The Iraq Thread

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 06 2003,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 06 2003,00:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">May I also remind you of killed Canadian troops? Must`ve been a very smart bomb, because to me Canadians look like US guys. I wouldn`t have known the difference...<span id='postcolor'>

Just because it is a "smart" bomb doesn't mean it can distinguish between friend and foe...geez...

The bomb went right where it was suppose to...it was the pilot that shouldn't have dropped it. <span id='postcolor'>

Ever heard of computer based IFF systems? I think the US has tons of it?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 06 2003,00:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 06 2003,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 06 2003,00:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">May I also remind you of killed Canadian troops? Must`ve been a very smart bomb, because to me Canadians look like US guys. I wouldn`t have known the difference...<span id='postcolor'>

Just because it is a "smart" bomb doesn't mean it can distinguish between friend and foe...geez...

The bomb went right where it was suppose to...it was the pilot that shouldn't have dropped it. <span id='postcolor'>

Ever heard of computer based IFF systems? I think the US has tons of it?<span id='postcolor'>

And you think those are on BOMBS???

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 06 2003,05:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The callers threatened to kill them because of their lack of patriotism. That`s freedom of speech in your eyes?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes. It just is. No it's not very wholesome or tasteful. But it's freedom of speech.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Great! If someone says "I`ll kill ya!!!" it`s just freedom of speech and ok. But if Saddam Hussein is suspected of having WMDs and not even threatening someone directly with words or actions, you say it`s justified to declare war on him. Nice double morale.<span id='postcolor'>

There's a difference between making idle threats (they're legal until he actually does anything about them, ie. sitting in their bushes at night) and haiding illegal weapons of mass destruction.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ever heard of computer based IFF systems? I think the US has tons of it?<span id='postcolor'>

You think they're installed on infantry? lol

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">an accident happens and look at reality instead of filling the forums with anti-US lies.<span id='postcolor'>

These things are no accidents. These things are a well known side effect of US military strikes. Whenever you send in troops anywhere you hit the places to pieces where the infantry shall go through. This is why a lot of civillians die. Accidents are a bit different.

And for insulting me as a liar that fills forums with anti - US lies I will ask for a posting restriction for you.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why should I tell you mine if you're not telling anybody yours?<span id='postcolor'>

I did. I guess I already wrote a lot about my personal military missions and experiences in the forums. I also posted pictures of me during military missions. What else can I do ?

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 06 2003,05:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">These things are no accidents. These things are a well known side effect of US military strikes. Whenever you send in troops anywhere you hit the places to pieces where the infantry shall go through. This is why a lot of civillians die. Accidents are a bit different.

And for insulting me as a liar that fills forums with anti - US lies I will ask for a posting restriction for you.<span id='postcolor'>

You said the US is targetting civilians, and you get mad when I say you're filling the place with anti-US lies?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I did. I guess I already wrote a lot about my personal military missions and experiences in the forums. I also posted pictures of me during military missions. What else can I do ?<span id='postcolor'>

Tell me where you've seen the US military target a civilian who was not attacking the US or helping the enemy.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 06 2003,00:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Legitimate target?<span id='postcolor'>

Written by obvious anti-US propogandists.  And yes, TV stations are infrastructure and are military targets.  Why?  Because they're easilly used by the military to serve their purposes.  Communication and coordination.  And even that article says that we did it at night, indicating an attempt to reduce civilian casualties.<span id='postcolor'>

It is written by Robert Fisk who is Britains war correnspondent number 1.

And the TV station was not bombed because it was a communications centre but because it was broadcasting a message that NATO didn't like.

It's about as a legitimate target as the World Trade Center.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 06 2003,06:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is written by Robert Fisk who is Britains war correnspondent number 1.<span id='postcolor'>

Looks like anti-US/NATO stuff to me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And the TV station was not bombed because it was a communications centre but because it was broadcasting a message that NATO didn't like.<span id='postcolor'>

What exactly was this message?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's about as a legitimate target as the World Trade Center. Incidently, the bombing of the TV stations are under investigation by the Hague as war crimes.<span id='postcolor'>

The 09/11 attacks on the WTC were not to attack the world trade center, they were trying to kill civilians.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tell me where you've seen the US military target a civilian who was not attacking the US or helping the enemy.

<span id='postcolor'>

I already told you where.

Mogadishu

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You said the US is targetting civilians, and you get mad when I say you're filling the place with anti-US lies? <span id='postcolor'>

But the US forces DO target civilians. A building contains people and if you target a building you target the people.

If a building produces water, electricity or whatever needed for daily life and it is destroyed you DO target civillians, don´t you ?

Let me take this around. I target the limo of your president. I don´t target your president of course. I destroy the limo while he is in the limo. Noone can accuse me of targeting your president. I only targetted the limo. So this is the way you see it ?

[FSPilot 0]

7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 06 2003,067)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.diaspora-net.org/food4thought/on_killing_100_civilians.htm

They won't be this week, Prime Minister. Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Close<span id='postcolor'>

This guy must be using his email to write his articles.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I already told you where.

Mogadishu<span id='postcolor'>

Those troops are under investigation if I remember correctly, if they haven't been reprimanded already.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But the US forces DO target civilians. A building contains people and if you target a building you target the people.<span id='postcolor'>

Not when we make explicit attempts to strike when the number of people in the building is as low as possible.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If a building produces water, electricity or whatever needed for daily life and it is destroyed you DO target civillians, don´t you?<span id='postcolor'>

No.  The attack effects civilians, but it was designed to hurt the military.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let me take this around. I target the limo of your president. I don´t target your president of course. I destroy the limo while he is in the limo. Noone can accuse me of targeting your president. I only targetted the limo. So this is the way you see it ?<span id='postcolor'>

No, because you could of easilly targetted the limo while it was sitting empty in a parking lot at midnight.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 06 2003,00:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 06 2003,00:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 06 2003,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 06 2003,00:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">May I also remind you of killed Canadian troops? Must`ve been a very smart bomb, because to me Canadians look like US guys. I wouldn`t have known the difference...<span id='postcolor'>

Just because it is a "smart" bomb doesn't mean it can distinguish between friend and foe...geez...

The bomb went right where it was suppose to...it was the pilot that shouldn't have dropped it. <span id='postcolor'>

Ever heard of computer based IFF systems? I think the US has tons of it?<span id='postcolor'>

And you think those are on BOMBS???<span id='postcolor'>

If I understand those IFF systems in your planes the right way, it should be impossible to launch a weapon against a friendly target. I never said IFF was either implented in bombs or infantry (@FS).

And if you don`t know sarcasm, well...

But friendly fire always comes with US forces in a larger amount than in other countries. When you have all that hightech gear and there are still too many FF accidents, it surely makes it harder to believe in the great skilled GI

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 06 2003,06:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I understand those IFF systems in your planes the right way, it should be impossible to launch a weapon against a friendly target. I never said IFF was either implented in bombs or infantry (@FS). <span id='postcolor'>

So how do you expect the IFF to recognise an infantry target as friendly or foe? IFF needs two IFF hardware to work. It can't just pick an object and tell you what its intentions are.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But friendly fire always comes with US forces in a larger amount than in other countries. When you have all that hightech gear and there are still too many FF accidents, it surely makes it harder to believe in the great skilled GI<span id='postcolor'>

Or maybe because we're doing a lot of the worlds military work.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Those troops are under investigation if I remember correctly, if they haven't been reprimanded already.

<span id='postcolor'>

Aha !

So you tell me what they did. I am curiouse.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No. The attack effects civilians, but it was designed to hurt the military.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah sure. Whatever you say

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, because you could of easilly targetted the limo while it was sitting empty in a parking lot at midnight.

<span id='postcolor'>

No I can´t. The limo is parked underground and not in the open. I don´t have a bunkblaster, so I will attack it when moving. I can´t see if anyone is in it cause the windows are black. So I did everything to NOT kill the president. Bad luck he is in, but I really tried my best to make sure he is not. I additionally phoned the White House and asked for the presence of the president within the vehicle but they didn´t tell me, so I had to think he was not in it.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 06 2003,01:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or maybe because we're doing a lot of the worlds military work.<span id='postcolor'>

Great! So much "training" with so little outcome...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 06 2003,01:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No.  The attack effects civilians, but it was designed to hurt the military.<span id='postcolor'>

No, phase 3 of the bombings in Kosovo was designed to hurt the civilians so that the political support for Milosevic would diminish. The goal was not to kill a lot of civilians, but making life difficult for them (without heating, electricity, water etc). And that was exactly what worked. The actions against the Yugoslav military were completely inefficient - instead of preventing the Serbs' cleansing of Kosovo they helped it by accidentally killing more Albanians then the Serbs did.

When NATO realized that the attacks on military targets were useless they targeted the civilian infrastructure so that they could blackmail the civilian population into pressuring Milosevic into agreeing on a withdrawal from Kosovo.

When you target civilian infrastructure you will kill civilians and about 2,000 Serb civilians were killed during the attacks. For comparison, about 200-300 Yugoslav military servicemen were killed. That's a ratio of 10:1, civilian to military casualties.

So saying that USA does not target civilians is utter bollocks.

You can justify all that for the case in Kosovo by that it was necessary to stop Milosevic from cleansing the Albanians. And although it was almost a complete failure, the intentions were good and altruistic. The same cannot however be said for Iraq.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Mar. 06 2003,00:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 06 2003,00:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A US serviceman does not count with the possibility of getting killed. It's not considered being a normal occupational hazard. This is quite opposite from the British soldiers who consider the risk of getting killed as a normal part of the job. The US military has a rather unique view on military jobs - very good in many cases but accepting losses is out of the frame of reference.<span id='postcolor'>

I can only say that I beg to differ.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

I don't know if you have served with units from other countries but this is my distinct impression. Most of the time in Kosovo, my team was unarmed or very lightly armed so we usually had external escort. The Americans were always extremely helpful with providing logistics but they never wanted to go into any risk zones. As soon there was any potential danger involved they bugged out. The British on the other hand were a pain in the ass dealing with but they never, not once backed down from providing escort because there was danger involved.

A US military installation is by my impression more like a civilian society. The life of an American soldier is not so much different then a regular civilian day job. When they go into 'harms way' they make damn sure that there is no risk to their lives. And as I said, this is very good as long as you have the situation and resources to pull it off.

Now note that I'm talking about the average GI Joe. USA has highly competent special forces that do indeed perform high-risk missions. But there are few of them. The average soldier views the military service in just about the same way as a regular job. And it's great as long as it works. The question is just how such a system will react to mass casualties. My guess is not too well.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 05 2003,19:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA has highly competent special forces that do indeed perform high-risk missions. But there are few of them. The average soldier views the military service in just about the same way as a regular job. And it's great as long as it works. The question is just how such a system will react to mass casualties. My guess is not too well.<span id='postcolor'>

This is my thinking as well, if things get bad for the US forces, their morale will go down the drain in a matter of days... they will be absolutely devastated by heavy losses.

My prediction.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 06 2003,06:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Aha !

So you tell me what they did. I am curiouse.<span id='postcolor'>

You're the one who told me about this.

Anyway, what they did was not sponsored by the US military and they ended up being reprimanded for it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah sure. Whatever you say <span id='postcolor'>

In that case Saddam has been hiding WMDs under his bed.

Whatever I say.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No I can´t. The limo is parked underground and not in the open. I don´t have a bunkblaster, so I will attack it when moving. I can´t see if anyone is in it cause the windows are black. So I did everything to NOT kill the president. Bad luck he is in, but I really tried my best to make sure he is not. I additionally phoned the White House and asked for the presence of the president within the vehicle but they didn´t tell me, so I had to think he was not in it.<span id='postcolor'>

No, if you really didn't want to kill the president you would've developed the equipment necessary to destroy the limo when nobody was in it.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So saying that USA does not target civilians is utter bollocks.<span id='postcolor'>

No, if the USA wanted to attack civilians we would've strafed them in the streets. But since we DONT want to target civilians, we simply didn't. And yes, civilians do die in our attacks. No, we don't target them, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The same cannot however be said for Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

At least in your opinion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Americans were always extremely helpful with providing logistics but they never wanted to go into any risk zones. As soon there was any potential danger involved they bugged out.<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't that a good thing?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A US military installation is by my impression more like a civilian society. The life of an American soldier is not so much different then a regular civilian day job. When they go into 'harms way' they make damn sure that there is no risk to their lives. And as I said, this is very good as long as you have the situation and resources to pull it off.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, the US military cares about it's soldiers lifes. But no, its not like we're not going to go on a strike mission because there's risk involved. Soldiers realize that they could very well get hurt in the line of duty and they accept the risk. It's just common sense.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 06 2003,01:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So saying that USA does not target civilians is utter bollocks.<span id='postcolor'>

No, if the USA wanted to attack civilians we would've strafed them in the streets.  But since we DONT want to target civilians, we simply didn't.  And yes, civilians do die in our attacks.  No, we don't target them, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.<span id='postcolor'>

They are not at the wrong place at the wrong time when you chose to target civilian infrastructure. If you blow up a heating plant there will only be civilians there. If you blow up a water plant, there will only be civilans there. If you blow up a TV station there will only be civilians there. When you blow up [instert civilian infrastructure of your choice] there will be civilians there.

Now, the target is not the civilians that work ther - they are considered collateral damage. The target is however the civilian population that uses that infrastructure. The point of blowing up a water plant is to cut off the civilan population from water supply. The military won't be affected since they have their supplies and storages.

So, I repeat again. Saying that USA does not target civilians is utter bollocks.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The same cannot however be said for Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

At least in your opinion.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Americans were always extremely helpful with providing logistics but they never wanted to go into any risk zones. As soon there was any potential danger involved they bugged out.<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't that a good thing?

<span id='postcolor'>

No, not if you wish to get the job done. You won't accomplish anything by locking up yourself in the barracks. That's also what makes USA a great attacking force but a lousy occupational/peace-keeping force. As soon as the situation is uncertain or not in your favour you lock up your forces in military installations.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, the US military cares about it's soldiers lifes.  But no, its not like we're not going to go on a strike mission because there's risk involved.  Soldiers realize that they could very well get hurt in the line of duty and they accept the risk.  It's just common sense.<span id='postcolor'>

It is a question of how much you care about your forces. The impression that I got from the British is that they view their soldiers as expendable and that the mission always comes first. US military has the exact opposite view, the men come first and the mission second.

Now, I'm not saying that the British don't care about their men or that the US soldiers don't take any risks at all. There is however a considerable difference in attitude.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Mar. 06 2003,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 06 2003,00:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">May I also remind you of killed Canadian troops? Must`ve been a very smart bomb, because to me Canadians look like US guys. I wouldn`t have known the difference...<span id='postcolor'>

Just because it is a "smart" bomb doesn't mean it can distinguish between friend and foe...geez...

The bomb went right where it was suppose to...it was the pilot that shouldn't have dropped it. <span id='postcolor'>

Exactly. Even smart bombs can suffer from dumb operators.

If they blow up their allies, what chance have Iraqi civilians got of staying out of the line of fire.

But I guess this is classified as "accepatble collateral damage".

I tell you what, if I lost my family due to an accidental US bombing, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd become a terrorist with a vendetta against the USA.

[Akira 0]

Wednesday Is The Day I Guess

[OxPecker 0]

Balschoiw, do yourself a favour, don't try to reason with FSPilot. It is impossible.

And for the record, I do believe FSPilot should be restricted for calling you a liar, in clear violation of Forum rules. This of course is the moderators decision though, not mine or yours.

He's the kind of guy who doesn't have a problem insulting others, but when it happens to him he rolls around on the ground wailing like a giant baby "personal attack!".

Those of us with a little more reason and intelligence accept your personal military experiences wihtout suspecting they are lies, I believe your track record is impeccible.

And just in case you think I only believe Balschoiw because I am anti-US biased, I would accept statements from E6Hotel or any US military personnel on these boards, unless they had been proven a liar in the past.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They are not at the wrong place at the wrong time when you chose to target civilian infrastructure. If you blow up a heating plant there will only be civilians there. If you blow up a water plant, there will only be civilans there. If you blow up a TV station there will only be civilians there. When you blow up [instert civilian infrastructure of your choice] there will be civilians there.<span id='postcolor'>

Granted, but don't we try to reduce civilian casualties by striking at night when the target is on a reduced shift?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, the target is not the civilians that work ther - they are considered collateral damage. The target is however the civilian population that uses that infrastructure. The point of blowing up a water plant is to cut off the civilan population from water supply. The military won't be affected since they have their supplies and storages.<span id='postcolor'>

So tell me, why did we do this? To reduce support for the war to convince the leaders to stop the war. Correct? So it does effect the military. It effects their morale, and it effects the politics that effect the military.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So, I repeat again. Saying that USA does not target civilians is utter bollocks.<span id='postcolor'>

The USA does not target civilians. You're saying that they're doing it simply to kill civilians, they're not.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It is a question of how much you care about your forces. The impression that I got from the British is that they view their soldiers as expendable and that the mission always comes first. US military has the exact opposite view, the men come first and the mission second.<span id='postcolor'>

You're probably right. But look at it like this, if we lose half a squadron on a single mission public support is going to go down the drain. Senators who are only in office to get reelected wont support the war, then neither will the president and the mission will go out the window.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I tell you what, if I lost my family due to an accidental US bombing, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd become a terrorist with a vendetta against the USA.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't doubt it for a second.

"I'm going to kill civilians because they... killed my civilians..."

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Balschoiw, do yourself a favour, don't try to reason with FSPilot. It is impossible.<span id='postcolor'>

No, you just have to use facts and level headed logic to change my opinion, not twisted facts and anti-US bias.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And for the record, I do believe FSPilot should be restricted for calling you a liar, in clear violation of Forum rules. This of course is the moderators decision though, not mine or yours.He's the kind of guy who doesn't have a problem insulting others, but when it happens to him he rolls around on the ground wailing like a giant baby "personal attack!".<span id='postcolor'>

Well, first off I didn't call him a liar. And second, I think you saying that it's impossible to reason with me, and calling me a "giant baby" is insulting and you should be PRed for it. Funny how you say I should be reprimanded for personal attacks, then you go and attack me personally.

[Akira 0]

Everyone cool off before Papa Denoir comes back!

[Akira 0]

US Orders Iraqi Diplomats Out

I'm guessing it won't be long now

Russia Airlifts Last 700 Nationals Out

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 06 2003,02:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And for the record, I do believe FSPilot should be restricted for calling you a liar, in clear violation of Forum rules. This of course is the moderators decision though, not mine or yours.He's the kind of guy who doesn't have a problem insulting others, but when it happens to him he rolls around on the ground wailing like a giant baby "personal attack!".<span id='postcolor'>

Well, first off I didn't call him a liar.  And second, I think you saying that it's impossible to reason with me, and calling me a "giant baby" is insulting and you should be PRed for it.  Funny how you say I should be reprimanded for personal attacks, then you go and attack me personally.<span id='postcolor'>

Well first off, you DID call him a liar, read back through your posts.

Also, I like how you answer my crisicisms about you being a whiner that cries personal attack by crying personal attack. Well done old bean.

And as for the "killing their civilians because they killed my civlians", you damned fucking right I would, if it was my family. Logic and morals dont really enter into it if your family has been murdered.