The Iraq Thread

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,13:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AFAIK there have only been 3 suicide bombing attempts (one of which surrendered voluntarily).  Is it your opinion that the number of confused civilian drivers who didn't know how to conduct themselves within 250 meters of a checkpoint has numbered 3 or less?<span id='postcolor'>

It might be hundreds or thousands. Any reports of hundreds or thousands of cars approaching coalition checkpoints being shot up?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If not, then you are placing the welfare of your men ahead of that of the civilian population<span id='postcolor'>

How twisted. You are placing the welfare of your men ahead of a potential imminent threat.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">which is just fine, but then you should probably call yourself an occupying force rather than a liberating force.<span id='postcolor'>

This is sematic trash but I'll once again ask yesterday's question, left unanswered, I believe:

Were there FF civilian casualties when allied forces fought back the Axis in WWII? If so, I wouldn't be surprised if you tried reinventing history and calling them occupiers, instead of liberators.

BTW, I'm not of the view that the coalition should be called either occupying or liberating forces. I would call them invading forces at this point. Their mission is neither to occupy nor to liberate. Both occupation and liberation are supposed to be an effect of this war - not a cause.

[Bernadotte 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,13:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,13:o3)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AFAIK there have only been 3 suicide bombing attempts (one of which surrendered voluntarily).  Is it your opinion that the number of confused civilian drivers who didn't know how to conduct themselves within 250 meters of a checkpoint has numbered 3 or less?<span id='postcolor'>

It might be hundreds or thousands. Any reports of hundreds or thousands of cars approaching coalition checkpoints being shot up?<span id='postcolor'>

Duhhh... no.  What's your point?  And by not including E6Hotel's post, to which I was replying, you are pulling my question out of context.  (But you probably knew that.)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,13:33)</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">If not, then you are placing the welfare of your men ahead of that of the civilian population<span id='postcolor'>

How twisted. You are placing the welfare of your men ahead of a potential imminent threat.<span id='postcolor'>

How predictable.  Where do you draw the line when civilian lives are worth less than the lives of your men?  Why not nuke or gas every settlement where hostile forces may be mixed in with the civilians if it will better protect your men?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,13:33)</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">which is just fine, but then you should probably call yourself an occupying force rather than a liberating force.<span id='postcolor'>

This is sematic trash but I'll once again ask yesterday's question, left unanswered, I believe:

Were there FF civilian casualties when allied forces fought back the Axis in WWII? If so, I wouldn't be surprised if you tried reinventing history and calling them occupiers, instead of liberators.<span id='postcolor'>

"Fought back?"  So, is that what the USA/UK is doing now in Iraq?  Fighting back?  (...talk about reinventing history.)

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,13:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Both occupation and liberation are supposed to be an effect of this war - not a cause.<span id='postcolor'>

REALLY??  This war was not caused by liberation.  Thanks for that, Einstein.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,12:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now let's see.  If I were about to send an army of suicide bombers I probably wouldn't erode their opportunities by announcing them to the enemy.  On the other hand, if it was merely my intention to have your soldiers start shooting up more civilians then I'd attempt to drive fear into your hearts with loud threats.<span id='postcolor'>

IIRC, he was calling upon all Muslims or Arabs (can't remember which, don't have the article on hand) to rise up and strike at any US/UK targets, uniformed or not, anywhere, anytime.

What was he going to do, PM them all?

Besides, this way, he is rallying support, AND putting coalition forces on edge. Two birds, one stone.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,14:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How predictable.  Where do you draw the line when civilian lives are worth less than the lives of your men?  Why not nuke or gas every settlement where hostile forces may be mixed in with the civilians if it will better protect your men?<span id='postcolor'>

Or, on the other extreme, why don't they order their troops to personally identify each person they6're about to kill, but walking up to them in a leisurely pace (re: "careless" mode) and asking

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Excuse me, Sir or Madam, would you, by any chance, be a member of the Republican Guard, or Fedayeen Saddam?"<span id='postcolor'>

And of course, having media personnel on hand at eveyr instance, to document the data, and send it directly to the U.N., to make sure the Coaltion isn't committing any war crimes, and to immediately pass U.N. Resolutions against them if they do.

It's a fine line they're walking out there, and they've said many times they're trying not to kill civilians, but if they act like peacekeepers and drop their guard altogether, they're likely to get slaughtered.

Does that make them an occupying force? Maybe so, not for me to say.

But like I said, it's a fine line they have to talk, and when you walk a fine line, sometimes you'll slip and step off one way, and sometimes you'll slip and step off another. And sometimes all you can do is just try harder not to slip off that line.

CENTCOM said it supported the decisions to let junior officers make those kinds of calls in the field. IT also said they were trying their damnedest not to kill civilians. Perhaps those two statements conflict, but I'm not out there in the dunes, so I don't know for certain.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,15:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,13:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,13:o3)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AFAIK there have only been 3 suicide bombing attempts (one of which surrendered voluntarily).  Is it your opinion that the number of confused civilian drivers who didn't know how to conduct themselves within 250 meters of a checkpoint has numbered 3 or less?<span id='postcolor'>

It might be hundreds or thousands. Any reports of hundreds or thousands of cars approaching coalition checkpoints being shot up?<span id='postcolor'>

Duhhh... no.  What's your point?  And by not including E6Hotel's post, to which I was replying, you are pulling my question out of context.  (But you probably knew that.)<span id='postcolor'>

Not out of context at all. You belittled E6's statement that " pretty big gamble to be taking with your men's lives" with an irrelevant statistic.

</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 (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,13:33)</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">If not, then you are placing the welfare of your men ahead of that of the civilian population<span id='postcolor'>

How twisted. You are placing the welfare of your men ahead of a potential imminent threat.<span id='postcolor'>

How predictable.<span id='postcolor'>

Glad you think so. Sounds like reasonable rules that any army in the world would follow.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Where do you draw the line when civilian lives are worth less than the lives of your men?<span id='postcolor'>

When there's a imminent potential threat by them.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why not nuke or gas every settlement where hostile forces may be mixed in with the civilians if it will better protect your men?<span id='postcolor'>

There's nothing imminent in your example. Indeed, should this start occuring, it may be an option to resort to, under certain circumstances. Never been there. Don't want to be. Bet you haven't and don't want to, either. Neither do these soldiers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Fought back?" So, is that what the USA/UK is doing now in Iraq? Fighting back?<span id='postcolor'>

It shouldn't be too difficult for you to note that I used the words "fought back" in reference to the allies in WWII.

If it will make you happy, delete the word "back".

</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 (theavonlady @ April 02 2003,13:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Both occupation and liberation are supposed to be an effect of this war - not a cause.<span id='postcolor'>

REALLY?? This war was not caused by liberation.<span id='postcolor'>

Um, that's what I said. To clarify........................

The coalition claims that the cause of this war is to eliminate Saddam Hussein and his regime and do away with his arsenal of WMDs.

The effects of such a war, if successful, are the liberation of the Iraqis from Saddam's rule and a potential (pardon the very vague word) temporary occupation of their country by the coalition's invading forces.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thanks for that, Einstein.<span id='postcolor'>

I rarely have a bad hair day like he had all his life.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 01 2003,20:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ April 01 2003,20:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">that's where a squad's sniper would have entered in action if there was one in the basic US squad battle order ...<span id='postcolor'>

And if grasshoppers had doorgunners frogs wouldn't phuck with 'em.

But you are correct.  If a shooter with a SASR had been present this may have turned out differently.  Unfortunately, that's not the T/O.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

wait , you set up a check point while you don't actually have anything like that around ?

in the few french checkpoints i've seen more or less recently recently , there were most of the time a large panel of heavy weapons ready to be used if needed , things such as .50 Hécate rifles and FR-F2's

but , i'm sure that even a trained m24 (or whatever 308 or equivalent rifle your army uses) could stop a car if trained to , a pick-up isn't an armored jeep , i doubt you'd need a SASR just to stop it

[Longinius 1]

"The coalition claims that the cause of this war is to eliminate Saddam Hussein and his regime and do away with his arsenal of WMDs.

The effects of such a war, if successful, are the liberation of the Iraqis from Saddam's rule and a potential (pardon the very vague word) temporary occupation of their country by the coalition's invading forces."

Well, actually the first claim had to do with links to terror. Which couldnt be proved. Then Bush got mad and mentioned the attempted murder of his father (I dont know if he really think its a good excuse). Then after that it was WMD's, which of course couldnt be proven. So the last option was to use the "Liberation of the poor iraqi citizens" approach. And no one could really argue with that one.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 02 2003,16:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, actually the first claim had to do with links to terror. Which couldnt be proved.<span id='postcolor'>

That was my intent when using the term "claim".

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then Bush got mad and mentioned the attempted murder of his father (I dont know if he really think its a good excuse).<span id='postcolor'>

I don't thing anyone, including Bush, takes that as a reason to commit to this war.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then after that it was WMD's, which of course couldnt be proven.<span id='postcolor'>

Curious. How did you determine this order of TERROR>WMDs?

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't thing anyone, including Bush, takes that as a reason to commit to this war.<span id='postcolor'>

Not to forget that GW is on a holy crusade (following his words). To justify this crusade with the bible in the hand is the most astounding thing for me and is indeed not supported by the bible or the christian religion in general. i also heard that GW is reading in a psalm book every morning and have heard that is was a psalm book used during WW 1 by field priests. You can imagine that the content is a bit bloodthirsty. I will post the title of the book when I find it.

[Longinius 1]

"How did you determine this order of TERROR>WMDs? "

By listening to Bush's various speeches. In the start it was all about terror, axis of evil and connections with Al Queda. This couldn't be proved. All of a sudden it switched and was about weapons of mass destruction and refusal to comply with the UN. When the weapons couldnt be found and Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors a new reason was needed. Liberation, was the word of the day. And like I said, we can't really argue with the fact that people were suffering under Saddam. So it is a good excuse.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 02 2003,16:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To justify this crusade with the bible in the hand is the most astounding thing for me and is indeed not supported by the bible or the christian religion in general.<span id='postcolor'>

If Iraq really does have WMDs, should Bush have turned the other cheek?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 02 2003,16:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"How did you determine this order of TERROR>WMDs? "

By listening to Bush's various speeches. In the start it was all about terror, axis of evil and connections with Al Queda.<span id='postcolor'>

How far back does that go?

[Longinius 1]

"By listening to Bush's various speeches. In the start it was all about terror, axis of evil and connections with Al Queda."

If memory serves me correctly it started around the same time as the Afghanistan "liberation" ended, or rather stopped being covered by media.

[Tydium 0]

I'm not sure if this is exactly related to the war in iraq but I found a interesting article from iraqwar.ru. According to this article Russian navy is preparing to send a unit to conduct military manouvers in the Arabian Sea.

Another article from the same site says that russian navy is sending ships to the Indian Ocean.

I'm not quite sure are these articles overlapping each other or are they sending two seperate units.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 02 2003,17:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"By listening to Bush's various speeches. In the start it was all about terror, axis of evil and connections with Al Queda."

If memory serves me correctly it started around the same time as the Afghanistan "liberation" ended, or rather stopped being covered by media.<span id='postcolor'>

The reason I'm asking is because I've got a US Dept. of State press release that discusses Iraq vis a vis their WMDs that's dated January 24, 2002.

I don't think they have 2001 archives online so I didn't bother checking elsewhere for earlier material.

This being the case, is your assessment still correct?

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tydium @ April 02 2003,07:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not sure if this is exactly related to the war in iraq but I found a interesting article from iraqwar.ru. According to this article Russian navy is preparing to send a unit to conduct military manouvers in the Arabian Sea.

Another article from the same site says that russian navy is sending ships to the Indian Ocean.

I'm not quite sure are these articles are overlapping each other or are they sending two seperate units.<span id='postcolor'>

That's hardly surprising. They're going to try to get their AGIs into a place to actively collect on the coalition forces.

In an related article, The Russian Generals prepared Iraq for the war. No surprise really. I guess the allegations of the technicians helping working on the jammers weren't so far fetched.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 02 2003,18:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I guess the allegations of the technicians helping working on the jammers weren't so far fetched.<span id='postcolor'>

We had some Russian/Israeli commentator on a political talk show last night, discussing what's common knowledge in Minsk that cargo planes were loaded and transported unspecified shipments to Baghdad and coming back empty over the last 6-12 months.

Anyone from Minsk out there?

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 02 2003,09:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to forget that GW is on a holy crusade (following his words).<span id='postcolor'>

LOL! Bush says "God Bless America" and you think he's on a crusade.

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 02 2003,17:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In an related article, The Russian Generals prepared Iraq for the war.  No surprise really.  I guess the allegations of the technicians helping working on the jammers weren't so far fetched.<span id='postcolor'>

The article also states that the two generals in question took part in the coup against Gorbachev and were subsequently kicked out of the army. That makes them private citizens who can do as they like in their spare time. Once again, if you want to claim official Russian invovement, provide proof. As I said, a Kornet-E launcher or missiles or one of those funky GPS jammers with serial number would be sufficient. In other words, put up or shut up.

And Avon FYI, Minsk is in Belarus, not in Russia. As for validity of your statement, see above (as in, provide proof).

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 01 2003,15:59)</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">Thanks for that, Einstein.<span id='postcolor'>

I rarely have a bad hair day like he had all his life.<span id='postcolor'>

BAD HAIR DAY!!!! BAD HAIR?? BAAAAAAAAAAD??

Are you insane?! I'd love to have hair like that without having to put all kinds of weird products in it!!!!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 02 2003,17:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 02 2003,09:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to forget that GW is on a holy crusade (following his words).<span id='postcolor'>

LOL!  Bush says "God Bless America" and you think he's on a crusade.  <span id='postcolor'>

No, its his actual words. After 11/9 in one of his speeches he talked about a "crusade on terrorism".

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 01 2003,18:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 02 2003,09:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to forget that GW is on a holy crusade (following his words).<span id='postcolor'>

LOL!  Bush says "God Bless America" and you think he's on a crusade.  <span id='postcolor'>

You know, believe it or not, but he is making it look like a holy war. Why does he always say ""god" bless america"?

Why does he always have to say that? I hope he does realize that a huge amount of people don't like it when he says that, not only because "god" probable wouldn't bless such actions. (although i don't think "god" exists but let's not bullshit about that here) But also because it gives the impression that it's our "god" fighting against other gods.

I dunno if Bush does this on purpose, probable not, but it's not a very smart thing to do...

[theavonlady 2]

Now I have to see what you're referring to above.

edit: That Russian article? Looks Greek to me!

Seriously, I posted a news item from Debka here (or was it on the DOW thread? ) last week about the weapons coming in from Belarus.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,18:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 02 2003,17:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 02 2003,09:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not to forget that GW is on a holy crusade (following his words).<span id='postcolor'>

LOL!  Bush says "God Bless America" and you think he's on a crusade.  <span id='postcolor'>

No, its his actual words. After 11/9 in one of his speeches he talked about a "crusade on terrorism".<span id='postcolor'>

Yep saw that too, we freaked out when we heard hem say that, pretty much everyone of my family was screaming that Bush had gone waaaay too far.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 02 2003,08:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The article also states that the two generals in question took part in the coup against Gorbachev and were subsequently kicked out of the army. That makes them private ciitizens who can do as they like in their spare time. Once again, if you want to claim official Russian invovement, provide proof. As I said, a Kornet-E launcher or missiles or one of those funky GPS jammers with serial number would be sufficient. In other words, put up or shut up.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I guess we'll ignore the whole missile gyros incident, and Russian training (in Russia no less) of Iraqi SAM crews after the last Gulf war.

Even when we present you with the physical evidence of the Kornets and Aviaconversia GPS/Glonus jammers I'm sure you'll have an excuse.

"Put up or shut up"

Way to intelligently debate something