todd Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 A friend and I were having a discussion regarding the latest operation in Iraq - Operation Steel Curtain. My friend said he thought that the president's statement that major operations were over still held, while I think GW was either premature in his declaration (best case) or had his head in his ass (worst case). I'm not a military guy, so maybe people here can tell me the difference between what is going on now and the major operations that are continuing. I have no point of reference to tell the difference between the two, if there are any, so I'd appreciate some input. My perception is that what is going on is no different than major operations, however I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCI Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 I think he meant the end of the conventional war with the Iraqi military. The Gorilla /terrorist war continues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 I think he meant the end of the conventional war with the Iraqi military. The Gorilla /terrorist war continues 496733[/snapback] ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 They only use Captains and anybody with a lower rank. Majors and higher get the day off to play horseshoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCI Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 ????? 496736[/snapback] When the major operations in Germany were over during WWII, The allies still had to conduct operations to counter the German Gorillas called “Werewolf’s”. Nothing new Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 A friend and I were having a discussion regarding the latest operation in Iraq - Operation Steel Curtain. My friend said he thought that the president's statement that major operations were over still held, while I think GW was either premature in his declaration (best case) or had his head in his ass (worst case). I'm not a military guy, so maybe people here can tell me the difference between what is going on now and the major operations that are continuing. I have no point of reference to tell the difference between the two, if there are any, so I'd appreciate some input. My perception is that what is going on is no different than major operations, however I could be wrong. 496689[/snapback] Newbie's right (for once). To expand: the US military's largely organized around conventional warfare...large, heavy, organized units rattle-assing around a battlefield with defined (to a degree - the definition is never exact) front lines. A good example of such is: invading a country. So as such, when the invasion of Iraq was over, the President's statement was truthful, timely, and accurate. The real issue was with the wording - "major combat operations", while accurate in terms of the intensity of operations, gave the implication that the peace that followed would be "minor" (accurate, again in terms of intensity) and hence "easier" (patently untrue, as anyone with half a brain pretty much realized). The problem with his statement was that most people will equate "major" to "more difficult", which is an incorrect inference that Bush's speechwriters should have known better than to foster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCI Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Newbie's right (for once). 496748[/snapback] Do you always lead with your backhand? GeeeeSHHH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Do you always lead with your backhand? GeeeeSHHH 496757[/snapback] When the major operations in Germany were over during WWII, The allies still had to conduct operations to counter the German Gorillas called “Werewolf’s”. Nothing new The "Werewolfs" turned out to exist largely in Goebbels' imagination. As I recall, there were three instances of guerilla activity in West Germany by 1948. Like I said...you were right for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCI Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 The "Werewolfs" turned out to exist largely in Goebbels' imagination. As I recall, there were three instances of guerilla activity in West Germany by 1948. Like I said...you were right for once. 496765[/snapback] Thanks for your history lesson, but my comparison is still a good one. The Werewolves specialized in ambushes and sniping, and took the lives of many Allied and Soviet soldiers and officers -- perhaps even that of the first Soviet commandant of Berlin, General N.E. Berzarin, who was rumored to have been waylaid in Charlottenburg during an incident in June 1945. Buildings housing allied and Soviet staffs were favorite targets for Werewolf bombings; an explosion in the Bremen police headquarters, also in June 1945, killed five Americans and thirty-nine Germans. Techniques for harassing the occupiers were given widespread publicity through Werewolf leaflets and radio propaganda, and long after May 1945 the sabotage methods promoted by the Werewolves were still being used against the occupying powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Those gorillas in Planet of the Apes could really fight. But they couldn't stop Charlton Heston with a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCI Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 Those gorillas in Planet of the Apes could really fight. But they couldn't stop Charlton Heston with a gun. 496813[/snapback] NO you just can't stop the NRA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 YOU MANIACS. YOU BLEW IT UP. DAMN YOU. GOD DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 A friend and I were having a discussion regarding the latest operation in Iraq - Operation Steel Curtain. My friend said he thought that the president's statement that major operations were over still held, while I think GW was either premature in his declaration (best case) or had his head in his ass (worst case). I'm not a military guy, so maybe people here can tell me the difference between what is going on now and the major operations that are continuing. I have no point of reference to tell the difference between the two, if there are any, so I'd appreciate some input. My perception is that what is going on is no different than major operations, however I could be wrong. 496689[/snapback] Well, you have to understand that a war has very little political appeal for a President unless it comes complete with a victory ceremony. Thus, he had to declare and end to something even though it was clear that there was no end in sight at the time or even now. Thus, he declared an end to "major operations". It was a non-victory, victory speech. A victory speech that didn't need to be associated with an actual victory if you will. I think the soldiers deserved a victory lap at that point, the President, perhaps, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 7, 2005 Share Posted November 7, 2005 When the major operations in Germany were over during WWII, The allies still had to conduct operations to counter the German Gorillas called “Werewolf’s”. Nothing new 496741[/snapback] How many Americans died in Europe in the two years after Germany's surrender? Let me help you out: The quickest answer to your question about post-surrender casualties in WWII is: Hardly any. There appears to have been virtually no hostile fire in Germany or Japan after the surrenders of those countries." Post surrender casualties WWII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCI Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 My comparison is still a good one. This sort of activity is nothing new I officially declare that there is nothing new under the sun. Read before you shoot off: A combination of highly committed popular reconstruction efforts contrasted with attacks on civilians deprived Werwolf of popular support, while miscommunication and demoralization worked to rapidly reduce the effectiveness of existing cells. A Pentagon report listed 42 American soldiers "killed as a result of enemy action" between June and December 1945. In 1946, there were three.The only real successes of the Nazi insurgency was the climate of fear it temporarily engendered, the myth it created of itself, and the birth of the neo-Nazi political movements which survive to this day, albeit in small numbers on the fringes of society. The Nazi insurgency was much smaller and less effective than the current Iraqi insurgency, which is estimated as having between 12, 000 and 20, 000 hardcore supporters along with substantial passive support from a large minority of the Sunni Muslim population of Iraq. Nonetheless, there are four critically important and practical lessons to be gleaned from the defeat of the Nazi insurgency in post-war Germany. First, the appearance of failure in the media is not necessarily accurate. The Nazi insurgency generated a fear and panic completely out of proportion to their actual effectiveness. Radio and leaflet propaganda claimed every setback in reconstruction as one of their operations, and deaths of prominent occupation personalities as assassinations. The media gobbled it up, while the citizens of American and Germany worried. Just as they seem to be constantly describe a ‘quagmire’ in Iraq today and report on the unpopularity of American troops, many articles in the New York Times predicted doom and gloom for Germany in 1945. The "attitude toward the American occupation forces has swung from apathy and surface friendliness to active dislike. According to a military government official, this is finding expression in the organization of numerous local anti-American organizations throughout the zone and in a rapid increase in the number of attacks on American soldiers. There were more such attacks in the first week of October than in the preceding five months of the occupation, this source declared." "Grave concern was expressed today by informed officials that the United States might soon lose the fruits of victory in Germany through the failure to prepare adequately for carrying out its long-term commitments…" "An exhaustive compilation of opinions of Germans in all walks of life on their reaction to the United States occupation of their country was released…Bitter resentment and deep disappointment was voiced over the Americans' first six months of occupation..." Finally, reconstruction is slow. Lest we forget, even with very little actual hindrance from insurgent and terrorist activities, it took four years to rebuild Germany to even a shadow of what it is today and ten years for it to be declared fully sovereign. Iraq will not become a democracy in a day, or a month, or even a year. But it is on the path to becoming one, and will become one, so long as we remain committed and focused. Good column by your comrade from the north Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 My comparison is still a good one. This sort of activity is nothing new I officially declare that there is nothing new under the sun. Read before you shoot off: Good column by your comrade from the north 497281[/snapback] Actually, the column says precisely what I said: the "Werewolves" managed about three attacks in their entire history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Actually, the column says precisely what I said: the "Werewolves" managed about three attacks in their entire history. 497283[/snapback] The article says.... In reality, there were four major attacks by Werwolf troops in the Western zones of occupation. The new anti-Nazi Lord Mayor of Aachen was assassinated...several weeks before the Nazi surrender, on Himmler’s direct orders. Field Marshal Montgomery’s liaison officer and the Soviet commandant of Berlin were both killed in ambushes; the first was hushed up and the latter was only discovered to be an attack because the Soviet counterclaims were marred by glaring inconsistencies. A bombing of a police station claimed 44 victims. In the east, Nazi insurgents carried out a few massacres of civilians and sniped at occupying forces, provoking brutal and indiscriminate reprisals from the Russians that quickly quelled future attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope zimli Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 A friend and I were having a discussion regarding the latest operation in Iraq - Operation Steel Curtain. My friend said he thought that the president's statement that major operations were over still held, while I think GW was either premature in his declaration (best case) or had his head in his ass (worst case). I'm not a military guy, so maybe people here can tell me the difference between what is going on now and the major operations that are continuing. I have no point of reference to tell the difference between the two, if there are any, so I'd appreciate some input. My perception is that what is going on is no different than major operations, however I could be wrong. 496689[/snapback] While the term "mission accomplished" comes to mind, I think the fact is that the US mistakenly thinks there were two wars-the "major combat operations" which were the "shock and awe" war wanted to fight and the ongoing guerilla war, which is the war that determines what happens in Iraq. I think forgetting about the first and concentrating on the second might not be a bad idea. There was a story told during the peace talks over Vietnam where an American officer approached a North Vietnameses general (possibly Giap) and complained to him that "You never beat us in any set battle (major combat operation). The NV general replied. "That is very true...but then that is also very irrelevant." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCI Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Actually, I’m right about Tom Delay being a total dickweed also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Actually, the column says precisely what I said: the "Werewolves" managed about three attacks in their entire history. 497283[/snapback] Not that comparing the aftermath of a world war involving millions of troops in Europe ca. 1945 with what is going on in Iraq in 2005 involving 150,000 of our troops makes any sense whatsoever. This is a consistent conservative talking point that keeps popping up no matter how screamingly inapplicable the comparison is so don't even bother. Its like trying to convince a flesh eating zombie to try a salad once in awhile. Really, 44 died? What are we up to in Iraq now? Over 2,000? How many civilians? 50,000? 100,000? They see a valid direct comparison with world war two but see no resemblance at all to Viet Nam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts