The Dogs of War

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 08 2003,17:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It seems you don't understand the value of human life.  You understand only borders and material things.  Avon.  Correct?<span id='postcolor'>

Incorrect.

It seems you don't understand the realities of war. I forgive your ignorance. May you never have to go through the hell we're going through.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 08 2003,10:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 08 2003,179)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It seems you don't understand the value of human life. You understand only borders and material things. Avon. Correct?<span id='postcolor'>

Incorrect.

It seems you don't understand the realities of war. I forgive your ignorance. May you never have to go through the hell we're going through.<span id='postcolor'>

Right, so that I don't look for revenge at all cost for the rest of my life. Israelis are no sad victims, not anymore.

[Guest]

Calm down boys and girls

[bn880 5]

Being under attack and frightened has little to do with ones understanding of the value of human life. If anything it makes you believe there is none.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 08 2003,17:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Right, so that I don't look for revenge at all cost for the rest of my life.  Israelis are no sad victims, not anymore.<span id='postcolor'>

Now look who's material. True colors revealed.

Come and visit terror victims, like I do, with ball bearings and nails embedded in their bodies, with limbs blown off, paralyzed, orphaned, widowed.

Come to think of it, it would do crumbs like you a lot of good to have this happen to someone you know.

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 08 2003,15:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">edit: Note the report about the T52 that went to the airport. What were they thinking?! <span id='postcolor'>

There's no such thing as a "T-52". It has to be either T-55 or T-72.

[cam0flage 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 08 2003,18:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 08 2003,15:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">edit: Note the report about the T52 that went to the airport. What were they thinking?! <span id='postcolor'>

There's no such thing as a "T-52". It has to be either T-55 or T-72.<span id='postcolor'>

This is the second or third time I see a reference to Iraqi tanks as T-52. I'm starting to wonder if they have their own designation/modification for T-55 or something?

[Blaegis 0]

I suppose it's possible, but I'm willing to bet it's another case of press ignorance. Or a Reuters typo. At least I've never heard of a "T-52" in any context.

Edit: Or someone at DoD made a mistake at some point, and now everyone's repeating it quoting "US Army sources". If it comes from a "US Army source" it must be right...

[Guest]

Six posts deleted. Please keep the Isreal/Palestine discussion contained in the Mid East thread.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,18:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Six posts deleted. Please keep the Isreal/Palestine discussion contained in the Mid East thread.<span id='postcolor'>

You mean you didn't cut and paste them there for us?

[cam0flage 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 08 2003,18:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I suppose it's possible, but I'm willing to bet it's another case of press ignorance. Or a Reuters typo. At least I've never heard of a "T-52" in any context.<span id='postcolor'>

Very possible. I have noticed that the reporters often do not know the designations of Iraqi MBTs, they just talk about "tanks" and "armor". I guess with their current knowledge, it's better that way

I suppose they have mixed up T-55 and T-72.

[Jinef 2]

Well to the knowledge of the RAF and therefore me there is no such thing as a T-52, Badgerboy can probably confirm that.

It's probably a secretary typing them that just keeps reading different designations and mixes up the numbers in his/her head.

[Badgerboy 0]

These are the same people who called a GBU-28 a JDAM. Not even a tetchy defense analyst could correct them, who even went as far to draw diagrams!

And the best of all, announcing that an attack aircraft was taking out tanks with 'Sidewinders'.

Bloody newsies!

[Sadico 1]

I hate when reporters talk as if they were experts when they really don't know shit.

A few days ago the spanish TV showed images of what they called a "destroyed american tank" in Baghdad. I recognized it as a destroyed iraqui BMP 2.

Also you can hear them talk about B-1B and B-52 Fighter/bombers

[Blaegis 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 08 2003,17:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And the best of all, announcing that an attack aircraft was taking out tanks with 'Sidewinders'.<span id='postcolor'>

LMAO... Well, technically speaking sidewiders are heat-seekers. If you had a REALLY hot tank and REALLY cold background, you just might get a lock. But I do have serious doubts about effectiveness of the tiny blast fragmentation sidewinder warhead against MBT armor.

Seriously, I think some minimal military knowledge should be a pre-requisite if you want to be a war correspondent. That way you could at least keep your foot outta your mouth...

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,15:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U.S. tests say chemicals not weapons

And we're waiting for the next false alarm...   To tell you the truth, I'd be much happier if an independent organization checked those claims. Today it is too much like letting the fox guard the chickens.<span id='postcolor'>

<span style='font-size:37pt;line-height:100%'>HOWEVER......................</span>

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, technically speaking sidewiders are heat-seekers. If you had a REALLY hot tank and REALLY cold background, you just might get a lock. But I do have serious doubts about effectiveness of the tiny blast fragmentation sidewinder warhead against MBT armor.<span id='postcolor'>

I suppose you could lock a M1 up if you uncaged the seeker. (M1 turbine gets VERY hot), and a 20lb fragmentation warhead would have to get very lucky.

More likely the seeker would loose the thermal signature in the background noise, (Its the desert! Hot ground! ) and scrape a small hole in the ground.

[WhoCares 0]

I don't care too much about the military knowledge of journalists, when they talk about "Abrahams" while they show Bradleys. In the end it is only us military nerds, that know that it's bs. The point in the end is, that there are coalition tanks in Baghdad, and 99.5% of the audience doesn't really care which type of tank it is...

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ April 08 2003,17:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't care too much about the military knowledge of journalists, when they talk about "Abrahams" while they show Bradleys. In the end it is only us military nerds, that know that it's bs. The point in the end is, that there are coalition tanks in Baghdad, and 99.5% of the audience doesn't really care which type of tank it is...<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, but its when they ignore the expensive defense analysts theyare paying, who are becoming angrier by the minute atthe empty headed presenters who refuse to admit their mistakes.

Watchingtwo of them systematically destroying a female presenter on Sky news was highly amusing!

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,14:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 08 2003,14:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,15:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">U.S. tests say chemicals not weapons

And we're waiting for the next false alarm...   To tell you the truth, I'd be much happier if an independent organization checked those claims. Today it is too much like letting the fox guard the chickens.<span id='postcolor'>

And yet, the truth has come out every time. And all the talk of counting on the coalition to "plant" WMDs hasn't materialized.

Unless............................ they really are WMDs. They must be lying! <span id='postcolor'>

How do you know that? Do you think that they would be stupid to fake the evidence directly? Of course not. First you build up a credibility by dismissing all sorts of WMD claims. Then when everybody knows that you are "telling the truth" you plant the evidence.

It's perhaps not a coincidence that the CentCom has really played up every claim so far and admitted equaly loud that it was wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Denoir, all I have to say is: Ockham's Razor.

Not saying you are wrong, but as an educated person consider it from that perspective.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 08 2003,16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Reading that Robert Fisk report and seeing that journalists testimony on the shelling of the Palestine hotel really makes it clear that there is a 100% attitude of shoot first examine threats later attitude among the u.s. forces.  Disgusting.  If someone thinks this is really acceptable, nuts.<span id='postcolor'>

Have you ever been shot at?

Do you really think these guys have time to sort it all out in that kind of situation?

Think about it guy. Its war. I'm not saying its right, but it is what it is, and is bound to happen. This is why wars are tragedies to be avoided at all costs. They lead to situations where innocent people can be, and are targeted simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The reason its called "war" and not something else, is because at that level of geopolitics, the situation has degraded to the point where you "shoot first and ask questions later." I think what has been absolutely incredible so far, is that so few innocent people have been killed compared to previous wars, and that one side at least has gone out of its way, and often, taken enormous risks to itself to minimize that possibility.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 08 2003,18:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, all I have to say is:  Ockham's Razor.

Not saying you are wrong, but as an educated person consider it from that perspective.<span id='postcolor'>

It all depends on how you put it.

The complex theory can be the one where the UN inspectors have not found anything, Iraq hasn't used WMDs against the coalition forces, no large arsenals have been found and still Iraq somehow managed to hide its WMDs. Or the simple solution that it was planted.

The alternative is that the complex theory is a grand government cover up. Or the simple solution in that case that Iraq still had some WMDs left.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 08 2003,18:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 08 2003,180)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, all I have to say is:  Ockham's Razor.

Not saying you are wrong, but as an educated person consider it from that perspective.<span id='postcolor'>

It all depends on how you put it.

The complex theory can be the one where the UN inspectors have not found anything, Iraq hasn't used WMDs against the coalition forces, no large arsenals have been found and still Iraq somehow managed to hide its WMDs. Or the simple solution that it was planted.

The alternative is that the complex theory is a grand government cover up. Or the simple solution in that case that Iraq still had some WMDs left.<span id='postcolor'>

Thats true, but I'd lean toward the simpler explanation being that Iraq hid it WMD from inspectors, and it going to take awhile to find them.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 08 2003,18:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thats true, but I'd lean toward the simpler explanation being that Iraq hid it WMD from inspectors, and it going to take awhile to find them.<span id='postcolor'>

Keep your shirt on, they havn't found any yet!

My personal view (situation:probability)

1) Iraq has 'em and they will be found: 25%

2) Iraq has 'em and they won't be found: 25%

3) Iraq doesn't have 'em and they will be planted 25%

4) Iraq doesn't have 'em and they won't be planted: 25%

In short, I would not bet money on any of the scenarios above

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 08 2003,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Do you really think these guys have time to sort it all out in that kind of situation?<span id='postcolor'>

I appreciate good questions

I honestly believe that they do have time to sort it out. The whole point of training is not only to engage targets well, but to be calculated in who you shoot. In case of the Palestine Hotel, an M1A1(2) responded to sniper fire from a Hotel with a SABOT. I think you have time to sort out a sniper position when you have an M1 to back you up. Really, think about it, and what do you think about all those cars and buses being shot up as they flee. Filled with people not in uniform and without weapons. I know training to be in any kind of military is not just to kill, but to have good knowledge of how to respond in different situations. If you ask me, bad training. Too much time spent teaching how to engage, not enough time spent on creating level headed soldiers.