Weapons Caches Seized in Baghdad, Tikrit
By KATARINA KRATOVAC
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Police and U.S. troops seized weapons in Baghdad and near Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit after a small but symbolic rocket attack on a U.S. compound in the Iraqi capital.
The cache found Saturday near Tikrit included 23 Russian-made surface-to-air missiles, 1,000 pounds of plastic explosives, grenades, grenade launchers, rockets, a mortar and mortar rounds. It was among the largest caches found there since American troops arrived in April, according to Maj. Mike Rauhut of the 4th Infantry Division.
In Baghdad, Iraqi police found a much smaller cache late Saturday, recovering about a dozen small rockets, grenades and mortar rounds. The warheads had been removed from the rockets, suggesting they were to have been used in fabricating small roadside bombs that have caused casualties among U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians.
Police Gen. Ahmed Kadhim Ibrahim said the weapons were found after a tip from an informant. He said the weapons had been brought to Baghdad from the southern port of Basra after being smuggled in from a neighboring country that he would not identify.
U.S. troops and their Iraqi partners have been trying to curb the flow of weapons and stop attacks against American forces. Those attacks have killed more than 80 U.S. soldiers since President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1.
Over the past 90 days, the number of daily attacks against U.S. troops has ranged from the ``low teens to the mid-20s'' each day, according to Charles Heatley, spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Most of the resistance has been centered in the area north and west of Baghdad, the stronghold of the country's Sunni Muslim minority. Despite their minority status, Sunnis formed the core of Saddam's regime.
On Saturday, guerrillas struck at a symbol of American control in Iraq, firing three rockets or rocket-propelled grenades at the Al-Rashid Hotel, which is filled with American soldiers and civilians. The explosions caused no casualties and superficial damage.
Faced with continued resistance, the Bush administration has been seeking support from other countries to join in reconstruction and to provide troops to reduce the burden of American soldiers. However, many major countries have refused to send their own soldiers without United Nations approval.
After a meeting Saturday with Bush at Camp David, Russian President Vladimir Putin said any Russian contribution to Iraq's reconstruction would depend on a U.N. resolution. Russia, France and Germany are demanding a greater role for the United Nations in Iraq and a speedier timetable for ending the U.S. occupation as conditions for supporting such a resolution.
However, Saudi Arabia's deputy defense minister said his government was unlikely to send peacekeeping troops to Iraq, even under a U.N. mandate. Prince Khaled bin Sultan, in an interview published Saturday by the newspaper Okaz, said he saw ``no benefit'' in sending troops from neighboring countries.
Prince Khaled commanded Arab forces during the 1991 Gulf War that drove Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa told the Al-Hayat newspaper that Arab states will not send forces to Iraq to ``defend occupation troops.''
``If any Arab country is considering sending troops, this will be after they get a request from those concerned, the Iraqis,'' Moussa was quoted as saying. ``We care about Iraq, not the occupation.''
Now, any arguements against the war??? I'm not now!
This just in... Weapons Caches Seized in Baghdad & Tikri
Moderator: S2k Moderators
-
therock1811
- Category 5
- Posts: 5163
- Age: 39
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 2:15 pm
- Location: Kentucky
- Contact:
-
streetsoldier
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 9705
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Under the rainbow
-
TexasStooge
- Category 5
- Posts: 38127
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:22 pm
- Location: Irving (Dallas County), TX
- Contact:
-
opera ghost
- Category 4
- Posts: 909
- Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 4:40 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
-
mf_dolphin
- Category 5
- Posts: 17758
- Age: 68
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: St Petersburg, FL
- Contact:
I have to disagree with the parallels to Vietnam. There we lost somewhere around 58,000 KIA and 300,000 wounded during the conflict. The enemy in Vietnam was backed by two major world powers, China and Russia. Where's the major world power backing the Iraqi guerillas?
The only similarity in my eyes is that we are now fighting a guerilla type war against a fanatical portion of Saddam's regime and some external forces meant to disrupt the stabilization of Iraq. While the losses are very real, they are nonetheless what should be expected.
The only similarity in my eyes is that we are now fighting a guerilla type war against a fanatical portion of Saddam's regime and some external forces meant to disrupt the stabilization of Iraq. While the losses are very real, they are nonetheless what should be expected.
0 likes
azsnowman wrote:I'm sorry.....but this war is turning out to be another Vietnam. DON'T GET ME WRONG......I'm for it 110%, just stating that this is NOT going to over anytime soon, if EVER, WELL......it WILL be over ONE great day!
Dennis
Dennis, I agree that it will not be over soon.. there is still alot to do.. but to compare it to Vietnam where tons of our troops died? I dont think so.
0 likes
-
therock1811
- Category 5
- Posts: 5163
- Age: 39
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 2:15 pm
- Location: Kentucky
- Contact:
Deenac813 wrote:azsnowman wrote:I'm sorry.....but this war is turning out to be another Vietnam. DON'T GET ME WRONG......I'm for it 110%, just stating that this is NOT going to over anytime soon, if EVER, WELL......it WILL be over ONE great day!
Dennis
Dennis, I agree that it will not be over soon.. there is still alot to do.. but to compare it to Vietnam where tons of our troops died? I dont think so.
Agreed. This is no Vietnam...
0 likes
-
streetsoldier
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 9705
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Under the rainbow
Then (as I mentioned 2 years ago in the "9-11" thread elsewhere), we really need to send IN "guerrillas"...Special Forces, Recondo Marines, SEALS, "Company" ops, British SAS and MI-6, even the Russian "spetzalnoye naznichenye" (Special Assignment Forces)...the ugliest people we have, who fight as THEY do.
When you are rooting out snakes....get nastier snakes.
Massive force deployment is a relic of a bygone age; Rumsfeld understands this, which is why "massive-force" generals like Wesley Clark, et al, have been winnowed from the upper echelons of the Pentagon....as it should be.
When you are rooting out snakes....get nastier snakes.
Massive force deployment is a relic of a bygone age; Rumsfeld understands this, which is why "massive-force" generals like Wesley Clark, et al, have been winnowed from the upper echelons of the Pentagon....as it should be.
0 likes
No, this is definitely not Vietnam by any stretch, not even comparable.
Clark went into Bosnia with precision strikes and I wouldn't necessarily
call that 'massive' - but he is an independent thinker, and he has been
successful. His troops loved him. When he was shot four times himself
in Vietnam, he remained in command and gave direction to his unit, which
he won accommodation for later. Bush said we were going to be in there
for a long time so I don't know why everyone is trying to 'get it over and
done with...' - we're not anywhere near ready to do that yet. They have to
rebuild Iraq first and American & European countries are going to get a
windfall from all that construction. Who do you think is winning all the
contracts? If we pull out now, the ethnic factions will try to eliminate each
other in a bloodbath which is unacceptable. We must remain there also
for that reason - as a governing 'hand' to ensure everyone gets along to
some degree. It's a very complicated situation and a simple broadbrush,
black-or-white scenario it is not.
Clark went into Bosnia with precision strikes and I wouldn't necessarily
call that 'massive' - but he is an independent thinker, and he has been
successful. His troops loved him. When he was shot four times himself
in Vietnam, he remained in command and gave direction to his unit, which
he won accommodation for later. Bush said we were going to be in there
for a long time so I don't know why everyone is trying to 'get it over and
done with...' - we're not anywhere near ready to do that yet. They have to
rebuild Iraq first and American & European countries are going to get a
windfall from all that construction. Who do you think is winning all the
contracts? If we pull out now, the ethnic factions will try to eliminate each
other in a bloodbath which is unacceptable. We must remain there also
for that reason - as a governing 'hand' to ensure everyone gets along to
some degree. It's a very complicated situation and a simple broadbrush,
black-or-white scenario it is not.
0 likes
-
Stephanie
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 23843
- Age: 63
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
- Location: Glassboro, NJ
streetsoldier wrote:Then (as I mentioned 2 years ago in the "9-11" thread elsewhere), we really need to send IN "guerrillas"...Special Forces, Recondo Marines, SEALS, "Company" ops, British SAS and MI-6, even the Russian "spetzalnoye naznichenye" (Special Assignment Forces)...the ugliest people we have, who fight as THEY do.
When you are rooting out snakes....get nastier snakes.
Massive force deployment is a relic of a bygone age; Rumsfeld understands this, which is why "massive-force" generals like Wesley Clark, et al, have been winnowed from the upper echelons of the Pentagon....as it should be.
I agree Bill - the same for Afghanistan as well.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests