The Iraq Thread

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Thanks, denoir

[MLF 0]

I think that Lt Col Collins actions should be examined with respect to the 'relative' tranquility of Basra and the south east as compared to Baghdad. Clearly his tactics if possibly a little heavy handed at first have had the desire effect unlike the Americans ineffective 'peace keeping'. I think he kept to the spirit of the Geneva Convention but he might not have followed it to the letter, methinks it wasn't his bedtime read! This could be a case of jealousy especially as the British paras are going into Baghdad, a decision no dout influence by this kind of incident;

An Iraqi singer whose fervently pro-Saddam Hussein songs made him a well-known face on Iraqi television has been killed, his family says.

Daoud al-Qaissi, a Baath party member, was shot by gunmen outside his home in central Baghdad, his brother told Reuters news agency.

what we saw on tv was nothing like what it wa slike out there, but i dont know what you mean about the US knowing wa is war, is that saying th ebritish army does not know what war is?, also tbh i thought basra and the south was alot more volatile than baghadad.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

"but i dont know what you mean about the US knowing wa is war, is that saying th ebritish army does not know what war is?"

I simply meant that throughout the invasion the US armed forces were not exactly taking a 'gently gently' approach as i think is clear. Anyway this story made the front page of The Times today and was a leading story for the BBC. It sounds like he may have hit some guy and deliberatly fired a shot into the floor and is accused of staging a mock execution

(at least those are the allegations being made by the baathist leader). I think he probably bashed some guy on the head and may have fired a shot into the floor. Im not very convinced by the 'mock execution' evidence though.

Anyway this should probably be in the Iraq thread seeing as the checkpoint shhotings were confined there and this is a similar allegation.

[Jinef 2]

I think 70% is slightly absurd, when i go to America i see a lot of fit people (hehe, and a few very fit women), true there are a lot more overweight and obese people but then Britain is catching up. It's all the shit we eat nowadays, i eat proper food most of the time, unless it's late and neither of us can be bothered cooking.

That guy had a bit of a rant but i'm not sure he deserves to be banned or whatever, just show him that blatant slander and denial of counter positions is just boring (right FSPilot?)

Some of the people on this forum are really very narrow minded, when it comes to sports i consider myself to be one of them, but i think you should have allowed a lot of people to react to his post in a different thread.

Anywho, on the topical subject of Iraq. Why are they considering to send British paras to Baghdad? Could it possibly be all our predictions of the US military's archille's heel coming true? I don't know what the find so hard about winning hearts and minds, rule number one, don't shoot them, rule number two, don't shoot them. It's all quite basic really.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Jinef have you been reading The Daily Mirror

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news....20YANKS

again? Because from what i have seen noone else seems to be covering this 'Paras step in to save Baghdad' story' .

The BBC seems to be going with a somewhat different story:

"British officials familar with Baghdad praised what they said was the new willingness of American troops to leave their armoured vehicles and get onto the streets on foot. There had been increased patrolling recently and hundreds of looters arrested as a result, they said....

....The observers look forward to the arrival of fresh American units, particularly from the 82nd Airborne Division. Their paratroop colleagues in the 101st Division, with experience from the Balkans, have done intensive patrolling in Mosul with good results."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2932826.stm

[Jinef 2]

Yeah i read that on the other British officer thread, i thought there might be at least a smidgem of truth to it, apparently not.

[MrMilli 0]

to note, his rank is now Colonel, not Lt. Col anymore.

[Guest]

Merging "British Soldier" topic with the Iraq thread

[brgnorway 0]

More war crimes I'm afraid:

Quote[/b] ]The International Committee of the Red Cross so far has been denied access to what the organisation believes could be as many as 3,000 prisoners held in searing heat. All other requests to inspect conditions under which prisoners are being held have been met with silence or been turned down.

There is circumstantial evidence that prisoners are being gagged and hooded, in the manner of the Afghans and other captives held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - treatment in itself questionable under international law.

Unlike the Afghans in Cuba, there is no doubt about the status of these captives, whether PoWs or civilians arrested for looting or other crimes under military occupation: all have the right, under the laws of war, to be visited and documented by the International Red Cross. 'There is no argument about the situation with regard to the Iraqi armed forces and even the Fedayeen Saddam,' said the ICRC's spokeswoman in Baghdad, Nada Doumani.

'They are prisoners of war because they have been captured during a clear conflict between two states. If they served in the armed forces or in a militia with distinctive clothing which came under the chain of command of one of the warring states, they are protected under article 143 of the Geneva Convention.'

http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,963176,00.html

[FallenPaladin 0]

Well...

They are bad Iraqis. They deserve this threatment. In addition to that they are used to their climate, so what the hell?!? They are free!!!

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]They are bad Iraqis. They deserve this threatment. In addition to that they are used to their climate, so what the hell?!? They are free!!!

...and just in case FS hops along:

- they have WMD´s

- they are convicted terrorists

- hmm, and they want to produce their own oil and run the business on their own !!

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

"They are prisoners of war because they have been captured during a clear conflict between two states. If they served in the armed forces or in a militia with distinctive clothing which came under the chain of command of one of the warring states, they are protected under article 143 of the Geneva Convention."

It should be pointed out there were numerous reports of fighters in civilian clothing who if captured the US might accuse of being unlawful combatants (and thus perhaps not protected under artivle 143).

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]It should be pointed out there were numerous reports of fighters in civilian clothing who if captured the US might accuse of being unlawful combatants (and thus perhaps not protected under artivle 143).

Just in case you missed it:

The coalition forces invaded Iraq without UN approval. Every Iraqui man had the RIGHT to defend his home-country against the aggressors. He can do this in his underwear or in uniform. That doesnt matter.

It is more like this for them:

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Two US soldiers killed in Iraq

Noted in that article that US soldiers shot dead a women who was supposedly 'concealing grenades'

[theavonlady 2]

Two US soldiers killed in Iraq

Noted in that article that US soldiers shot dead a women who was supposedly 'concealing grenades'  

Concealed?

Quote[/b] ]"Squad members verbally warned her several more times, but she continued to advance towards them. When she refused, the squad shot her several times. She fell to the ground, dropping one grenade, and continued to crawl towards them," the statement said. "The squad fired again, killing her."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...._deaths

[Schoeler 0]

Quote[/b] ]It should be pointed out there were numerous reports of fighters in civilian clothing who if captured the US might accuse of being unlawful combatants (and thus perhaps not protected under artivle 143).

Just in case you missed it:

The coalition forces invaded Iraq without UN approval. Every Iraqui man had the RIGHT to defend his home-country against the aggressors. He can do this in his underwear or in uniform. That doesnt matter.

It is more like this for them:

The Geneva Convention does not call for the need for U.N. approval for a war to be lawful and neither does international law. Only current "norms" in international relations call for U.N. approval. War can be quite legal without it.

[Col. Kurtz 0]

Two US soldiers killed in Iraq

Noted in that article that US soldiers shot dead a women who was supposedly 'concealing grenades'  

Concealed?

Quote[/b] ]"Squad members verbally warned her several more times, but she continued to advance towards them. When she refused, the squad shot her several times. She fell to the ground, dropping one grenade, and continued to crawl towards them," the statement said. "The squad fired again, killing her."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...._deaths

That's CentComs story so while it may be truth, I don't believe everything said by the US Military Propoganda machine.

[theavonlady 2]

Two US soldiers killed in Iraq

Noted in that article that US soldiers shot dead a women who was supposedly 'concealing grenades'  

Concealed?

Quote[/b] ]"Squad members verbally warned her several more times, but she continued to advance towards them. When she refused, the squad shot her several times. She fell to the ground, dropping one grenade, and continued to crawl towards them," the statement said. "The squad fired again, killing her."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...._deaths

That's CentComs story so while it may be truth, I don't believe everything said by the US Military Propoganda machine.

The BBC report itself quotes Reuters, who itself quote a US military source.

My point was simply the discrepency in the use of the world "concealed".

[Col. Kurtz 0]

My point was simply the discrepency in the use of the world "concealed".

I see your point

It would be nice if there was a non-military source to confirm this report, but chances are there are not.

[Gunnerman 0]

I know this is off topic but has anyone checked if this is some kind of world record most non spam posts in one thread?

[Guest]

Saddam 'may have destroyed weapons'

Quote[/b] ]US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said Iraq may have destroyed its weapons of mass destruction before the US went to war against Saddam Hussein in March.

lalalalalala...

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Although i did not anyway support the war in Iraq overall, this is point at which i get angry

Leaders have misled their people. This is not just mysterious intelligence documents anymore, leaders have lied (however knowingly) to their people about the most serious of subjects.

Well i think this at least should decrease the likelyhood of other countries being invaded in the near future. Of course the neo-conservatives are coming up with stupid excuses as idealogues are want to do.

Of course Saddam destroyed his WMD just before the coalition invaded but didnt bother to tell anyone...right

[Blaegis 0]

Well i think this at least should decrease the likelyhood of other countries being invaded in the near future. Of course the neo-conservatives are coming up with stupid excuses as idealogues are want to do.

Why? They've waged a war of aggression under false pretences and have successfully gotten away with it, at least as far as domestic public opinion is concerned. Any dissent was buried under another rush of flag-waving and the "must support our boys" arguments. The way I see it, this will encourage invasion of other countries, not discourage it.

[Oligo 1]

The way I see it, this will encourage invasion of other countries, not discourage it.

Amen.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

But knowing the supposed causes of this war are (very likely now) false, people should scrutinize the basis of any future war more closely and take a more skeptical view.

Thats would should happen if people are logical and reasonable. I dont say it is what will happen  

Nonetheless i think at least in Britain people are not as likely to want to back another US adventure of a similar nature (even those who backed this war). On the issue of Iran, that includes the British government itself (who have worked hard to build diplomatic bridges with the Iranians).

We know now or at least it appears at this point that the US intelligence services screwed up fundamentally or were unintelligently exploited by neo-conservatives. I think that will make more people (who knows how many, perhaps not enough) wary of future intelligence led drives for war.

Polls have suggested that British support was fairly important in this war for Americans not to feel totally isolated. If TBA lose that last fig leaf of international support (from 'major' countries) then when a new war is proposed the US public might feel less happy to continue.

Plus there is the question of where the next war might occur.

There is Syria (US gets no international support), there is Iran(US gets no international support), there is N. Korea(US gets S.korean support but faces nuke power), none of them are quite as 'appetizing' as Iraq was for various reasons.