Posts made by Ozone27

@F_alk:

Oh, btw, it seems like the uprising in Basra was not that big as TB first said.
And did anyone hear anything new about that so-called chemical weapons facility? It’s a few days ago now that it was taken by the US…. and i bet it would have been a major headline had it really been a factory for WMD.

Both good points. Saw an interview yesterday w/ a UK military spokesman who stated the British never said anything to his knowlege about an uprising in Basra–just that the situation within that city is very confused. Since the discovery of the “possible chemical weapons plant” in s/w Iraq, the situation there has been remarkably quiet. Could be for a lot of reasons, but IMO, F_alk is right–if it could be proven conclusively that it was a chemical weaps factory, I’d think it’d be all over the news in about 12.5 seconds.

The way I see it if Saddam has the weapons (& I still think he does), he would have to use them if the circumstances arose to favor their use. The reason being that if he’s going to lose anyway, he can have nothing to lose by using the weapons & revealing their existence. Possibly up till now he’s been seeing where the wind is blowing (both literally & figuratively) to see whether the situation can be salvaged. If it can, keeping the weaps a secret would still be a priority–the man is nothing if not a survivor…

The latter reminds me of how we in the US never see nor hear anything about the exTaliban & al’Quaeda prisoners being held in Guantanamo. They are a regular feature of debate on the news in Europe but Americans never hear a peep about them…

Ozone27

I for one am totally confused as to what good ol’ dan here is asking. Please clarify! :D

Ozone27

Hey, I totally agree that the ultra-right is guilty of the same things. But this war has really opened my eyes to the hypocrisy of the ultra-left as well. Coming as I do from a left-leaning political perspective, this has never been as obvious to me as it is now. If this kind of radicalism (left & right) is not tempered soon, this country will be torn apart. I am not kidding.

Regarding the media, what I am saying is that sensational media works both ways. As I stated, the big US news agencies are shall we say, “shaded” toward the Pentagon view of the war. Today, antiwar protesters hit CNN demonstrating against this biased coverage. Presumably in addition to the images & stories about Iraqi war-crimes, US military battles & “shock & awe” these people want to also see broadcast the reality of civilian hardship, civilian injuries & deaths & destroyed homes & apartments to show the “other side”. This is natural, but consider how these things can skew the public perspective as well. If the war were to end with, say (totally making this up here) 200 civilian deaths, that would be a huge vistory for precision arms over overwhelming force in terms of the protection of human life. But show one dead baby on national TV and you know people would go ballistic. In legal terms this is called “prejudicial” because the effect of the image is out of all proportion to its importance in the context of the issues at hand. Now I’m not saying even 1 human death is something that should be callously ignored–it IS tragic. But also tragic is the effect that 12 years of UN sanctions and government mistreatment have had on the citizens of Iraq, & thats a HUGE part of the story too. Seems at this point no one–left or right–wants this part of the story shown at all. The left don’t want their hypocrisy of opposing the sanctions & the regime but also simultaneously opposing the 1 action that could stop it. The right don’t want it shown for obvious reasons–their complicity in the continuation of the hostilities for so long. So the story is never told.

On Monday, US stocks took a nosedive. I attribute this directly to the coverage of the war by the big news agencies. I recall hearing many anchorpeople & correspondents refer to Sunday-Monday as “a bad day for the Coalition”. And yet it was obvious to anyone with any knowlege of military matters that this was simply the 1st time that the Coalition was encountering any significant opposition–something everyone knew would happen & yet the media had promoted the idea that victory was hours away, without even realizing it, with their coverage. As soon as it became obvious that the advance was continuing, stocks began to recover. That’s the danger of second-by-second & day-by-day coverage of a rapidly-changing series of events by news agencies that either don’t understand, or don’t explain, what it is they are reporting.

So see it works both ways.

Ozone27

Hmmm…not sure “survival of the fittest” is really a viable political idea. Hasn’t that been tried before? :wink:

Ozone27

Totally agree, DasEwokSS–starting this war in this fashion was a big mistake. Both the anti-war & pro-war factions in the UN should’ve realized what was happening & worked harder to develop some compromise (like a new Resolution with a “hard” deadline for a change). That way we could’ve presented a united front against rogue regimes. Now that the UN has been discredited in this fashion, there is a danger of such situations as you mentioned occurring…

Ozone27

Heh, it’s funny, I stayed up waay too late on Sunday night to watch Saddam Hussein’s address, and yet when George Bush, Ari Fleischer or (especially) journalist-hater Don Rumsfeldt comes on I change the channel. Turns out Saddam’s BS is a lot more enlightening on the general situation than hearing “we will prevail…no more questions” for the hundredth time :wink: …

I think the US media is heavily under the influence of the Pentagon in this war, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe what I see there is really happening. What I look for is what I DON’T see, what I DON’T hear, what other smaller news organizations are saying & the bits of obvious propaganda (like the story about Iraqi expatriates yearning to return to a free Iraq I mentioned before) I ignore…

I disagree that we’re hearing “disinformation”. I think a lot of Americans are seeing a whole bunch of information they can’t use, and not enough really important stuff, but it’s NOT LIES.

Keep in mind that most people on the left distrust the military, and so are less well-informed about the military than some on the right. Show these people footage of a “bypassed” city putting up resistance to troops attempting to invest it & they will scream “LIES!” because they thought the city was “taken”. The current regime in the US has a history of patronizing these people (like their huge “al’Qaeda/Iraq connection” blunder) and so they are I think justified in rejecting the Pentagon’s assessments on those grounds. But there are many on the far left–I call the ultra-left–who will reject all news, all reports, all statements from politicians that do not agree w/ their own predisposed positions on the matter. “GW Bush is an ultra-hawkish right-winger so he is always wrong” That is just not logical. “I don’t watch CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN because that’s all lies. I only listen to NPR.” Well, you are gonna get a skewed impression of what’s going on.

And (not talking about F_alk here, just the public in general) if you choose not to educate yourself on the rudiments of military matters, don’t complain that you are confused by what’s going on in Iraq & it must be due to government lies. That’s like having a physicist tell you about black holes & not believing him 'cuz “wait, time doesn’t ‘slow down’!” Or you know what I mean…

BTW heard today there is a civilian uprising against Saddam going on in Basra. Guess maybe some Iraqis could use our help after all… :wink:

Ozone27

That said, US reporting IS much more sensationalistic than for instance German reporting & is quite biased toward the government point of view. All of the “side reports” I’ve seen are pro-US from interviews of Iraqi expatriates & POWs families, to the “embedding” process which tends to skew reporting heavily in favor of the US side. But since Iraqis want to control what gets reported even more than the US military, access to their POV is even more difficult to get, so thats part of their problem. Reporting on global (especially European) opposition to the war has been shunted off the headlines due to the desire of US journalists to get more shots of explosions & gunfire. That doesn’t mean its all lies though–not by a long shot…

Ozone27

@F_alk:

Umm Kasr has been taken three day ago… no, there is still fighting… no, it’s taken, no, there is still fighting…

This war is a prime example of disinformation. The press who is taken with the armed forces is censored before they are allowed to send anything of their stuff home…

F_alk you are just like a friend of mine who says he doesn’t watch the (especially CNN) military coverage because it’s all Pentagon propaganda designed to demoralize the enemy. :lol:

Now sure, in order to get the access they have (which is unprecedented) CNN & other news agencies have had to agree to some tight controls. They are limited (censored) as to what they report & when they report it. But they are showing LIVE PICTURES from damm near the front lines & interviewing people as they come back from missions. How do you think the Pentagon would’ve handled the story of the GI who fragged some of his fellow soldiers had there not been a newsman there on the scene within seconds of it happening? In some cases the Pentagon will be having headaches due to the amount of access these reporters are having, especially when they start filming people being killed–which may happen in a live broadcast: I’ve certainly already seen people injured. Not saying that’s a good thing, but being informed is never a bad thing…

Except when people are only half-informed & not given proper guidance as to what they are seeing–happened a lot in Vietnam, & its happened in this war as well in regards to the “secured” towns like Basra & Um Qasr. I was not surprised in the least when casualties were taken AFTER the US battle front rolled through–these cities were isolated & surrounded by Coalition forces, in the case of Um Qasr the harbor was taken (& remains in Coalition hands) & the enemy pockets of resistance were bypassed TO BE ELIMINATED LATER AT THE COALITION’S PACE. Works pretty well with enemies that are smart & surrender when the situation is clearly hopeless, works less well when the enemy desires to die fighting, but the result give-or-take some casualties–never a good thing–is still the same.

But when people are told the cities are sealed off & have been bypassed, then they see casualties there occurring days later, they are confused because “Hey, there aren’t supposed to be any Iraqis there!” It’s a mistake for the media not to explain these things in detail.

In the case of al’Nasiriya, as I’ve said before, there is evidence of a counter-infiltration by Iraqi paramilitary forces AFTER the allies secured the bridges & rolled through. That’s pretty bad news. It seems likely to me personally as well that some Iraqi forces in al’Nasiriya, possibly in other places as well, were in hiding, waiting for the assault troops to pass through BEFORE opening fire on the mop-up troops & logistics personnel from hidden positions & ambushes. This is a bad sign that the regime is not going down without a fight, however hopeless…

Also, a certain amount of confusion from the press is understandable given the rapidity of new developments & the eagerness of reporters to scoop everyone else. Still, it beats the reporting on the Lewinsky case.

Or maybe its all just Pentagon propaganda & the Iraqis are actually kicking our a$$es. That IS what Saddam suggested last night–ON THE NEWS! :wink: To each their own…

Ozone27

@Meijing:

It was wrong to start that war in the first place, but it’s too late to stop it now.
I must adimt that I’m not wholeheartly with the American troops. When I hear of Turks going to invade, when I hear of street fighting in Um Quatar and Basra, when I hear of Apaches downed, when I hear of riots in Cairo, I have to think, I said so, this war is a mistake. Let’s hope burning down the house, doesn’t set the whole quater on fire.

Good point that hopefully the political damage & chaos that has been unleashed will not spill over into other areas (though it probably will)…

This is not directed at Meiji, rather I’m using his statement of concern as a starting point…

I don’t agree that it was 100% “wrong” to start the war, because the so-called peace beforehand (which was really more of a semi-effective very porous siege situation than an actual peace) was also very wrong. Those on the far left easily forget that up until last week they were denouncing the UN sanctions & embargoes against Iraq as crippling & counterproductive (which they were), then someone steps in after 12 years to do something positive to end the standoff & now that is even more wrong because the person stepping in is an ultra-hawk right-wing Republican & its gotta be wrong 'cuz everything he does is wrong, right?]

OK so the UN sanctions & endless inspections were wrong & war vs. Hussein is wrong then what would be the right course of action? We could lift all the sanctions & welcome Saddam Hussein’s brutal regime back into the world’s good-'ol-boy network, let him buy all the weapons he wants with his people’s oil…but then of course when we were doing that in the 80’s well WHADDAYA KNOW?–that was wrong too!

I guess the only right course of action according to the ultra-left and the peaceniks would be to politely ask Saddam Hussein “Sir, will you please please please step down…” & hope he does. Otherwise, let’s just let him do whatever he wants…

Because Hussein will ONLY RESPOND TO FORCE.

Ozone27

Heard within the last 2 hours that the Pentagon believes “special” Republican Guard units have counter-infiltrated Nasiriyah since the main US strike forces rolled through…

Possibly the same has happened in Basra, although the battles there could also represent pockets of resistance that have been hiding out. Remember that the war has only been going on for a matter of days, the main US forces attacked & bypassed Basra only a few hours ago…

Keep in mind that the US is using tactics heavily based on the idea of “blitzkrieg” that worked so well in WWII. The main strike forces are bypassing areas of strong enemy resistance in order to attack the enemy’s rear areas & seal them off. In the “mop-up” operations a lot will depend on whether the enemy does the human thing & surrenders, or whether they prolong the fight in order to cause more death, pain & hardship…

Ozone27

I think the “howls of protest” have been going on for several days now.

Anti-war protesters are protesting the belligerency of the Coalition vs. Iraq. Therefore I believe the vast majority of them are just as horrified by these events as are you & me, they just see it as more evidence that George Bush is wrong & our boys need to come home. They don’t “love” Saddam, they love human life…

Just my take on the situation…

Ozone27

Meijing, there is one reason & one reason only those Turkish troops are massing at Turkey’s southern border. According to Turkish diplomats, they are preparing a defense against possible incursion by “Iraqi” troops. What they are really saying is they are afraid of possible incursion by KURDISH troops from northern Iraq, since Kurds there are actively aiding the Coalition, the US supports Kurdish activities there, and I would presume that there is a fear on the part of Turkey that given their obstruction of active support to the Coalition for such an extended period of time, the US might turn a blind eye to Kurdish incursions. Turks have a long history of hatred & oppression of ethnic Kurds, so this to them must seem a very real threat.

Therefore a Turkish advance into northern Iraq would be an EXTREMELY BAD thing for the Coalition.

@cystic:

Useless as i believe the methods and messages of the protesters are, i do not make the connection between telling a gov’t to not wage war against another country, and wishing for nothing to be done, or having a responsibility to help following the conflict. This is why i questioned your remarks

I think it should be obvious by now that should we be unwilling to wage war on Saddam Hussein’s regime, that would be tantamount to admitting we can/will do nothing about his brutality & possible banned weapons development. That is because every small concession Iraq has made toward disarming since the Gulf War has been under the threat or after the execution of attacks on its territory. In other words, violence is all Hussein responds to!

I’m sure that many anti-war protesters will certainly assist in aiding the Iraqi people through Red Cross & other humanitarian organizations. That I don’t think is the issue. The issue is whether the people of Iraq are better served by having Hussein ousted via military means–hopefully as swift & conscientious as recent events have suggested it could be–or by further endless embargoes & sanctions that do nothing but strengthen the regime. I think the answer is obvious…

Now the REAL issue vis-a-vis the protests is really the question of GW Bush PERSONALLY: that is his tenuous claim to the Presidency (when the majority of Americans did not vote for him & the shady means by which he won); his “Dirty Harry-style” foreign policy; and the visceral, irrational & pathological hatred many liberals have for him. The latter is extremely reminiscent of the right-wing hatred of Bill Clinton. I opposed that, & I oppose the current movement against Bush.

What I REALLY oppose however is the LIE that these people are only concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people. Since clearly the war is being conducted in the most humane, precise way possible; that American troops are probably risking themselves more because of their efforts to protect civilians; that Iraq will clearly be better off after Saddam is ousted & a more representative government–one where Shiites & Kurds, who are helping us & who clearly want the regime gone, have a say–is established; that UN economic sanctions after the war will be lifted and badly needed–and delayed–humanitarian supplies including food & medicine will be provided; take all this into account & you see that realistically speaking, the protests are not about the welfare of the people of Iraq at all…

They are about the narrow political interests of the extreme left.

How do I know? I am a Democrat who lives in Northern California & all of my friends (including my girlfriend, bless her heart) are in total opposition to the war. Most of the communities around me are expressing their deep dislike of the current situation as well. Believe me, I have had an opportunity to listen to the views of the left-wingers around me, many of whom have been involved & even arrested in the course of the SF protests. My analysis has been that these people oppose GEORGE W. BUSH & HIS GOVERNMENT ALONE; that due to the internal weakness of the Democratic Party that they feel their voices have not been heard & won’t be thru normal channels; and that they oppose GW’s ultra-hawkish foreign policy. That they CARE about the Iraqi people is true–that they are realistic about it & believe that peace is really the best thing for them: that is a SHAM. The Iraqi people have simply become the pawn by which the ultra-left hope to accomplish the narrow agenda of eliminating GW Bush. In a sick way, many on the ultra-left WANT to see more US & Iraqi casualties in order so that “more people will see the wrongness of GW Bush’s actions”.

Keep in mind these people are my FRIENDS and the war has created a terrible divide between us.

Ozone27

The protesters aren’t lying, hypocritical people (well, most of them anyway :wink: ) they are mostly good people who just want peace & think the best thing for our country is to stop the war. I don’t agree w/ some of their methods, but they believe they are doing the right thing & who really wants war…?

What I don’t understand is what the alternative is. If we stop the war now & leave, Iraq’s current leadership will remain in power & the stalemate w/ the UN will resume. The inspectors will inspect, GW will rave, & really nothing substantial will be done to ease the suffering of the Iraqi people, just like the last 13 years. Only now (in this scenario) that we’ve proven we won’t choose the military option by withdrawing, Iraq will have no reason at all to comply w/ the weapons inspectors & will once again call the shots. Over the last 12 years the only supposed progress that has been made w/ Iraq & their weapons has been either by direct military force (that is airstrikes) or by the threat of immediate overwhelming military force (that is over the last few months). If we aren’t willing to fight what the heck do we expect to accomplish with this regime?

I think the UN’s inability to work out some sort of compromise between the hawks & doves was scandalous & a shame on both sides. But now the war has begun what difference does it make? If the Iraqi leadership cared one whit about the people it’s supposed to lead & protect they would surrender & give up this HOPELESS conflict. As I see it, as strange as it sounds, the only powers doing anything positive at this point to HELP the Iraqi people are those of the Coalition. With the regime ousted, Iraq can rejoin the community of nations, rebuild its economy, befriend its neighbors & receive loans & more effective humanitarian aid. The sooner the war is finished, the sooner that can happen. Going back the the endless futile inspections, the crushing economic sanctions, not to mention the ongoing terror, torture & murder of the Iraqi regime is not a viable option. The antiwar protesters are good people who want peace, but they are not being very realistic…

JMO

Ozone27

You can put down unlimited #s of units on ICs you owned at the beginning of the game. These are: USSR->Russia & Karelia. Germany->Germany & Southern Europe. UK->Great Britain. Japan->Japan Home Islands. USA->East USA & West USA. All others that are built or captured throughout the game are of limited production. That is, an IC built on India may produce up to 3 units per turn. If Southern Europe is captured by an Ally, it may produce up to 6 units a turn. & so on…

Hope this helps.

Ozone27

@yourbuttocks:

The 4th infantry and the 1st MArine expeditionary are in Iraq.

But It looks like the U.S. is trying to negotiate a coup in order to avoid a full blown invasion.

GW is pretty bloodthirsty, isn’t he (sarcasm intended :wink: )…I guess the folks protesting in Northern Cali are pretty bummed GW has managed so far to avoid large-scale loss of civilian life–sure makes GW look less like the brutal murderer he’s supposed to be…

Ozone27

Well, F_alk’s response was kinda, shall-we-say “straightforward” (classic German style :wink: ). But Xi’s asking for it with this jingoistic “poll”.

“72 whores(virgins)” What planet are you on? Xi, seriously :o !

Ozone27

You are in uncharted territory here my friend!

You’ve got to understand that since the game was not intended to be played the way you are doing, you will probably need several rules tweaks in order to balance it out. I’m NOT telling you you shouldn’t play this way–I’m sure its fun! Just you might be facing a situation where the rules need to be adjusted to reflect the new 5-way balance…

Try making friends w/ USSR, that will help. What do you guys bargain w/: IPCs, territories–what? An alliance w/ Japan might help a LOT too–have them help you out in Africa. Otherwise, build a strong fleet the first few turns when you’ve got the cash. That way when you are poor, hopefully all you’ll hafta build is INF and funnel them to Africa until you win.

Have you ever played Diplomacy? Totally different combat rules, but it very much has the flavor you might be looking for in 5-way A&A: lots of secret deals, shifting alliances, every man (or woman, though I find women tend to hate this game) for him (her?) self etc. Plus, Diplomacy has been playtested for decades to be played in just this manner, unlike A & A, where it is a variant rule. Just an idea…

Ozone27

Darth Maximus is right on the money once again. Another example is you can throw everything you have at the North Sea T1 & watch all your FTRs blow up in your face due to lousy dice rolls. There’s no one way to do anything.

A lot of the strategies you see online are of the nature of “here’s how you win”. That is because many of the players online PLAY online–vs. strangers/ in tournaments w/ others etc. In these instances what you want to know is “What set of game moves gives me the best chance of victory vs. a generic opponent”–you don’t always know what your opponent will play like online, so you want a good, reliable strategy. Unfortunately many of these are a tad boring. The simple fact of the matter is that’s ok “as long as they win”…

Now if you (like me) play on the board w/ your buddies, then you know the people you play against. You can tailor your strategy to your opponent and you may find you use vastly different strategies as, say Germany vs. USSR player “A”, than UK vs. Japan player “B” and so on. In this case, it’s STILL extremely useful to read some of the tried & true strategies & principles & get advice from more experienced players to help you win/ make the game more interesting. But your individual game will be more flexible. You won’t get to be as brutally expert at winning games as the players who play 3000+ games vs. all manner of opponents online (trust me, you won’t), but that doesn’t matter–your games will be lively & interesting & different every time.

Just please always do 1 thing: rotate players often! Don’t have the same people play the same powers over & over. That’s one great way to prevent “inflexibility”…

Ozone27

Cool. I like German Rockets T1. But I agree w/ Darth: kamikazes (in A&A game terms) aren’t really like the real thing in WWII. Since it just means you can choose to attack without needing to be able to land somewhere, it’s kind of a losers’ option. If it was like “a FTR can attack at 6 for 1 combat, then it is automatically lost” that’d be a cooler & more accurate “Japan only” kamikaze rule. But the way it is Super Subs might be better (although even less historically accurate)…

I think the original plan in Africa was that it’d be a bold gamble for the Afrika Corps to pull off the T1 invasion of Egypt, so they wanted the forces there to be equal. Since there is no qualitative difference between units of different nationalities in the game, the actual force distribution in Africa in 1942 is more-or-less impossible to simulate in A & A. For instance, adding a FTR to the Afrika Corps isn’t really accurate since BOTH forces had aircraft. Adding an ARM doubles the ARM strength of the Germans vs. the UK–that’s not too accurate either. Same thing w/ INF. What do you do? A & A is just not complex enough to be really historically accurate & very few people would want to play it if it was! Now that’s not to say it should have NO bearing on its “subject”–WWII–that’s part of the fun. But it’s gotta be somewhat of a loose interpretation or it’d, y’know–be like 6 years long or something! :wink:

Ozone27

Maybe you guys should rotate players more often…? I think this is step #1 if you find games are stagnating w/ either the Allies OR the Axis are winning 90+% of the time. If that doesn’t help, more tweaks are in order, but playing the same people in the same positions every time the game will stagnate REAL quickly. One side will find a way to win vs. the other side every time. The other side will always lose until they stumble on a way to counter the 1st side’s moves. Then that side will always win; and so on.

Ozone27