The Iraq Thread

[Potatoman 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ April 02 2003,20:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Last warning to Avon and Potato man.<span id='postcolor'>

Oops sorry skipped your post when I refreshed.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ April 02 2003,20:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in France , each infantry squad normally has one .308 marksman whose role is counter sniping , observation and support for the other squad members<span id='postcolor'>

The USMC has been evaluating adding a "designated marksman" to the squad T/O whose role would be similar.  The impetus has been the desire to deliver more precise fire in urban environments.  Right now, though, we don't have that type of capability, and if one is added he'll more than likely be equipped with an M16A4 with 4x or maybe 6x optics.  Like I mentioned earlier, though, I don't think 5.56 or even 7.62 would be adequate to stop a vehicle before it could travel a couple hundred meters.  Especially if you're firing a bolt gun.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ April 02 2003,20:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">we've got SASR groups (the PGM Hécates) at a compagny scale , last time i checked , in my reserve unit of combat engineer (that's not at all representative of the rest of the french army) , we had 2 to 4 Hécates used by the protection squads and detachements<span id='postcolor'>

Our EOD and engineers have SASR's too, but they're for detonating mines or unexploded ordnance.  They don't receive the kind of marksmanship training it would require to disable threat vehicles.

Semper Fi

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 02 2003,21<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ April 02 2003,20:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in France , each infantry squad normally has one .308 marksman whose role is counter sniping , observation and support for the other squad members<span id='postcolor'>

The USMC has been evaluating adding a "designated marksman" to the squad T/O whose role would be similar.  The impetus has been the desire to deliver more precise fire in urban environments.  Right now, though, we don't have that type of capability, and if one is added he'll more than likely be equipped with an M16A4 with 4x or maybe 6x optics.  Like I mentioned earlier, though, I don't think 5.56 or even 7.62 would be adequate to stop a vehicle before it could travel a couple hundred meters.  Especially if you're firing a bolt gun.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ April 02 2003,20:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">we've got SASR groups (the PGM Hécates) at a compagny scale , last time i checked , in my reserve unit of combat engineer (that's not at all representative of the rest of the french army) , we had 2 to 4 Hécates used by the protection squads and detachements<span id='postcolor'>

Our EOD and engineers have SASR's too, but they're for detonating mines or unexploded ordnance.  They don't receive the kind of marksmanship training it would require to disable threat vehicles.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

in France , it sometimes happen to see "engineers" (generally people from protection squads) with classical and heavy marksmanship training

and , the french issue squad sniper rifle is called FR-F2 , it's a semi-auto 7.62 NATO sniper rifle that's used in a large variety of roles from counter sniping to surveillance , not forgetting the spotting of enemy targets for the rest of the squad , but also short and medium range sniping .

it's based on the "antic" MAS rifle mechanism (MAS rifles have been first issued in the mid/late 30's) and is a highly modified version of the MAS 49/56

from up to down :

short .308 hécate in use in police forces

FR F1 sniper rifle , predecessor of the FR F2

FR F2 which is an upgrade version of the FR F1

a MAS 49/56 , the rifle with which i've done my conscript service and with which my father fought while in algeria :

[ran 0]

hmm . just noticed the cocking handle on the side .. it's not a semi-auto , but the late MAS rifles were , my mistake

[Guest]

[RaidChip 0]

I saw an interesting quote in today's newspaper, so I searched on the internet for the english translation. I hope it hasn't been posted before, as I really didn't take time to read all 384 pages of posts So, here it is:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

-- Herman Goering as related to Gustave Gilbert at the Nuremberg trials, from the book Nuremberg Diary.

Amazing how history repeats itself and as much as we try to stop this trend, we cannot do a thing about it

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RaidChip @ April 03 2003,01:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

-- Herman Goering as related to Gustave Gilbert at the Nuremberg trials, from the book Nuremberg Diary.

Amazing how history repeats itself and as much as we try to stop this trend, we cannot do a thing about it <span id='postcolor'>

Cynical, accurate, and posted before.

[ebud 18]

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000027.html

It's a bit old, and sorry if it has been posted before.

[Warin 0]

Holy crap.

I turned my TV on, and some boneheaded US congressman named Saxton says that France is responsible for Turkey not allowing US troops through their territory, and that US companies should be legislated in order to stop them doing business with France.

This a new all time low!

If his bill passes, it will prove that requiring a brain is not a prerequisite for being a politician!!

[Die Alive 0]

It was bound to happen.....

ALL YOUR IRAQI BASE ARE BELONG TO U.S

Hehe

-=Die Alive=-

[PFC_Mike 2]

I thought that the Torah says "No murder" or something similiar, but many Bibles say "No killing" Anyway, do you think that the POW that was recued was taken to the hospital just as a prisoner, or for medical treatment?

Also, how much would the Russians/Syrians/Ukrainians/French charge Saddam for equipment?

[beno_83au 1369]

What the fuck is this? I just saw on TV that some dick head hippy protestors in France have gone and vandalised a WW1 memorial because they dont like the war against Saddam. What right do they think they have to go and do this to a memorial that is there for the rememberance of how foreign soldiers died to save their fucked up country. I hope those responsible die.

[Cloney 0]

Yep, I read about that too. It really is repulsive when people desecrate a memorial of soldiers who died so that they good live free. Sometimes I think that some French people are ingrateful to what the US and UK did for them. I'm sure there are some French that are very grateful, but then again, some others, probably from the younger generation don't realize what was done for them.

Please don't tell me that the French Resistance would have freed themselves, or that the Russians would have taken Germany and come to liberate France. The French needed us back then, and we were there for them.

[turms 0]

Dont condemn a nation becouse of acts of individuals.

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (turms @ April 02 2003,18:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dont condemn a nation becouse of acts of individuals.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree with this. It was most likely a small group of people who wanted to illicit just this reaction from Americans and Brits. This just shows that idiocy is a worldwide phenomenon.

[bn880 5]

From www.iraqwar.ru

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U.N.'s Annan Says All Sides Will Lose in Iraq War

03.04.2003 [04:52]

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Thursday that that he saw no chance of an immediate cease-fire in the U.S.-led war in Iraq and warned all sides that they would end up as losers.

"If you are asking me whether I see any immediate possibility of a cease-fire, I do not see that," he told the Qatar-based al-Jazeera satellite television in an interview.

"I wish we could say that there is such a possibility for an immediate halt and that a call by the Security Council could lead to that, but I don't see the matter that way," Annan said.

"I have always said that war is a human catastrophe and everyone will emerge a loser. I am pained by all that has happened," he said. His comments were dubbed into Arabic from English.

Annan said he could not say how long the war would last and reiterated that the legitimacy of the U.S.-led war was questionable. Washington and London failed to persuade the Security Council last month to sanction an invasion.

"I have made it clear that we would have preferred a peaceful solution and not to be forced to see what we see happening today," he said.

He said that warring sides should take care of civilians according to international human rights conventions.

The United States and Britain launched the war against Iraq on March 20 to topple President Saddam Hussein over his alleged weapons of mass destruction. Baghdad denies it has such arms.

Annan denied Iraqi charges that the withdrawal of U.N. staff from Iraq shortly before the war had allowed the invasion to take place. He said his teams would return and work with the Iraqi authorities as soon as the situation allowed.

Before the war, 60 percent of Iraqis lived off rations from the U.N. oil-for-food program and aid officials have warned of a humanitarian crisis unless deliveries of food, water and medicines resume soon. The United Nations has identified over $1.0 billion of aid supplies that could reach Iraq by mid-May.

"As soon as the circumstances change, the United Nations will return and work with the Iraqi authorities and people who are responsible for their land," Annan said.

<span id='postcolor'>

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Well I'm glad Kofi Annan has weighed in on the subject. I think I can breathe easier knowing that one of the more innefectual leaders of our time has sounded off on a situation his organization helped create.

[beno_83au 1369]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (turms @ April 03 2003,03:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dont condemn a nation becouse of acts of individuals.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I was pretty pissed off to say the least. I know that there would only be a minority who would do something like that, but I still felt like I had to voice my thoughts, since it's pretty discraceful.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Beno @ April 03 2003,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (turms @ April 03 2003,032)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dont condemn a nation becouse of acts of individuals.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I was pretty pissed off to say the least. I know that there would only be a minority who would do something like that, but I still felt like I had to voice my thoughts, since it's pretty discraceful.<span id='postcolor'>

I thought the swastika was pretty ironic considering the results of France's last primary elections.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 02 2003,23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well I'm glad Kofi Annan has weighed in on the subject. I think I can breathe easier knowing that one of the more innefectual leaders of our time has sounded off on a situation his organization helped create.<span id='postcolor'>

Well you know me, (I don't know if I can explain this in English right now), I have it embedded in my 'self' to respect and support those I believe are trying or stand for what's morally right and just. I don't care what influence, power, or material standing the person or organization has, I care about the nature of the persons efforts, their principles.

If I looked for only the most powerful people and organizations to give them meaning, I wouldn't be myself. For instance the whole basis of a movement like Solidarnosc (Poland) was based on principles not who has more influence. With your attitude in the same situation as east block countires were you could never free yourself from the Communist Regime. (As a matter of fact, oh I can't tell you on the forums, sucks to be... can't say again, doh)

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well you know me, (I don't know if I can explain this in English right now), I have it embedded in my 'self' to respect and support those I believe are trying or stand for what's morally right and just. I don't care what influence, power, or material standing the person or organization has, I care about the nature of the persons efforts, their principles.<span id='postcolor'>

*sniff* admirable, and yet somehow so pathetically naive. The 20th century's history is written in the blood of folks who trusted that principle alone can win out. Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's a benchmark of civilization that people keep their principles, and in a perfect world your set of ideals would be among the most valuable. But here in Reality, it is just plain dumb to invest your hopes in innefectual leaders. And did I just detect a hint of French-Canadian existentialism? Good God, I knew it lol.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If I looked for only the most powerful people and organizations to give them meaning, I wouldn't be myself. For instance the whole basis of a movement like Solidarnosc (Poland) was based on principles not who has more influence. With your attitude in the same situation as east block countires were you could never free yourself from the Communist Regime. (As a matter of fact, oh I can't tell you on the forums, sucks to be... can't say again, doh) <span id='postcolor'>

It isn't simply about influence. It's about applying whatever influence you have to fix the situation, and if you don't have any, you either buddy up with someone who does, or you shut the hell up and keep your head down. That's the name of the game. And without the influence of a certain Great Satan, the Soviet Union might well still be around to crush the occasional popular revolt in the Eastern Bloc. Remember that the next time you wax poetic about idealism's virtue.

[OxPecker 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 03 2003,06:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And without the influence of a certain Great Satan, the Soviet Union might well still be around to crush the occasional popular revolt in the Eastern Bloc. Remember that the next time you wax poetic about idealism's virtue.<span id='postcolor'>

One could argue that no more Soviet Union is a bad thing, as with no counter superpower to balance it, America can pretty much do whatever the hell it pleases (as witnessed in recent events).

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 03 2003,07:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One could argue that no more Soviet Union is a bad thing, as with no counter superpower to balance it, America can pretty much do whatever the hell it pleases (as witnessed in recent events).<span id='postcolor'>

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, up to this point.

And another way of stating it is that America can pretty much do whatever the hell none of the other want do or are capable of doing.

Obviously it depends on 1) your point of view and 2) If the US will or will not become a greedy and ruthless superpower.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 03 2003,06:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 03 2003,06:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And without the influence of a certain Great Satan, the Soviet Union might well still be around to crush the occasional popular revolt in the Eastern Bloc. Remember that the next time you wax poetic about idealism's virtue.<span id='postcolor'>

One could argue that no more Soviet Union is a bad thing, as with no counter superpower to balance it, America can pretty much do whatever the hell it pleases (as witnessed in recent events).<span id='postcolor'>

Indeed. Or you could argue something that actually made sense. How is ending a 50 year nuclear standoff not a good thing? Besides, sans the US, ran would be speaking Russian, Balschoiw would be reading Pravda instead of Der Spiegel, and Denoir would have to start all of his pick-up lines with Comrade.  

Besides, most of the United State's most stunnning military and diplomatic failures were direct offshoots of our anti-Communism strategy of containment and MAD. Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Pinochet, Afghanistan, Iran, the list goes on. And compared to the last 4 decades, the 90's were refreshingly free of that kind of realpolitick nonsense.

Naturally, I'm not the most unbiased of individuals on this forum, but I give credit where credit is due. In this case, no credit is due. That opinion is idiotic, and relies on fundamentally skewed reasoning.

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 03 2003,19:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 03 2003,07:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">One could argue that no more Soviet Union is a bad thing, as with no counter superpower to balance it, America can pretty much do whatever the hell it pleases (as witnessed in recent events).<span id='postcolor'>

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, up to this point.

And another way of stating it is that America can pretty much do whatever the hell none of the other want do or are capable of doing.

Obviously it depends on 1) your point of view and 2) If the US will or will not become a greedy and ruthless superpower.<span id='postcolor'>

well i dont know the comment about capable of doing, iraqs army isnt much of a threat, europe could easly take him on on their own, just a matter of money. Its a bad thing because this war on iraq confilcts with world interests if the US thinks what its doing is right and the world thinks its wrong which one is right? The US should of done what the UN said to be right, if they base a war on iraq breaking UN rules then why the hell can you then ignore UN decisions and wage war on a country that

1. is no threat

2. no evidence of WMDs terrorests etc found or given time to be found

The US expected this to be a short war where in 30 days they have iraq and get right into pumping that oil, on the TV they are making every effort to capture oil fields and refineries.