The Dogs of War

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 04 2003,22:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This may not be a lie.  Don't rush to any conclusions yet.  Remember, a guy like this can't seem to be too accomodating to the infidel invaders.  Like any good politician, he can say something controversial, get his point across, and then have his staff cover his ass by denying he said anything of the sort.<span id='postcolor'>

Hehe, but there is a difference. The fatwa was announced by CentCom, not by him. He denied it himself on the other hand.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ April 04 2003,10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I`ve seen something like that,too. The special forces were behind an earth wall, saying stuff like "Where is he? Where is he?" While there was fire from one distant MG. They were totally mixed up, almost panically calling in airstrikes, taking cover here and there as if in immediate danger.  Geeeeze, there`s one MG somewhere firing in the distance and the GIs begin to piss their pants when air support is not there at once. The funny thing about that incident: the kurd fighters were sitting and standing everywhere totally relaxed and laughing at the US "Special Forces".

What I`ve seen so far from the British Forces is very good. Good fighting from what you hear and they behave professional in the field and nice towards the civilians when not fighting. A whole different matter than the US Forces. That`s the way a soldier should be. Brits, you can be proud of your boys, even if they fight in that stupid war.  <span id='postcolor'>

I don't think I would characterize what American SF are doing as "pissing in their pants."  There is nothing admirable about uneccesarily standing in an exposed position when you can call in support assets to neutralize the target.  I find it more admirable that these guys are willing to fight alongside the Kurds.  A man has a responsibility to do his job, but as a soldier he also has the responsibility not to risk his life foolishly, and he has an even greater responsiblity to return home to his wife and children alive and in one piece.

Ask any military person in here, and I'm sure they would back up my statement on this.  I'm also reasonably sure that they would praise the abilities of U.S. Special Forces.  I'm sure the Brit SF are just as well trained and perform just as admirably in combat, as most of these guys cross-train with each other anyway!

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CentCom has confirmed that they blew the power out so that they could conduct recon within the city.<span id='postcolor'>

Got a link for that?  Here's the exchange from today's CENTCOM briefing and I don't see anything remotely like a confirmation:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Q     (Inaudible.)  British press quoted sources here -- (inaudible) -- that the power station in Baghdad was hit deliberately to pave the way for deployment of Special Forces into the city. What's your comment?            

GEN. BROOKS:  We saw that the power went off in Baghdad last night.  We didn't do it.  It's as simple as that.            

Next question?...

Q     General, the failure of the power grid in Baghdad last night seemed fortuitously timed for the ground action that the coalition was taking.  The coalition says that they didn't target the power grid.  Could the lights have been turned off by fifth column working, whose goals were in alliance with the coalition, or do you believe the regime turned off the lights?            

GEN. BROOKS:  I wouldn't want to speculate on who actually turned them off.  We know we didn't direct it.  And we certainly have had some concerns about the power in Baghdad.  We tried to do a number of things to protect the people of Baghdad.  Electrical power in Baghdad also relates to water in Baghdad.  Electrical power in Baghdad also relates to power in hospitals in Baghdad.  That's not part of the coalition design at this point, so I wouldn't characterize it the way you did as fortuitous.  It's a matter of concern at this point in time for the population that's inside of Baghdad.  I think we have time for one more.  In the row behind -- yes, sir, with your hand up?<span id='postcolor'>

CENTCOM

Semper Fi

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 04 2003,22:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL, the streetside appearance even if it was him, had only about 50 supporters at it.  From what I've heard, the real Saddam is much too paranoid to actually do something like this, so either it was a lookalike, or those people were extremely trustworthy to him.<span id='postcolor'>

Perhaps that is why there were only 50 supporters

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,22:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 04 2003,22:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This may not be a lie.  Don't rush to any conclusions yet.  Remember, a guy like this can't seem to be too accomodating to the infidel invaders.  Like any good politician, he can say something controversial, get his point across, and then have his staff cover his ass by denying he said anything of the sort.<span id='postcolor'>

Hehe, but there is a difference. The fatwa was announced by CentCom, not by him. He denied it himself on the other hand.<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't hear that he denied it personally, but that his staff did.

CENTCOM did announce the fatwa however, so I remain neutral on whther or not this is pure bullshit. I guess the actions of the locals in the town will show us the truth.

So far it seems like the Iraqis are not exactly hostile to the Americans and Brits, but they aren't exactly friendly either. I would gauge the average locals reaction to mostly neutral, but cautiously optimistic. a few of them are jubilant, a few of them are outright hostile, and most are in the middle. What this means, is that the battle for hearts and minds is essential to the successful prosecution of this war. It is imperative that civilian casualties be kept to a minimum and that supplies and order can be brought in and restored in order to sway the middle group to the Coalition, and hopefully U.N. side after the war. The sooner this happens the better. it is also key, for the coalition NOT to give the appearance of an occupying force. This means getting Iraqi police forces and government institutions established ASAP after the war, and only having a coalition controlled interim government for a severely limited amount of time. Getting the timing right is going to be the hardest part. i have every faith and confidence in our military to be able to succesfully achieve regime change and prosecute this war. I also have evey faith and confidence as a political science major, in the politicians ability to completely fuck everything up post-war. Lets hope they do it right.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 04 2003,22:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CentCom has confirmed that they blew the power out so that they could conduct recon within the city.<span id='postcolor'>

Got a link for that?  Here's the exchange from today's CENTCOM briefing and I don't see anything remotely like a confirmation.<span id='postcolor'>

Nope, sorry, it was something I picked up from my news feed, don't even remember which agency it was. There were four different reports. The first one was a categorical denial, the second one was a confirmation saying that it was a part of a SpecOps recon mission. The third one refered to an article in the Indepentent, saying that CIA ordered an attack on the power plant. The final one was the one that you are refering to, a denial again.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Gripe @ April 04 2003,02:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Going back to the possible [sic] dropping of cluster bombs, is this in contravention of international treaties or just an unwritten rule that they only be used in extremis?<span id='postcolor'>

These aren't true "cluster bombs" in the strictest sense of the word from what I've heard, but rather JTIDS bombs which act like a cluster bomb, but the sub-muntions which are deployed in the from of little bomblets are precision guided.

I don't deny that actual cluster bombs are being used though. We've used them before, and they are effective as hell in certain situations, and also dangerous as hell afterwards. Its going to be a long, messy cleanup.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 04 2003,22:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So far it seems like the Iraqis are not exactly hostile to the Americans and Brits, but they aren't exactly friendly either.  I would gauge the average locals reaction to mostly neutral, but cautiously optimistic.  a few of them are jubilant, a few of them are outright hostile, and most are in the middle.<span id='postcolor'>

It's difficult to tell since it's not exactly like we are getting unbiased information. The coalition is trying its outmost to present the people positive to the invasion while the other side is doing the exactly opposite.

I think we can count out Basra as a place of US support. It's possible simply that dissidents will remain dissidents, no matter against whom.

The majority of the arab world is very much against the invasion, and it would be strange if the Iraqi had a different position. On the other hand war fatigue may very well have a significant impact - people simply want the war to stop so that they can live and that their children won't be in danger. In the end it comes down to if Saddam manages to rally support, appealing to patriotism and national unity. So far I'd say he has done a fairly good job. The question is how stable that support is.

[foxer 0]

A woman, who appeared to be pregnant, got out of the car and began "screaming in fear" at the checkpoint, about 11 miles (18 km) southwest of the Hadithah Dam in Iraq, a Central Command statement said. Three coalition troops walked toward the car and it blew up, U.S. Central Command spokesman Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said, citing initial reports.

Man that's pretty screwed up.Sad,Thing about this is when someone really needs help their(coalition troops ) going think twice about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/04/sprj.irq.car.bomb/index.html

[Guest]

Interesting, I was just about to post this from BBC:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraqi state news agency says two Iraqi women were responsible for Friday's suicide attack which killed coalition forces.

<span id='postcolor'>

Iraqi TV says that both were officers in the special security service.

My guess is that the "pregnant" part was an embellishment from either the people on site or from CentCom. Makes much better headlines then "Iraqi female suicide bombers strike against coalition troops". We'll never know, will we?

I'm not saying either way, but you'll have to admit that the CentCom story is a bit extravagant.

[Schoeler 0]

I think a field reporter also said she appeared pregnant. This is an effective ruse, and can easily be faked. Signs of a desperate regime though aren't they?

[KingBeast 0]

UK Royal Marines lose Battle against Iraqis

I dont know if this has already been posted, but it does seem to be a terrible blow to us Brits.

"The British soldiers suffered defeat on the dusty streets of Umm Khayyal"

"In the face of such passion, Leading Airman Dave Husbands said the Marines were beaten from the start."

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think a field reporter also said she appeared pregnant. This is an effective ruse, and can easily be faked. Signs of a desperate regime though aren't they? <span id='postcolor'>

They're not standard western type of attacks, that's for sure. I would be careful however to draw any conclusions from that. They're attacking in the way they can. You use smart bombs, they use not-so-smart bombs

Seriously though, these are strange types of attacks for us westerners, but at face value it's no big difference if you are blown up by a cruise missile or by a suicide bomber.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They're not standard western type of attacks, that's for sure. I would be careful however to draw any conclusions from that. They're attacking in the way they can. You use smart bombs, they use not-so-smart bombs

Seriously though, these are strange types of attacks for us westerners, but at face value it's no big difference if you are blown up by a cruise missile or by a suicide bomber.<span id='postcolor'>

In terms of military effectiveness I would have to agree with you. But in terms of morality I would say that this sort of tactic is bad. It breeds distrust for the civilian population and ultimately will lead to more unnecessary deaths. Then again, that is from a western moral perspective. the iraqis are culturally different, so maybe this is an accetable tactic for them. It just means that civilians will pay the higher price however.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KingBeast @ April 04 2003,23:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">UK Royal Marines lose Battle against Iraqis

I dont know if this has already been posted, but it does seem to be a terrible blow to us Brits.

"The British soldiers suffered defeat on the dusty streets of Umm Khayyal"

"In the face of such passion, Leading Airman Dave Husbands said the Marines were beaten from the start."<span id='postcolor'>

Thats the kind of contest between Iraqis and Coalition forces I hope to seem more of!

[ebud 18]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 04 2003,23:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They're not standard western type of attacks, that's for sure. I would be careful however to draw any conclusions from that. They're attacking in the way they can. You use smart bombs, they use not-so-smart bombs

Seriously though, these are strange types of attacks for us westerners, but at face value it's no big difference if you are blown up by a cruise missile or by a suicide bomber.<span id='postcolor'>

In terms of military effectiveness I would have to agree with you.  But in terms of morality I would say that this sort of tactic is bad.  It breeds distrust for the civilian population and ultimately will lead to more unnecessary deaths.  Then again, that is from a western moral perspective.  the iraqis are culturally different, so maybe this is an accetable tactic for them.  It just means that civilians will pay the higher price however.<span id='postcolor'>

As much as I hate to say it, it is a highly effective tactic. It makes those kids guarding check points jumpy and possibly prone to accidents like we've seen, which in turn works in the Iraqi's favor as far as hearts and minds go. One or two car bombings will have a greater effect overall than a major military victory. Terror is a very effective weapon. But since it's the Iraqis using it, it's not a terrorist act, its an accepted tactic. In the east, these are seen as heroic acts... in the west (US at least) these are terrorist acts.

[bn880 5]

Sorry to everyone who disagrees, but killing the invading soldiers on your own soil is not a terrorist act, it can't be, in Polish it's called partyzantka what the Iraqis are doing. Probably nearly same word in English. (Partyzant?)

Terrorist acts are possible in Iraq, that is when someone takes a one or more civilians hostage and demands something.

[Schoeler 0]

I wouldn't call it a terrorist act, it is more akin to the partisan action Bn880 mentioned, it is questionable under western ethics of war, but as I surmised and Ebud confirmed, not under Iraqi ethics and culture. There is no denying however it dramatically increases the danger to civilians.

[Harnu 0]

I'm half and half on calling it "terrorism" with some of the things in Iraq. Dressing as a civilian (or being one) and then driving carbombs to soldiers isn't exactly the greatest way to defend your country.

Anyway:

Ricin and Botulinum in Iraq?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 05 2003,00:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wouldn't call it a terrorist act, it is more akin to the partisan action Bn880 mentioned, it is questionable under western ethics of war, but as I surmised and Ebud confirmed, not under Iraqi ethics and culture.  There is no denying however it dramatically increases the danger to civilians.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ April 04 2003,18:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm half and half on calling it "terrorism" with some of the things in Iraq. Dressing as a civilian (or being one) and then driving carbombs to soldiers isn't exactly the greatest way to defend your country.<span id='postcolor'>

And because of people like you that is now a matter of opinion in some countires. It was not opinion in WW2, this kind of action and hundreds of others were just another method of being smart when out gunned.

Basically, I think it's a very effective weapon, and smart. I'm not able to give it any bad opinion in these odds. Great way to defend your country.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ April 05 2003,00:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm half and half on calling it "terrorism" with some of the things in Iraq.  Dressing as a civilian (or being one) and then driving carbombs to soldiers isn't exactly the greatest way to defend your country.

Anyway:

Ricin and Botulinum in Iraq?<span id='postcolor'>

the difference is that military targets are being attacked, if it were civilians and not in time of war, then it would be terrorism. It seems wrong to us from a western moral perspective, but really, how different is it from our SF troops operating in civilian clothes, and we give the Congressional Medal of honor to soldiers who sacrifice their lives for their fellow soldiers and country. These are in essence "suicide attacks." I have a problem with the morals of it, but it is a war, and effective tactics are the ones that get employed.

[bn880 5]

One important point for those questioning the suicide attacks:

Situation: 80% of the world get's pissed at the U.S.

14 days into the war the Coalition is at the door step of all major U.S. cities

power has been cut off

water distribution is knocked out

communications are hit hard, even CNN,ABC,NBC etc stations

all government buildings are wiped out

1/3 if U.S. forces have been annihilated with superior weaponry

due to 12 years of sanctions many people are getting close to starving

U.S. forces armament doesn't stand a chance against the Coalition

Response:

U.S. special forces dress as civilians and drive their vehicles to Coalition checkpoints and blow them to smitherines

do you still question the tactic? if you do, your imagination is not working or you have some strange moral values I don't agree with.

[Schoeler 0]

CNN is reporting there may be no "invasion" of Baghdad per se. At least not in the classic sense that we all think of. The U.S. might just use Baghdad International as a base of operations and conduct key Spec Ops raids on important parts of the Baghdad infrastructure. Once they seize the powerplants, water facilities, government offices, schools and key businesses, they can secure those areas with regular troops. After a while, the coalition will control all of the key parts of the city and can isolate the neighborhoods where pockets of resistance still exist.

[Schoeler 0]

There are intermittant and sketchy reports coming in that a large number of Republican Guard forces are massing near Baghdad Inertnational for a possible massive suicide or human wave attack.  3/7 better have it's shit wired tight or we might be calling it Saddam International again soon.

edit: This might be the unconventional attack we were promised.