spoke about having had strokes.

On 07-02-2002 PF posted this and actually understated the extent of damage that having strokes had caused him. He had many strokes over a period of several years. It was clear to those that knew him that his memory had been affected, but probably not as clear to those that did not know him as he would have appeared to still be sharp to them. The last stroke that he had prior to his death left him partially paralyzed and with slurred speech. The doctor had told us that he would undoubedtly have a stroke that would kill him and there was not alot that could be done about it. We, the family, were prepared for his death on any given day. He also was a diabetic. At least two people that are members of this board knew him (three counting me) and at least one other member other than myself has posted that he is in fact dead. Read it, learn it, know it and get the fuck over it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pathfinder

Actually this is new information that I cannot recall ever hearing about. I am old and I have had a few minor strokes that have affected my memory to some extent, so I am not intellectually as sharpe as I used to be. It is possible that this info disappeared as did the "piano lessons".

I am intrigued by it and will read some more about it. One thing I did run across on one of the links:

http://www.thethresher.com/indiscreet.html

"The most frequently cited and circulated source of Bush-Nazi investigations/conspiranoia, George Bush-The Unauthorized Biography (a biography of George Herbert Walker Bush) by Webster Griffin Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, published in 1992, while well-documented, is also the most suspect. The problem is that Tarpley and Chaitkin are colleagues of the political cult leader Lyndon LaRouche. Not surprisingly, they insist on overlaying otherwise solidly researched data with wildly speculative interpretations. The book, originally published by LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review, though "out of print," is ubiquitous on the web, and freely used and quoted by Bush conspiranoia buffs of all persuasions."

This makes me think that alot of what is said about this subject will have to be taken with a grain of salt, but apparently the government did take control of the company.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the compliment. PF was a great man, a unique man, a mans man, and a warrior. I have spent most of my life trying to emmulate him (unsuccessfully I might add), may he rest in peace.

By the way.

Quote:

New rule. I will not have intercourse with pricks, drugged out kids, or the plumb dumb.

jimmyf · 03-29-2003, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by aflex
theking is a coward

you're no war hero.. you're just pathfinder, a message board personality that faked his own death =]

Hey Num Skull pathfinder is dead. And you have no ideal what Pathfinder nor theking's military career was.

theking · 03-29-2003, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf

Hey Num Skull pathfinder is dead. And you have no ideal what Pathfinder nor theking's military career was.

AIRBORNE!

03-29-2003, 02:13 PM	#2
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	I am surprised. Where are all of the "I told you so people" and the USA haters, bashers, and "you are getting your ass kicked" types? __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

03-29-2003, 02:25 PM	#10
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	friendly fire accidents happen in every war. fuck, imagine how many soldiers killed their own in the old days, specially in the sword swinging days, battles axes are hard to stop once youre in full swing or Civil War type of battles. not sure why it happens or causes it, but its happened since day one of war. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

03-29-2003, 02:15 PM	#4
DarkJedi No Refunds Issued. Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: GFY Posts: 28,300	pathfinder is a gangster !!

03-29-2003, 02:16 PM	#5
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	i'm here my friend

03-29-2003, 02:21 PM	#9
Theo HAL 9000 Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 34,515	theking since you know more things on how the whole operation takes place, can you explain me what causes so many accidents? Most british soldiers got killed from friendly fires. I have a feeling that combined forces in such operations do not offer anything. Probably the result with only US soldiers would be pretty much the same now with less accidents.

03-29-2003, 05:39 PM	#19
aflex Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: New Jersey - adaptweb at gmail.com Posts: 3,127	theking is a coward you're no war hero.. you're just pathfinder, a message board personality that faked his own death =]