The Dogs of War

[Winters 1]

Any idea when that huge attack on the airport will be starting?

[Guest]

Suicide Attack Kills 'Some' Soldiers in Baghdad, US Says

On a lighter note from a similar report, this thing caught my eye:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Drivers zipping by the Interior Ministry honked their horns, waved and gave the thumbs-up sign to Marine combat engineers guarding the Interior Ministry complex.

"My thumb is getting tired," said one Marine, Kurt Gellert, 27, of Atlantic City, N.J. "It's actually pretty cool. It's like all this was worth something now."

<span id='postcolor'>

LOL. (For those that don't know, the thumbs-up is the Arab equivalent of flipping the bird).

[Winters 1]

So, everyone is flipping each other off?

LMAO

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,17:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, to be fair his briefings were more accurate then the centcom's.<span id='postcolor'>

You should buy one of these. It suits you.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,14:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Suicide Attack Kills 'Some' Soldiers in Baghdad, US Says

On a lighter note from a similar report, this thing caught my eye:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Drivers zipping by the Interior Ministry honked their horns, waved and gave the thumbs-up sign to Marine combat engineers guarding the Interior Ministry complex.

"My thumb is getting tired," said one Marine, Kurt Gellert, 27, of Atlantic City, N.J. "It's actually pretty cool. It's like all this was worth something now."

<span id='postcolor'>

LOL. (For those that don't know, the thumbs-up is the Arab equivalent of flipping the bird).<span id='postcolor'>

actually, I believe the Iraqi's understand that it is a positive symbol for the Americans. I have specifically watched the footage and the bystanders and children using it had smiles, were waving, and were hugging the troops. Also, I believe using it as an insult for the Iraqis requires an upward motion of the hand (as in "up yours"). That's what it seems to me at least.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 10 2003,21:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,17:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, to be fair his briefings were more accurate then the centcom's.<span id='postcolor'>

You should buy one of these. It suits you. <span id='postcolor'>

Oops. I forgot to say "at first" in my post. No, really, I did. And they were if you remember the Apache, the POWs etc all were first denied by centcom until paraded on Iraqi TV.

Iraq: We have downed one infidel Apache helicopter.

CentCom: We have no birds missing.

Iraq:: (Shows footage of downed bird)

CentCom:: Uhm..ehh..umm.. we have one bird missing.

etc etc

As the US troops closed in to Baghdad, the roles were reversed until the final and total detachment from reality on the Iraqi part.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 10 2003,21:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, I believe using it as an insult for the Iraqis requires an upward motion of the hand (as in "up yours").  That's what it seems to me at least.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes it does. The insult form has an upward motion and an angle backwards.

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,20:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Suicide Attack Kills 'Some' Soldiers in Baghdad, US Says

On a lighter note from a similar report, this thing caught my eye:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Drivers zipping by the Interior Ministry honked their horns, waved and gave the thumbs-up sign to Marine combat engineers guarding the Interior Ministry complex.

"My thumb is getting tired," said one Marine, Kurt Gellert, 27, of Atlantic City, N.J. "It's actually pretty cool. It's like all this was worth something now."

<span id='postcolor'>

LOL. (For those that don't know, the thumbs-up is the Arab equivalent of flipping the bird).<span id='postcolor'>

Correct.

Problem is that Iraqui fighters prooved to be courageous and determinated, but absolutely not able to conduct an effective defensive warfare.

Many reports from coalition soldiers are that defenders were disorganized, attacked frontaly and not stealthy, were shoot at before beeing able to fire.

Lack of military training, of correct tactics and knoledwedge of basics urban warfare, lack of command and synchronisation for resistance actions.

The " battles " of the sixth and seventh of May, in Baghdad south east suburbans, after agressive armoured recons to cut the town in parts using tank raids to separate and isolate various quarters and destabilize defenders moral, were caracterised by HUGE preventive use of artillery and airborne firepower.

That part of the town had been litteraly erased from the map.

The CentCom and D. Rumsfeld commented this as " a strong message to the defenders ". It is very clear.

What appears is that coalition forces used a storm of fire to make the defenders enclosed in selected parts of the town without mobility to feel any resistance is futile and desesperate, would result in a complete detruction of the town and enormous Iraqui civilians deads.

Iraquis, for which civilians are not only civilians as for us who are just external observators, but their own nation : wifes, childs, parents, etc.

Humanly, militarily and psychologically this explains perfectly how and why the Iraqui defenders including Baas partisans of Baghdad really vanished after a couple of days, unlike in Bassorah for example.

Because of that " strong message ".

This explains perfectly how the coalition acted to avoid an urban war in Baghad.

This do not mean that coalition was welcome.

Saddam Hussein departure from the country lead is surely lived happily by a vast majority, and this is vastly commentated by western medias.

But, after ten years of an embargo wich directly harrassed the civilians, last weeks showned that there is a real ressentement against the " coalitions invasion ".

Baas militia is not here to push Iraquis to fight, but they are not there also to tell people to do the " flipping the bird sign ".

Iraq is made not of an unique nation, but of a multiplicity of ethnics and cultural groups.

Some may be occident friendly, some will never.

Whose of those are shown on TV smiling at coalition troops ?

Are those thumbs up to welcome coalitions forces ? Do the Iraquis copy the western maneers *only* ??

May be it is just a " strong message " ??

Related to this, It is interesting but not really a surprise to see that in Afghanistan, by now, that *some* guerilla actions raise up in a similar form the soviet union knew at the biginning of the resistance, some groups driven by surviving Talibans and muslim fanatics, some others...not.

This is not really commentated by medias....not enough " thumbs up " maybe ??

Future smells shitty.

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 10 2003,21:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ April 10 2003,21:27)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, I believe using it as an insult for the Iraqis requires an upward motion of the hand (as in "up yours").  That's what it seems to me at least.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes it does. The insult form has an upward motion and an angle backwards.<span id='postcolor'>

No.

Just like in europe, the insult form using the mayor finger of the hand, may be done with that motion and angle backwards, or not.

I discuss this with a friend of mine some days ago.

She is Iranian, and lost many members of her familly while she left her country after the islamic revolution.

And she absolutely dislike Saddam Hussein, as this one was supporting a Iranian dissident organisation, that is politicaly against actual Iranian regim but also made of religious fundamentalists.

We were reading the press, and as I was telling her I was surpised by the use of that " thumb up " while the faces meant something like " hum, we are really disturbed by your presence ".

In the same manner the Iraqui people didn't look really honnest and happy while singing for Saddam's loyalty.

I thought that those faces expressed anxiety because of war and the remember of Baas oppression, liberty need to be learnt in more than a day, but I had still a doubt.

She looked carefully at those people faces and attitudes on the pictures.

She then explained the Arab meaning of the thumb up, and that she had no doubt of the actual meaning.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maraudeur @ April 10 2003,21:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What appears is that coalition forces used a storm of fire to make the defenders enclosed in selected parts of the town without mobility to feel any resistance is futile and desesperate, would result in a complete detruction of the town and enormous Iraqui civilians deads.

Iraquis, for which civilians are not only civilians as for us who are just external observators, but their own nation : wifes, childs, parents, etc.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you saying that the Iraqi military hasn't fought effectively because they're concerned for the welfare of Iraqi civilians?

Apologies in advance if I misinterpreted.

Semper Fi

[FSPilot 0]

I sure hope he's not.  These are the people who have been persecuted by the loyalists who are fighting for the past however many years.  Why on earth would they care about their lives now?

edit - I've been looking through that civilian body count thing people have in their sigs, I'm starting to think it's innacurate.

They're counting this incident where a US machine gunner shot a 10 year old boy who was collecting weapons for the enemy.

This is not a civilian casualty.  The boy was either fighting, or collecting weapons for the enemy.

I know it's just one incident. But if they count that as a civilian casualty, what else are they counting.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What appears is that coalition forces used a storm of fire to make the defenders enclosed in selected parts of the town without mobility to feel any resistance is futile and desesperate, would result in a complete detruction of the town and enormous Iraqui civilians deads.

Iraquis, for which civilians are not only civilians as for us who are just external observators, but their own nation : wifes, childs, parents, etc.

<span id='postcolor'>

And because the Iraqi military and paramilitaries are so concerned with the safety of civilians, they are going to great lengths to make Coalition forces feel suspicious and threatened by people in civilian clothing. Two plus two really does equal five, also.

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 10 2003,22:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maraudeur @ April 10 2003,21:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What appears is that coalition forces used a storm of fire to make the defenders enclosed in selected parts of the town without mobility to feel any resistance is futile and desesperate, would result in a complete detruction of the town and enormous Iraqui civilians deads.

Iraquis, for which civilians are not only civilians as for us who are just external observators, but their own nation : wifes, childs, parents, etc.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you saying that the Iraqi military hasn't fought effectively because they're concerned for the welfare of Iraqi civilians?

Apologies in advance if I misinterpreted.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

Sure no.

But, about the two days I spoke for the fights in that residential quarter of the town, this had to let the Iraquis to think that this time the coalition would use a tactic absolutely less discriminating than before, to say the last.

Giving no chance for anyone standing at the battleplace.

Even if the Iraquian leaders were ready to completely sacrifice civilians, I doubt the common soldier thought that way.

Previously, civilians casualties were considering as an acceptable part of the warfare by Iraquis.

But by now it was question to erase completely the place where the problem stands to solve it.

And this meant for the defenders : useless sacrifice because they would not have been able to return fire and civilian tragedy.

So they gave it up.

The coalition did it right.

One little short, but very clear " strong message " by giving an example.

Actually some reports from red cross tell 500 to 1000 civilian casualties in that quarter of the town for the considered dates.

The area is completely in ruins, Iraquis could not do anything to avoid it and it cost nothing except ammo for the coalition.

The defenders were litteraly swept from the place without having the possibility to do anything in the time they were bombed and died.

The method is may be not not clean, it's war and it's never clean but it's valid and effective.

Finally, the town was taken with a less human cost for both sides than if it turned like in Bassorah, Um Qasar or other cities on an bigger scale.

Coalition played a poker trip and it worked well.

On another hand, if the Iraqui commanders had been really good at urban warfare, as for thee grunts and if the soldiers did not regard at the too high civilian cost, good thing would have been to let small mobile groups of soldiers to drive the coalition to level down the blocks, then infiltrate and continue fighting in the ruins, go back, wait be patient, infiltrate again etc.

But the Iraquis showned previously they were not capable to do that, they lacked command structure, small unit leaders and guerilla like tactics, general urban warfare spirit, abilities.

So, there was a card to play without too much risks...

Also, at the same time, driving armored raids by the big city avenues was an effective psychological intoxication, meaning for the defenders that they would not be able to stop the armored moves and that their own mobility in the city was compromised.

Hope I'm clear, sorry my english is not that good to put my means on the board as I would like to.

Edit :

I mean : The average military and militia PEOPLE gave it up because of the risk of a complete civilian disaster and the refusal of a useless sacrifice.

I am not talking about the politicians and high ranked military commanders.

[Guest]

Saddam Hussien in Russia?

Swedish article where I first saw this

They are refering to officials in Damascus and Jordan saying that Putin made a deal with Condoleezza Rice of Saddam leaving Baghdad without any resistance in exchange for asylum in Russia. According to the sources, the Syrian president Bashar Assad was one of the main players in making the deal happen.

This makes very much sense considering how the entire Iraqi governement suddenly disappeared and all Iraqi military stopped fighting in Baghdad.

Washington Post quotes CIA sources saying that on wednesday morning an order was given by Saddam to stop the fighting and that all radio communications stopped after that. There were no traces of any Iraqi government officials.

[Die Alive 0]

Well, I heard that US forces in Western Iraq, close to the boarder with Syria, found Saddam in the desert.  But it wasn't easy, since Sadddam was laying flat on the ground. (R.C. joke! ) So they Army sprayed the desert with Viagra and the prick stood up.

-=Die Alive=-

[PFC Mongoose 0]

If that's so, then it would explain a lot. And it would also mean that, IMHO, th war is 'all but over'. There may be some resistance, and it may develop with time, but I doubt there will be any more large battles or sieges after this....

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 10 2003,23:14)</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">What appears is that coalition forces used a storm of fire to make the defenders enclosed in selected parts of the town without mobility to feel any resistance is futile and desesperate, would result in a complete detruction of the town and enormous Iraqui civilians deads.

Iraquis, for which civilians are not only civilians as for us who are just external observators, but their own nation : wifes, childs, parents, etc.

<span id='postcolor'>

And because the Iraqi military and paramilitaries are so concerned with the safety of civilians, they are going to great lengths to make Coalition forces feel suspicious and threatened by people in civilian clothing. Two plus two really does equal five, also.<span id='postcolor'>

Why do you absolutely not want to consider that,  until a point , the Iraqui people can consider and accept that some civilians losses will happen ?

Wouldn't you do so if you were acting as a guerilla fighter against an unbeatable military power, if your country was under foreign occupation ?

Whenever you dislike your current political system ?

Even if this system is awful, can you realise that western democacy means nothing for middle east because of historical, cultural reasons ?

Why ? because they had a dictatorship since than 30+ years, but even far before before they rarely knew knew anything else than foreign occupation ( GB beeing one of them already in middle 20th century )

And before ?  

It's just like you should have ask to the Europeans to take down the monarchy centurys before they effectively did, just because, " that is not good " ??

Or maybe the humans of the past centurys were not the same than now ?

Will you say that ??

Remember also, that for the Iraquis, violent and unfair civilians dead are

common .

Because they lived in a war status since 20+ years, because they are bombed since more than 10+, because embargo is directly responsible to childs deceases since 10+ also, etc etc etc.

Where are your mathematics coming from ? What do they apply to ?

From a comfortable chair behind a computer in a peacefull country, with food and medecine available, without the risk to receive a bomb just because, eh, maybe someone thousands of kilometers from here thought that maybe there was a radar station in your garden ?

Don't you think that for some people, somewhere else on earth, words life, meaning of life and so dead could hide VERY different realities ??

Wake up, open your eyes and mind.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 10 2003,16:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Maraudeur @ April 10 2003,21:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What appears is that coalition forces used a storm of fire to make the defenders enclosed in selected parts of the town without mobility to feel any resistance is futile and desesperate, would result in a complete detruction of the town and enormous Iraqui civilians deads.

Iraquis, for which civilians are not only civilians as for us who are just external observators, but their own nation : wifes, childs, parents, etc.<span id='postcolor'>

Are you saying that the Iraqi military hasn't fought effectively because they're concerned for the welfare of Iraqi civilians?

Apologies in advance if I misinterpreted.

Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'>

You don't think so at all. They didn't set all the oil fields on fire either. No Chemical attack on population, yet the war is supposidly all but over.

Seems like they were pretty level headed with not massacring civilians, at least those that were not always opposing Saddam.

[FSPilot 0]

They only didn't massacre civilians because we wouldn't let them. We shot down most of their SCUDs and other missiles, and we didn't shoot when they put civilians between us and them, then shot at us.

[bn880 5]

You've gotta be joking, there isn't a mass grave in Iraq from GW2 caused by Republican Guard or anything.

[FSPilot 0]

I said the Iraqi civilians weren't slaughtered.

[Maraudeur 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 11 2003,00:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam Hussien in Russia?

Swedish article where I first saw this

They are refering to officials in Damascus and Jordan saying that Putin made a deal with Condoleezza Rice of Saddam leaving Baghdad without any resistance in exchange for asylum in Russia. According to the sources, the Syrian president Bashar Assad was one of the main players in making the deal happen.

This makes very much sense considering how the entire Iraqi governement suddenly disappeared and all Iraqi military stopped fighting in Baghdad.

Washington Post quotes CIA sources saying that on wednesday morning an order was given by Saddam to stop the fighting and that all radio communications stopped after that. There were no traces of any Iraqi government officials.<span id='postcolor'>

If this is true, this mean that all casualties, coalition soldiers, Iraqui soldiers and civilians since 48 hours are pure crimes.

This would mean that, knowing the Saddam Hussein's withdrawal from the Iraq leading, the coalition forces should have stop, and stay back on safe and out of range defensive positions until Iraqui people learn the dictator left.

And do not tell me that Iraquis could have driven offensive actions during that time.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 11 2003,01:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They didn't set all the oil fields on fire either.  <span id='postcolor'>

Not all of them, but they tried to torch quite a few.

[PFC_Mike 2]

Saddam probably left the country, but why Russia? Yeah, they probably wouldn't mind pissing of the US but hosting a thuggish pig isn't going to do much good for you. And let's not forget that no matter where he hides, people will still be looking. Saddam's ideology isn't as effective as Osama's, so there's less reason to assist him. Osama has lost a significant number of his lieutenants. The same will probably happen to Saddam.

Is Chemical Ali dead or missing?

[PFC Mongoose 0]

People will likely be looking, but if he's gotten asylum in Russia, the Whatever-the-KGB-is-called-these-days will probably have some responsibility to keep him safe.

Why would Russia harbour him? To end the conflict (that they've been opposed to all along, giving them a bit of a peacemaker look PR-wise, perhaps so keep him alive to potentially use whatever covert operatives he still has in Iraq... lots of reasons, I guess. We need some kind of former intelligence agent to hang out on these boards.. would be very informative.