The Dogs of War

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 28 2003,09:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">On this morning's local 7AM IBA news, they were speaking by phone with Israeli TV reporter Dan Semama.

A day and a half ago, he was with US troops and other reporters in the north, alongside the Kurds. Now he's in Kuwait, most probably on the way back here.

Apparently something went awefully wrong and a US commander suspected him and at least one other Portugese reporter of being Iraqi spies. They were treated very brutally, with the Portugese reporter getting something broken (jaw, shoulder, arm - didn't catch).

Anytime they tried to plead their case to the soldier guarding them and made the slightest move, they had loaded guns pointed to their heads.

They were kept as prisoners for 36 hours, apparently with no food. He didn't sound too stable over the phone. The line got cut off after about 3 minutes.

Haven't seen an article on this yet online.<span id='postcolor'>

Wonder if this is related:

A US Army spokesperson has said that they have been arresting unarmed civilians when there's an "intuitive" concern that the person may actually be a guerilla fighter. (Reuters)

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 28 2003,11:08)</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">does Saddam have other children?

<span id='postcolor'>

I guess he has 11 to 14 children.<span id='postcolor'>

Sources? j/k

[Longinius 1]

Saddams first wife has taken their three daughters to the Iraqi embassy in Damascus, which is three buildings or so down from the US embassy. The daughters are named Raghad, Rana and Hala. Rumor has it a plane is fueled and ready at all times to take Saddam to the same compound (sounds a bit unlikely however).

Source, Aftonbladet (Daily newspaper) in Sweden.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Mar. 28 2003,11:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Source, Aftonbladet (Daily newspaper) in Sweden.<span id='postcolor'>

Those Swedes! They know everything! I'll bet it has to do with the high rate of Sweden's Internet access.

They most probably have a WEB cam on every second street corner in Baghdad!

[theavonlady 2]

There an interesting video available from this article at Sky, titled "Tanks Cross 'Floating Bridges"'.

Would make a great OFP Addon!

[stgn 39]

I saw on BBC that US is sending 120000 men from the 4. Divison, and thay said that they was the most high-tec in the army. Does enybody know how they are more high-tec.

STGN

[Balschoiw 0]

Did you know that Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq with 12.000 man only ? Pentagon really had a hard job convincing the TBA that this wont be enough. At least Powell was able to convince them to send more men, but the political orientated tactics remained the same and now prove as partly totally false. Powell by the way was the first victim of this war in the US I guess. He had to change his attitude towards war. I guess he was told to agree or leave his position.

[stgn 39]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 28 2003,12:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did you know that Rumsfeld wanted to invade Iraq with 12.000 man only ? Pentagon really had a hard job convincing the TBA that this wont be enough. At least Powell was able to convince them to send more men, but the political orientated tactics remained the same and now prove as partly totally false. Powell by the way was the first victim of this war in the US I guess. He had to change his attitude towards war. I guess he was told to agree or leave his position.<span id='postcolor'>

No dident know that, they have change there attitude whit about 400.000 men is going in to iraq.

STGN

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Franks's planning is being heavily influenced by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and a tightly knit circle of advisers surrounding him who, according to sources, are urging Franks to consider an invasion force that is smaller, more fast-moving, and relies more on Special Operations troops than traditional Army thinking would dictate<span id='postcolor'>

article

Well Perle, one of the hawks has resigned...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Some contend that the rank-and-file is waiting for an opportunity to safely turn on Hussein. "If I had to guess, I would predict that Saddam ultimately would be destroyed by his own forces, whose loyalty he has good reason to question," Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser who is a leading hawk on Iraq, said recently on a foreign policy Web sitewww.inthenationalinterest.com.<span id='postcolor'>

Interview with Perle some time ago

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 28 2003,12:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There an interesting video available from this article at Sky, titled "Tanks Cross 'Floating Bridges"'.

Would make a great OFP Addon!<span id='postcolor'>

Those are cool. Heavily cool.

I'd also like to see those tanks that carry their own mini-bridge.

G.I. Joe used them, but I'm pretty sure they were based on real hardware.

Of course, they can't cross anything nearly that widde, but they're still damned cool.

And the bridge bits they carry can soak up a round for the tank, if need be.

[theavonlady 2]

Rumors of Iraqi chemical drums.

[-Siegfried- 0]

And yet another biased source (in this case a Russian one) here: you may have heard of it already

Russian Thinktank

Still, I like to read their comments everyday. These guys claim they have access to military communications and satellites (dunno if it's true), but the truth is that they offer an additional point of view that I think can be valuable if contrasted with other sources.

Edit to add: Among other things they claim that "At the current level of combat operations and at the current level of Iraqi resistance the coalition may face a sharp shortage of troops and weapons within the next 5-7 days, which will allow the Iraqis to take the initiative. The White House took this conclusion of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff with great concern" Hmmm makes me wonder if there is some truth in it...

[Antichrist 0]

Don't u guys think that operation in Iraq slowed down heaps in last coupole of days? I mean on the last 10 or so pages we mostly have analytical crap. Not many news from the battlefield. I wonder what is going on there....

[interstat 0]

The coalition forces are starting to realise the job may take longer than planned, my worry is if Bush decides to invade somewhere else illegally, really stretch the US army, especially with many EU countries not willing to contibute to iraq's reconstruction.

The worse thing they can do is get bogged down. Though time will tell, if Baghdad is not taken by mid April then things could start to get away from Bush and Blair, not to mention the coalition forces.

[bn880 5]

Just saw an interview on CNN with reporter Alex Perry in Iraq. He sayd the gloves are now coming off, and the forces have been ordered to shoot at Iraqis even in civilian clothes no matter if it's only a stick they have. This is because of so many surrendering Iraqis apparently trying to trick the coalition forces and attack.

This is becoming a nice big atrocity.

EDIT: YES, and you should have seen the reaction the CNN talking head had, it's like: "OOPS, we played the truth on CNN world wide".

[ZIKAN 0]

There is no denying they are getting bogged down trying to consolidate ground, while trying to push to Baghdad.

I dont think there is ever a perfect war, but surely the pentagon should plan for all eventualities.What I find shocking is that some elements of the coalition and the media seem 'surprised' by the fact that the Iraqi's have put up a fight and resorting to guerilla tatics (being competant at the same time). I dont condone soldiers hiding in civillian clothing, but what did they expect? A one on one battle in open desert?

Desperate people will resort to desperate measures. The coalition needs to adapt quickly to things like this then refine their plans and operations.

I dont think they are loosing, they will prevail,but I think they need to sort their shit out soon, before casaullties really start to mount up.

[hellfish6 7]

The 4th Infantry Division is considered high tech because for the last ten years they've been evaluating all the Army's new high tech toys instead of doing actual deployments. They were the first to get M-1A2 tanks, recon drones, digital and satellite communications gear, new night vision, etc. They have all the latest and greatest toys with them.

And the 200,000 extra troops aren't from the 4th ID alone - the 1st Armored Division, 1st Cavalry Division, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment and 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment are all now being deployed. Apparently, we've underestimated the Iraqis.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Interstat- Dont think theres any real chance of Bush 'invading' somewhere else right now unless theres real provocation. Its politically off the map in the short term (and to keep on topic its just not militarily advisable at all). In fact the idea that he would is silly. However,  this would be a great time for North Korea or another so called 'axis of evil'-country (not least Iran) to make any moves it might want to make and step up the pressure.

I think its a bit dumb that whenever theres a lull in the 24hr-reporting people start start talking about things getting 'bogged down' etc etc As far as im concerned, no news (as in big headlines) for the next few days is probably good news for those who want an end to the war quickly and as bloodlessly as possible.

Time perhaps to build up forces, clear and maintain the supply lines ,horde some supplies , reinforce at western and northern airfields etc... not really CNN stuff.

[edit- having said that i agree this isnt going as perfectly as Pentagon planners hoped-  and i wasnt aiming at anyone when i said its a bit dumb to talk about getting bogged down- its just become a media buzz word -edit]

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 28 2003,17:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just saw an interview on CNN with reporter Alex Perry in Iraq.  He sayd the gloves are now coming off, and the forces have been ordered to shoot at Iraqis even in civilian clothes no matter if it's only a stick they have.  This is because of so many surrendering Iraqis apparently trying to trick the coalition forces and attack.

This is becoming a nice big atrocity.

EDIT: YES, and you should have seen the reaction the CNN talking head had, it's like: "OOPS, we played the truth on CNN world wide".<span id='postcolor'>

This would confirm what Balschoiw has been saying for two days now.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

If as a reply to the illegal Iraqi tactics their rules of engagement are becoming more 'robust' then it will depend how they interpret or follow them. I have heard aggresive orders being shouted by officers in reports by embedded reporters such as 'shoot any bastard that moves over that area' but it comes down to their ability to identify and discriminate between threats and non threats. They are not going to start indiscriminate bombing or opening fire on all civilians. If they do it will be a mistake and run counter to the war aims.

Surely everyone has seen the footage by now of every surrendering Iraqi male being regarded as suspicious and being searched by allied forces?

But they dont gun them down immediatly do they...

Even around the 'target' of Basra.

[Longinius 1]

"This would confirm what Balschoiw has been saying for two days now."

The same info that multiple others on the forum found to be unbelievable and untrue

[bn880 5]

And for Avon + others, check the spelling

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 28 2003,18:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ Mar. 28 2003,17:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just saw an interview on CNN with reporter Alex Perry in Iraq.  He sayd the gloves are now coming off, and the forces have been ordered to shoot at Iraqis even in civilian clothes no matter if it's only a stick they have.  This is because of so many surrendering Iraqis apparently trying to trick the coalition forces and attack.

This is becoming a nice big atrocity.

EDIT: YES, and you should have seen the reaction the CNN talking head had, it's like: "OOPS, we played the truth on CNN world wide".<span id='postcolor'>

This would confirm what Balschoiw has been saying for two days now.<span id='postcolor'>

I dont think the word of a CNN reporter (or any other reporter) particularly confirms anything...

Then again, an order such as that may have been given in a particular skirmish with the civilian dressed fighters...but is certainly not the overall doctrine.

They have absolutely started to treat all civilians, and POWs with a high index of suspicion though...as they should.

[Schoeler 0]

I think this "order to shoot civilians" paranoia is a bunch of crap. The overall strategy in Iraq is towin the hearts and minds of the civilian population. The coalition has gone out of its way to NOT target civilians, instead, focusing on pinpoint bombing and positive target identification that put greater risk on coalition forces. If anyone has substantial evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it presented, instead of the repeatedly unsubstantiated claims that make the poster look like a retard.

Where is the carpet bombing?

Where is the indiscriminate shelling and seige of Basra?

Where are the huge numbers of civilian casualties from indiscriminate targetting?

Point these out and I'll buy your arguments.

Even those of you who are vehemently opposed to this war can see the absurdity of these claims. I'm not fully in support of this war, and yet I can still support the way it is being conducted.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Mar. 28 2003,13:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I dont think the word of a CNN reporter (or any other reporter) particularly confirms anything...

Then again, an order such as that may have been given in a particular skirmish with the civilian dressed fighters...but is certainly not the overall doctrine.

They have absolutely started to treat all civilians, and POWs with a high index of suspicion though...as they should.<span id='postcolor'>

So now we don't like CNN, and an embedded reporter? Which is it. Suddenly everything is becoming blurry isn't it.