shadow 6 Posted March 24, 2003 Snippet from the Downed Apache-article on CNN: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mohamed Aldouri, Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, said Iraq will follow international guidelines for the humane treatment of POWs "We will respect carefully the international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions," he said. "I hope that the American Army will respect [this] also." <span id='postcolor'> I take that with a grain of salt Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ Mar. 24 2003,13:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">About the pilots: I'm not so sure the iraqis really have the crew. All they show is two helmets and some papers. They said they "are thinking" about showing the pilots faces on TV, but after seeing everyones reactions the first time they did, I don't think they dare to do it a second time. If they do, I think they just signed their death warrants (it's against the Geneva-convention to "humiliate" POWs in public).<span id='postcolor'> I remember a report with two Iraqi POWs being asked by a reporter why they surrendered. They answered that it was not worth to fight for Saddam. However, this was before the Video with the US-POWs... Isn't this technically the same what the Iraqis did now Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-TU--33ker 0 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 24 2003,13:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,14:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraqi footage of a downed Comanche helicopter! Â <span id='postcolor'> More Iraqi footage.<span id='postcolor'> you've got to wash yer feet avon! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blaegis 0 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 24 2003,13:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But I do stand by my earlier point, war is a bloody business, and why people are so surprised that British and American troops are being killed is beyond me. Â Maybe the population and meia have lulled themselves into a childish naivety?<span id='postcolor'> It's a commonly accepted premise that significant casualties will also result in a serious public backlash against the war (at least in the US) Therefore, the commanders in Iraq are forced to walk a tightrope between achieving their military objectives while maintaining a near-zero casualty rate. As a percentage of unit combat strength, the casualties suffered so far (even the higher estimates of 100+ KIA) are insignificant and should not affect the progress of the operation at all. However, since the Americans (sensitivity) and the media (blowing things out of proportion) are involved they probably will. As a Russian, I find it amusing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 24 2003,13:12)</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">Iraqi footage of a downed Comanche helicopter! Â <span id='postcolor'> OFP photography I think you'll find<span id='postcolor'> No kidding! You are a regular Sherlock Holmes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,14:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 24 2003,13:12)</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">Iraqi footage of a downed Comanche helicopter! Â <span id='postcolor'> OFP photography I think you'll find<span id='postcolor'> No kidding! You are a regular Sherlock Holmes <span id='postcolor'> He meant it belongs on the OFP Photography thread. Don't ya know?!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 Last night's Apaches versus Replican Guard Armor fight did not go well, according to CNN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IsthatyouJohnWayne 0 Posted March 24, 2003 "As a Russian, I find it amusing" Seeing as according to reports Russia has supplied Iraq with a lot of its latest equipment (defying UN sanctions) no doubt you do I still think 4-5 days is too soon to be declaring the new Vietnam or Afghanistan, but it could well be heading that way.... the next few days will be 'interesting' i hope i doesnt come to that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Mar. 24 2003,13:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 24 2003,13:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But I do stand by my earlier point, war is a bloody business, and why people are so surprised that British and American troops are being killed is beyond me.  Maybe the population and meia have lulled themselves into a childish naivety?<span id='postcolor'> It's a commonly accepted premise that significant casualties  will also result in a serious public backlash against the war (at least in the US) Therefore, the commanders in Iraq are forced to walk a tightrope between achieving their military objectives while maintaining a near-zero casualty rate. As a percentage of unit combat strength, the casualties suffered so far (even the higher estimates of 100+ KIA) are insignificant and should not affect the progress of the operation at all. However, since the Americans (sensitivity) and the media (blowing things out of proportion) are involved they probably will. As a Russian, I find it amusing. <span id='postcolor'> Ah, but they are military significant since the military has a near zero casualty rate strategy. Sure, they could storm say Basra with 10,000 troops and take it. Even if they got away with 5% casualties it would still be unacceptable. The war hasn't got too strong support back home and showing 500 body bags containing American kids would not play too well politically. Remember Somalia! Military reality is to a large extent dictated by politics and politics is in the end in a democracy dictated by the opinion of the people. There are still scars left from Vietnam and everybody is scared to death of a repeat of that. USA won't for instance nuke Baghdad. It is a military possibility guaranteed to give quick victory. The political cost is however too high so it won't happen. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadow 6 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Mar. 24 2003,13:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ Mar. 24 2003,13:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">About the pilots: I'm not so sure the iraqis really have the crew. All they show is two helmets and some papers. They said they "are thinking" about showing the pilots faces on TV, but after seeing everyones reactions the first time they did, I don't think they dare to do it a second time. If they do, I think they just signed their death warrants (it's against the Geneva-convention to "humiliate" POWs in public).<span id='postcolor'> I remember a report with two Iraqi POWs being asked by a reporter why they surrendered. They answered that it was not worth to fight for Saddam. However, this was before the Video with the US-POWs... Isn't this technically the same what the Iraqis did now <span id='postcolor'> I assume when you say "a reporter asked some POWs" , that means the POWs volunteered for the interview. That is not the same as publish pictures of POWs on iraqi tv. I think we all know that the iraqis did that without the POWs approval Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 24 2003,13:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Last night's Apaches versus Replican Guard Armor fight did not go well, according to CNN.<span id='postcolor'> Already posted a couple of pages back Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ Mar. 24 2003,13:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Mar. 24 2003,13:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ Mar. 24 2003,13:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">About the pilots: I'm not so sure the iraqis really have the crew. All they show is two helmets and some papers. They said they "are thinking" about showing the pilots faces on TV, but after seeing everyones reactions the first time they did, I don't think they dare to do it a second time. If they do, I think they just signed their death warrants (it's against the Geneva-convention to "humiliate" POWs in public).<span id='postcolor'> I remember a report with two Iraqi POWs being asked by a reporter why they surrendered. They answered that it was not worth to fight for Saddam. However, this was before the Video with the US-POWs... Isn't this technically the same what the Iraqis did now <span id='postcolor'> I assume when you say "a reporter asked some POWs" , that means the POWs volunteered for the interview. That is not the same as publish pictures of POWs on iraqi tv. I think we all know that the iraqis did that without the POWs approval <span id='postcolor'> They 'volunteered' in the same way, got a microphone shoved into the face and got asked questions. The situation is identical as I see it. The only difference is that the US POWs did not have guns directed at them while the captured Iraqis did. They were also forced to strip down in front of the cameras, which I think is much more humiliating then getting asked if "the iraqi people met you with flowers or with bullets". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadow 6 Posted March 24, 2003 But is there any info on the so-called 2nd downed Apache? Iraq claims they've downed 2 Apaches, but show only one chopper and two helmets? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
interstat 0 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I remember a report with two Iraqi POWs being asked by a reporter why they surrendered. They answered that it was not worth to fight for Saddam. However, this was before the Video with the US-POWs... Isn't this technically the same what the Iraqis did now <span id='postcolor'> Would have to agree, showing any pictures at all being interviewed, is not on, whether asked or at all. Come on, is firing Nuclear Depleted Uranium shells against the Geneva convention? The Americans have got some cheek saying Iraq are going against the Geneva convention. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadow 6 Posted March 24, 2003 I hope the american crew is okay and that a rescue-plan is in the works Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 24 2003,14:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Come on, is firing Nuclear Depleted Uranium shells against the Geneva convention?<span id='postcolor'> Not that I've heard of. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Americans have got some cheek saying Iraq are going against the Geneva convention.<span id='postcolor'> The International Red Cross said it yesterday. So are they cheeky, too. The difference between the US POW picks shown by Iraq and those of Iraqi POWs is that Iraq called in a government TV station to interview them after they had already been taken in from the field to a secure area and with the intent of using this as propaganda. I don't know how you can compare this to a roving press reporter getting a few words in for a scoop, with no assistance or promotion from coaltion military or government representatives. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shadow 6 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 24 2003,13:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Americans have got some cheek saying Iraq are going against the Geneva convention. <span id='postcolor'> I must say I laughed my ass off when Bush talked about upholding the humane rights according to the Geneva-convention. -I remember when the americans took POWs in Afghanistan and transported them to Cuba(where Geneva is not in effect) oooh my! I wonder why Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ Mar. 24 2003,13:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I assume when you say "a reporter asked some POWs" , that means the POWs volunteered for the interview. That is not the same as publish pictures of POWs on iraqi tv. I think we all know that the iraqis did that without the POWs approval <span id='postcolor'> I don't know. In fact the situation was a bit similar, a small room, both sitting on a wall and the reporter asking questions. Of course, they showed not the fear some of the Americans showed. To sum it up, it was an obvious piece of propaganda. And I don't know, whether the Geneva Convention distinguishes between broadcasts of volunteer POWs and others... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
interstat 0 Posted March 24, 2003 Exactly, its that sort of hypocrisy that spurs on the Iraqi soldiers more and more, good one Rumsfeld, dumbass!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blaegis 0 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 24 2003,13:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"As a Russian, I find it amusing" Seeing as according to reports Russia has supplied Iraq with a lot of its latest equipment (defying UN sanctions) no doubt you do <span id='postcolor'> I do not find the casualties from either side amusing. I do find it amusing that a country goes to war, and an offensive war at that, having a military strategy based on a contradiction. And I understand that you'd prefer the Iraqi army to roll over and and die, but I don't see the problem with the Russians providing them with some means of self defense. Russia has political and economic interests in the region, just like everybody else, and was merely doing something to secure them (on a very small scale, I might add). But I think that belongs in the political thread... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shadow @ Mar. 24 2003,14:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I remember when the americans took POWs in Afghanistan and transported them to Cuba<span id='postcolor'> Is that against the Geneva convention? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 24, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 24 2003,13:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know how you can compare this to a roving press reporter getting a few words in for a scoop, with no assistance or promotion from coaltion military or government representatives.<span id='postcolor'> They weren't "roving press reporters", they were embedded reporters assigned to the coalition military. That makes them just as official as the Iraqi state television. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted March 24, 2003 Ok - this reply might belong in the political thread, but since we are talking about a possible breach of the Geneva-convention I'll say it nevertheless: I find it pathetic that US claims a breach of the Geneva-convention because of this: A few days ago I saw a news report where US soldiers pointed guns at POW and one US soldier shouted "didn't you hear me - get the fuck down" . Although I understand the need for making clear statements in a situation like that - I still think it shouldn't have appeared on the news. By far, the most ridiculous aspect of US claim is that US are engaged in a "war against terror" - yet they deny prisoners taken any fair trial and consequently disrespect the Geneva-convention themselves. Actually, they are denied ANY rights what so ever since US courtsystem has ruled out a trial by US judicial system. So, basically - US choses to follow the Geneva-convention only when it SUITS their own purposes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JAP 2 Posted March 24, 2003 Lol ... What is that sweden - Norway thingy ... I think Coalition groundforces will change tactics not making their backs vunerable. Last i heard is UK forces securing or surrounding Basra and staying there untill it s under coalition control. They say US forces have moved up North for the attack on Bagdad. Also said was that UK forces are more capable in urban warfare since they have more experience compared to US troops in that part ( 30 years of N. Ireland ). ..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted March 24, 2003 This is the current status. I tried to filter media shit from the sources I got. 1.Downed AH 64 seems to be undammaged, so it maybe is  a result of an emergency landing. Bad anyway because the  Iraqi militairs will be very interested in the frequencies and    other tech notes this helo will provide. 2.The marines are pulling out of Umm Kasar. They had great problems with urban combat and there are reports and medical support transmissions that indicate a high number of marines injured/killed. Now british forces take their place and will continue the urban warfare. 3. Basra is a milestone and it proves that the guerrilla tacs Saddam´s forces use show impact on the warplans of Pentagon. As a sidenote we have Pentagon official voices right now that claim that the TBA has been warned intensly that this war will not be fought the way TBA thought. The Pentagon itself warned the politicians to underestimate the power of Iraq´s troops within urban scenarios and on fast adapting strategy changes. Basra is no longer an objective for coaltion forces. They try to isolate the town but don´t move in in larger amounts. The Basra airport is under heavy fire from Iraq forces. Most likely the coaltion forces will not be able to hold it as their troop strength there is too small and right now there are ongoing discussions to leave the airport. 4. All major tank movements from Kuwait to Bagdad have come to a stop at the moment. It´s either bridges that are in Iraqi hands or the marshlands totally controlled by them. There are several reports on have infantry battles at the moment. As long as the major ways to Bagdad are closed for the coaltion there will be no significant harm done to Bagdad itself. Air bombardments will carry on but resistance among the Iraqi people is growing in plenties as they see the vulnerability of the coaltion forces on their TV sets and experience heavy casualties amongst the civillian population. 5. Iraq troops managed to disturb the routes of supply multiple times now. This tactic cuts or is intending to cut the support for the support dependant tank forces forcing their way to Bagdad. There are already reported lacks of fuel for tanks and heavy infantry ammunition. If these tactics will be extended from Iraqi forces there can be done significant harm to coaltion forces in two ways. First the POW´s on US side will "Shock and Awe" the US public. Second, if the Iraqi army is able to fight at least 5 percent of the incoming support it will have major impact on the ability of coaltion forces to move, invade and fight the most skilled enemies available in Iraq wich they only have faced in very small numbers at Umm Kasar. You know this town, besides to any other town coaltion forces claimed to have control over it is still resisting in big numbers. Also interesting. The large surrendering forces on Iraq side seem to be propaganda only. There are no reports on surrendering forces more than 200 men in one piece. We are a bit split here at them moment. My boss says that the pictures showing US POW´s (wich is in no way different to US showing Iraq POW´s by the way. I´m not starting to talk about the POW´s held in Guantanamo Bay against the geneva conventions.) will cause the US public to remember vietnam or the failed operations in Somalia wich led to a withdrawl of US forces. I don´t think so. Both parties, the opposition of war and the supporters of war will use these pictures for their own reasons. The opposition will say: "Now you see what you started !" The pro-war side will say" Now see! We have to hit them eaven harder" wich makes no sense but it will be that way. I am curiouse what developements we will experience during the next hours but the days of claimed wins are over now. I repeat, the coaltion forces were not able to take at least one bigger town till now. How should that work with Bagdad than ? I have seen preparations for urban warfare in the streets of Bagdad. There are commandos on modern military motorcycles with very modern equipment patrolling the town with heavy weapons. This will be a hard nut to crack. Bagdad can´t be cut off from the rest of Iraq. This is impossible with number of coaltion forces that are in Iraq , Kuwait or elsewhere in the region. If the coialtion forces need to draw troops from other places of fights towards Bagdad they will leave their back blank open for hurting attacks and share a great risk of being cut off. The Northern front is stil non existant. Only commando movements without heavy equipment and aerial barrage won´t win the northern front at all. The reported dicovery of a WMD factory is nonsense by the way. It has been spread by Jerusalem Post and network channles. Most likely a try to keep public on track as they suffered a really black day yesterday and this day does not start better. There is no proof , evidence, picture of the factory right now. It has been nearly 12 hours now till I heard the first reports and till then nothing was heard of it anymore. Propaganda in my opinion. EDIT: Denoir I was not able to access internet during the last two days. They didn´t let me So I was not able to add you to my cell phone. Now I did Anyway I will update you on serious events or non-public information whenever I get some. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
