The Iraq Thread

[Tovarish 0]

Thought this was interesting:

Yep, I'm sure the gas mask was for fear of biological or chemical weapons.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ April 06 2003,06:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yep, I'm sure the gas mask was for fear of biological or chemical weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

Maybe that had roquefort cheese and saurkraut in their breakfast rations. That would explain everything.

[red oct 2]

i accually like the smell of saurkraut. matter of fact i could go for a nice helping of it w/ tender slices of corn beef and a loaded baked patato

[ralphwiggum 6]

let's be gentle,

not get mental,

let's stay on topic,

not go off topic

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm 'supporting' this war on the priciple of the fact that the U.S. is standing in for the U.N. on the issue of disarming Iraq of illegal weapons that it supposedly has.<span id='postcolor'>

The UN never asked the US to provide wrong intel, false accusations, bugged offices and such. The UN was not supporting a violent solution. So to make this a UN motivated war is really wrong.

[DarkLight 0]

Just heard on the radio that at least 2000 and maximum 3000 Iraqi ppl have been killed in Baghdad yesterday. Aparantly some ppl celebrated the arrival of the soldiers while others were angry and fought back and tried to blow themselves up.

Also...

In the North, americans have bombed their own ppl, about 10 soldiers are dead.

[Blaegis 0]

Well, we all saw this one coming. Controversy galore...

The U.S. Ex-General Who Will Run Iraq

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are a lot of African (and other) countries who have a dictator, who kills as much as Saddam.  All these dictators together probable cause a lot more deaths than Saddam will ever.<span id='postcolor'>

so the question is why they attack Iraq instead of some African country. Maybe you are right, the coalition is up to no good but just like i said earlier</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I see this war as a huge opportunity for the iraqis to get rid of Saddam. No matter what the coalition intends to do<span id='postcolor'>

[LandShark-AL 0]

Saddam started this war in 1990 its the same war. We did not

start it.The UN had 12 years to stop this part and did nothing.

and after 9/11 you say you hate us and want to kill us then

doom to you.I was there in 90/91 and I can tell you his army

even hates him.Just pray to your God for all the people in this on both sides.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ April 06 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I love how you guys see that one US pilot messed up and you generalize all of them into the RAMBO KILL EVERYTHING THAT EATS BREATHES AND SLEEPS category.

I'm not defending what the pilot did, I'm just stating that is extraordinarily annoying when you euroes trash the US Airforce everytime they screw up. These guys are flying under immense stress, they could be shot down in an instant. Which is probably enough to make them very,very edgy.

Also notice that this is a Special Forces convoy, so they probably weren't listed on the map as being there, because of the covert nature of their operations.

My Conclusions are:

A. The Pilot F'd up

B. I'm suprised this doesn't happen more because of the THOUSANDS of sorties that are being flown every day.<span id='postcolor'>

People trash the US Air Force because in pretty much every recent operation involving multi-national forces, the US Air Force has a higher kill total than the enemy.

I'd say that gives Candians and British people a right to see the US Air Force in less than favourable light.

And I cant recall Brit tornadoes bombing the US forces, can you?

The US Air Force is a mostly professional operation. But the simple fact is that they have a serious problem with friendly fire.

[Cloney 0]

Heh Multinational Operations, and they'd probably whine if the US Airforce didn't get involved. Its hard to keep allies happy these days.

Its too bad that without the US Airforce and US Navy Air Assets that we wouldn't have nearly the CAS coverage and the air superiority that we currently have in Iraq. Face it the RAF, however good it is, simply isn't large enough to do both the CAS and the Air Superiority missions. I also don't think that the UK has the logistical backbone to support such a large bombing campaign. Especially since they can't even supply their infantrymen with proper boots and gear.

British Soldiers buy their own gear.

You might not want to admit it but, regardless of how much you rag on us, you still need us.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ April 06 2003,21:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Heh Multinational Operations, and they'd probably whine if the US Airforce didn't get involved. Its hard to keep allies happy these days.

Its too bad that without the US Airforce and US Navy Air Assets that we wouldn't have nearly the CAS coverage and the air superiority that we currently have in Iraq. Face it the RAF, however good it is, simply isn't large enough to do both the CAS and the Air Superiority missions. I also don't think that the UK has the logistical backbone to support such a large bombing campaign. Especially since they can't even supply their infantrymen with proper boots and gear.

British Soldiers buy their own gear.

You might not want to admit it but, regardless of how much you rag on us, you still need us.  <span id='postcolor'>

Yeah. We need you so much that when you kill our soldiers, we'll just keep smiling and following morons like Bush.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ April 06 2003,21:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Especially since they can't even supply their infantrymen with proper boots and gear.

British Soldiers buy their own gear.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats bollox, that is simply a case of ppl not liking the standard kit, but those effin tabloids have blown it out of proportion as usual, just like the rantings about the SA-80.

Fact is, in all of the past multinational actions, British planes had 0 blue-on-blues, whilst the yank had a few in every single one of 'em. Tells u summink, dunnit.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ April 06 2003,21:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Especially since they can't even supply their infantrymen with proper boots and gear.

British Soldiers buy their own gear.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm willing to bet a fair number of the members in US Special Forces likely buy their own boots and such as well. To me, footwear is, beyond weapons, your most important piece of kit. And I know if I was going to be humping all over hell and gone, I'd want the best boots that money could buy. Not ones provided by the lowest bidder

[Cloney 0]

Well, SF buys their own boots because they WANT to not because they HAVE to like the regular British Army sods, whose boots melt.

[MLF 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Cloney @ April 06 2003,23:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, SF buys their own boots because they WANT to not because they HAVE to like the regular British Army sods, whose boots melt.<span id='postcolor'>

thats bollox, so they were wearing the wrong boots, you post tabloid info expect it to be 1147265786457836 times more exaggerated than usual

[Badgerboy 0]

Cloney, if you read my other post in the DOW thread you willsee my point. If you calculate the amount of hours flown in previous conflicts by the RAF, it beats the USAF total for this war.

So

USAF;

Fired on Patriot battery (But it was selfdefense)

F15's attack Marines : 3+ dead

A10 attack on Brits : 2 dead, many wounded

Attack on Kurdish convoy : 4 US; 12 Kurds dead, 50+ wounded

Cobra's (Not USAF) attack Marines. 1 M1, 1 M2A2 destroyed

(Plus all the incidents in previous conflicts)

RAF : None

Now tell me if there isn't a problem. Having met US pilots, I must say their attitude is slighty gung ho. Most of the guys ( and gals! ),were great people, but I did meet a couple of wankers anyway.

And it only takes a couple of wankers to nail friendlies and reporters.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Fact is, in all of the past multinational actions, British planes had 0 blue-on-blues, whilst the yank had a few in every single one of 'em. Tells u summink, dunnit. <span id='postcolor'>

The last blue on blue in the RAF, occured when a RAF Phantom II shot down a Jaguar with a AIM-9 on a training exercise.

The guy who did it was my instructor! Ho ho! The Jag pilot ejected, but collected a vast quantity of beer from Phantom pilot.

Edit- Names removed

[KingBeast 0]

Its no good saying "Shit happens" or claiming that the amount of sorties involved means friendly fire is unavoidable. I dont know the full circumstances of any of these friendly fire incidents, none of us really do, but i think its almost safe to say that these pilots cant seem to be identifying their targets 100% before engaging them.

Its almost like they see something moveing on the ground, and immediately decide to attack it. With a little more care these things wouldnt happen. Yes, easy for me to say. Im not on the edge, flying dangerous missions, but what danger can a small convoy pose to any coalition plane even if it was Iraqi? Not so much of a threat that it needs to be attacked immediately without taking time to identify it, that much is certain.

[Guest]

Saying that things like these are bound to happen when you have so many operations in the air is not good enough. FF incidents are currently a larger problem then enemy fire. You have to solve it. The current method of operations is not working. Exactly because you have so many active forces you have to adapt to that situation and make damned sure that these things do not happen. And it's not just this war. Everybody who has served with US forces will tell you the same thing: Watch out, they shoot first think later.

It shows that there is a fundamental flaw in how the soldiers are trained and a fundamental flaw in the methods they use (if any) to separate friend from foe.

[Guest]

Bush puts God on his side

Nothing really new but it's interesting that it's from BBC.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One in three American Christians call themselves evangelicals and many evangelicals believe the second coming of Christ will occur in the Middle East after a titanic battle with the anti-Christ.

Does the president believe he is playing a part in the final events of Armageddon?

If true, it is an alarming thought

<span id='postcolor'>

Well the battle is neither titanic nor is the Anti Christ in Bagdad. And why should Bush have to go to Bagdad to be Jesus ? This is all very confusing...

Let´s have some pretzels GW, shall we

[OxPecker 0]

I just wish Bush and pro-war advocates could make up their mind why US forces are there. Is it -

A. To enforce resolution 1441?

B. Because Saddam has links to terrorist organisations and is going to sneak WMD into the USA for use againt the American population?

C. To free the poor, oppressed people of Iraq.

Pick a reason, and stick with it. The OFFICIAL reason for going in was to enforce 1441. Have the courage of your convictions. All of a sudden, when it seems like proof of illegal WMD stockpiling is nonexistant (or at the very least, going to be very hard to find), the whole reason for the US going in seems to have changed.

This is NOT a war to emancipate Iraqis, it is a war to find and destroy illegal WMD. If no WMD turn up, then your reason for going in was false and you must face the embarrassment of a monumental fuck up.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 07 2003,07:27)</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">Well the battle is neither titanic nor is the Anti Christ in Bagdad. And why should Bush have to go to Bagdad to be Jesus ? This is all very confusing...

Let´s have some pretzels GW, shall we <span id='postcolor'>

Hey, easy there, you don't want to start another world war. We both know you guys haven't had the best of luck with those.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A. To enforce resolution 1441?

B. Because Saddam has links to terrorist organisations and is going to sneak WMD into the USA for use againt the American population?

C. To free the poor, oppressed people of Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

All of the above. If there are no WMDs, which I highly doubt, then we will of saved the lives of countless Iraqis and gotten rid of some funding for palestinian terrorists.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 07 2003,04:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">All of the above.  If there are no WMDs, which I highly doubt, then we will of saved the lives of countless Iraqis and gotten rid of some funding for palestinian terrorists.<span id='postcolor'>

Great. So Saudi Arabia is your next target then? I bet as much funding for Palestinian 'terrorists' come out of their coffers as what Iraq coughs up.

DefinitionManâ„¢ says:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy

Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -sies

Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage, hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- + krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN

Date: 13th century

1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

2 : an act or instance of hypocrisy <span id='postcolor'>

But since they are US allies, they OBVIOUSLY cant help do things like..oh...support and pay for the training of someone who might... ohh... fly an aircraft into a building.

The world isnt as black and white as you seem to think it is, FSPilot.