The Dogs of War

[Schoeler 0]

This checkpoint system that's been implemented is completely fucked up. Whose idea was this anyway? I mean, any four year old could come up with a better way of doing things. Put some sandbag bunkers around the troops manning the damned things, and a barrier about 100 yards downstream. Put some flashing red and blue lights (the international traffic signal for you "you just fucked up somehow, and now its time to stop) on the barrier that can be remotely activated by the troops manning the checkpoint. Get yourself a friggin recording in Arabic that can be played over a loudspeaker that says" Hey dumbass, stop at the barrier or we will fire upon you!" At night, you could substitute or augment the lights with a 300,000 candlepower spotlight. Shine that in a driver's eyes, and they are going to at least slow down.

What a wonderful way to win hearts and minds. Whoever is in charge needs to be promoted to head potato counter in Minot North Dakota.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 12 2003,07:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This checkpoint system that's been implemented is completely fucked up.  Whose idea was this anyway?  I mean, any four year old could come up with a better way of doing things.  Put some sandbag bunkers around the troops manning the damned things, and a barrier about 100 yards downstream.  Put some flashing red and blue lights (the international traffic signal for you "you just fucked up somehow, and now its time to stop) on the barrier that can be remotely activated by the troops manning the checkpoint.  Get yourself a friggin recording in Arabic that can be played over a loudspeaker that says" Hey dumbass, stop at the barrier or we will fire upon you!"  At night, you could substitute or augment the lights with a 300,000 candlepower spotlight.  Shine that in a driver's eyes, and they are going to at least slow down.

What a wonderful way to win hearts and minds.  Whoever is in charge needs to be promoted to head potato counter in Minot North Dakota.<span id='postcolor'>

Or flying rubber dog poop out of Elmendorf AFB, Alaska

It seems that 'fubar' lives on in US Military planning. Perhaps it's something genetic.

If it is so obvious to you and I that there needs to be some sort of traffic control/barrier to stop 'misunderstandings', why the heck is it so hard for the General in charge of the cluster fuck that is currently going on.

And before you say 'It's a chaotic situation' just remember that US war planners have had years to think about it... and smart men think about the part after you win as much as the how to win bits.

[FSPilot 0]

I think it's funny how people who have absolutely no freaking clue other than what they read on the internet about whats going on in Iraq and why certain decisions are made still feel the need to inflate their egos by pretending they do. If you think that any war plan still stands after the first shot has been fired, even after decades of planning, I'm beginning to doubt that you even play operation flashpoint.

[Longinius 1]

"well, i think they are busy fighting pockets of resistance, so don't have resource to divert to that. the aid materials needs to be escorted, and that will take some time. "

This really doesnt matter. As the occupying army, because it is an occupation at the moment, the coalition are bound by international law to uphold law and order and provide security for the citizens.

If the coalition didnt plan for this, its just proof how little they actually care about the common civilian. And it is also why I again say that this should have been a UN mission. Because if it was we would have voulentary UN troops, police, firemen and doctors ready to go into the the areas that had been liberated. This is a situation directly related to the fact that the US wanted to play cowboy. Their responsibility, their job to clean it up.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 12 2003,04:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ April 12 2003,04:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ April 12 2003,04<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is nothing new - it has also been mentioned several times in the political thread! The republican hawks suffer from delirium - and there's no pill in the world to stop that. We're all well and truly fucked!<span id='postcolor'>

I know it's nothing new, and before I didn't take it serioulsy, I thought cooler heads would prevail. This war however sets a pretty nasty precedent.<span id='postcolor'>

Although I always suspected the "think-tank scenario" to be credible I'm also stunned because it's now kind of official.<span id='postcolor'>

Some of this guys even mentions the phrase "Pax Americana". I can remember that I was rudely attacked by some guys here in the forums when I came up with that. "That can`t be! You talk nonsense! You don`t understand what`s going on!"

[Longinius 1]

"Some of this guys even mentions the phrase "Pax Americana". I can remember that I was rudely attacked by some guys here in the forums when I came up with that. "That can`t be! You talk nonsense! You don`t understand what`s going on!""

Thats probably because they dont want to see whats going on. Its a natural thing, people dont want to think the worst about their own government.

[Guest]

Iraqi officer tells of war chaos

The interesting part is that the officer brings up a question that I've wondered about, namely why they didn't destroy the airport. That is so incredibly basic, that I can't comperhend how they could miss it. They should have destroyed and mined the runways and blown up the control towers. They had months to do this! It's the same mystery why they didn't blow up the bridges in time, why they didn't put AT mines in the city streets or why they didn't dig in tanks in the cities, setting up fortifications etc.

They truly had months to prepare for this, and yet nothing. Why then bother to fight at all?

[Col. Kurtz 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 12 2003,21:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraqi officer tells of war chaos

The interesting part is that the officer brings up a question that I've wondered about, namely why they didn't destroy the airport. That is so incredibly basic, that I can't comperhend how they could miss it. They should have destroyed and mined the runways and blown up the control towers. They had months to do this! It's the same mystery why they didn't blow up the bridges in time, why they didn't put AT mines in the city streets or why they didn't dig in tanks in the cities, setting up fortifications etc.

They truly had months to prepare for this, and yet nothing. Why then bother to fight at all?<span id='postcolor'>

If it wasn't for the fact that the article is drawn from information gathered from BBC Radio, I'd doubt it's authenticity due to the fact that it the article was on the website of the Herald Sun. The Herald Sun is a tabloid much like the infamous British 'The Sun' whoes only main concern is coming up with trashy stories that will make people buy the paper.

Anyway, interesting. Conspiracy theorists would say that this proves that Saddam Hussein secretly made a deal to go into exile with minimal resistance.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

"Conspiracy theorists would say that this proves that Saddam Hussein secretly made a deal to go into exile with minimal resistance."

Possibly. It could also be to put it bluntly that Saddam makes a crap general and that nothing happened without Saddams word ( little to no local initiative by commanders)

.Maybe he didnt want to see his shiny airport ruined with mines or explosive charges etc

After all Saddam sir ,the infidel invaders will be crushed miles from the airport!

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Remember some of the bum decisions made by Hitler, multiply and add a Stalin moustache. Welcome to the wonderful world of military cock ups in autocratic states.

anyway this seems to have gone a little OT...

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> He said the Republican Guards did not want to engage in street fighting in Baghdad, despite allied forces being convinced they would make a last stand there, since the Iraqi soldiers' families were there and then "everything (can be) broken that's yours, so if I fight in my city, every building is mine ... those are our families, our babies."

"If you want to fight, you should fight out of (away from) your home," he said.

The main problem, he said, was that the troops saw "no one who command us to do this or not this or who tell us what the planning is, so for what I fight. Stay at home is better."

<span id='postcolor'> And this shows you that Iraqi army did pay attention to civilian losses. Too bad they were hte only ones.

[PFC_Mike 2]

The reason a dictator can't win a war even most of the time is that dictators never pay any attetntion to the advice of others. Saddam thinks he won GW1, and by merely surviving, he did, in a way, but the Iraqi military sure as hell lost GW1. And they were crushed this time around too. Hitler's planned defense of Germany was bullshit, and the only reason Russians got killed is because there were Nazi resisters in the city, even though they weren't following his battle plan.

[bn880 5]

I think I can agree with that point.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 12 2003,15:20)</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"> He said the Republican Guards did not want to engage in street fighting in Baghdad, despite allied forces being convinced they would make a last stand there, since the Iraqi soldiers' families were there and then "everything (can be) broken that's yours, so if I fight in my city, every building is mine ... those are our families, our babies."

"If you want to fight, you should fight out of (away from) your home," he said.

The main problem, he said, was that the troops saw "no one who command us to do this or not this or who tell us what the planning is, so for what I fight. Stay at home is better."

<span id='postcolor'>  And this shows you that Iraqi army did pay attention to civilian losses.  Too bad they were hte only ones.<span id='postcolor'>

Umm,Come again ?

Are you saying the US wasn't trying to avoid civilian losses ?

Do you say this out of ignorance or just pure stupidity? Its an honest question and not an insult.

[Longinius 1]

"Do you say this out of ignorance or just pure stupidity? Its an honest question and not an insult."

I think he is just being a bit provocoative

[foxer 0]

damn right.Anyways,About the french.They didn't have to threaten to veto it.They could have stay a neutral country.For being an allies for an long time,that's not alot to ask for.

But anyways,check this out..........

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/12/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html

Now that missile/artillery shell is weird whatever it is.

[Longinius 1]

"They didn't have to threaten to veto it.They could have stay a neutral country.For being an allies for an long time,that's not alot to ask for."

If they disagree, they disagree. It is their right. Its not like we are talking about agreeing on buying chips or popcorn here...

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ April 12 2003,11:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (bn880 @ April 12 2003,15:20)</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"> He said the Republican Guards did not want to engage in street fighting in Baghdad, despite allied forces being convinced they would make a last stand there, since the Iraqi soldiers' families were there and then "everything (can be) broken that's yours, so if I fight in my city, every building is mine ... those are our families, our babies."

"If you want to fight, you should fight out of (away from) your home," he said.

The main problem, he said, was that the troops saw "no one who command us to do this or not this or who tell us what the planning is, so for what I fight. Stay at home is better."

<span id='postcolor'> And this shows you that Iraqi army did pay attention to civilian losses. Too bad they were hte only ones.<span id='postcolor'>

Umm,Come again ?

Are you saying the US wasn't trying to avoid civilian losses ?

Do you say this out of ignorance or just pure stupidity? Its an honest question and not an insult.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I guess we can overlook the crater left behind the restaurant and the reporters, and the cruise missiles. I said it because I'm not a moron like some people seem to be.

[theavonlady 2]

D'oh!

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 13 2003,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And this shows you that Iraqi army did pay attention to civilian losses. Too bad they were hte only ones.<span id='postcolor'>

HAHAHAHA

Now I've seen EVERYTHING.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">D'oh!<span id='postcolor'>

*sniff*

Blair could not of picked a better way to win me over.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 12 2003,19:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ April 13 2003,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And this shows you that Iraqi army did pay attention to civilian losses. Too bad they were hte only ones.<span id='postcolor'>

HAHAHAHA

Now I've seen EVERYTHING.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He said the Republican Guards did not want to engage in street fighting in Baghdad, despite allied forces being convinced they would make a last stand there, since the Iraqi soldiers' families were there and then "everything (can be) broken that's yours, so if I fight in my city, every building is mine ... those are our families, our babies."

<span id='postcolor'>

[Frisbee 0]

The people hiding behind civs were most likely mostly baath party loyalists,who are loyal only to saddam.

I believe some of the RG officers even tried to defect to the coalition (not sure),they're not machines who only think about serving saddam.

Iraqi army is what bn880 said,not saddams forces or anything like that.

[FSPilot 0]

So the republican guards didn't want to use the civilian-shield tactic with their families.  How does that mean in any way that they're avoiding civilian casualties.

These are the same people that put civilians between them and the enemy, then shot at the coalition soldiers.  These are the people who park tanks in civilian areas, store their ammunition in hospitals, and stuff civilians in cars and force them to charge checkpoints.

And then you say that the coalition isn't paying any attention to civilian casualties.  We're the ones using precision guided bombs.  They're not even really bombs anymore, they're guided blocks of cement so they don't explode and possibly cause civilian casualties!

edit - the Iraqi army surrendered or just left. the SRG or RG, whichever you want to call them, are the ones who stayed behind and fought, causing civilian casualties. if they really cared about civilian casualties they would of done something when saddam was slaughtering people, not help him.

[PFC Mongoose 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ April 13 2003,03:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">edit - the Iraqi army surrendered or just left.  the SRG or RG, whichever you want to call them, are the ones who stayed behind and fought, causing civilian casualties.  if they really cared about civilian casualties they would of done something when saddam was slaughtering people, not help him.<span id='postcolor'>

IIRC, the Special Republican Guard is the unit based directly in Baghdad, while the Republican Guard is divded up into districts in the area around it.

But otherwise, I agree with your point.

And as far as the checkpoints; yes, I firmly agree that they should have tried to find a way so that cars could not approach the checkpoint itself at high speeds, but whoever suggested flashing lights and sandbag bunkers - I don't know how viable that would have been. They moved across a large expanse of land in a remarkably short amout of time by being light and mobile. I think just now are they in a position to ship in things like sandbags, lights, and other such gear. I don't think it is stuff they could have just stacked between M113s on a transport plane. Maybe each solider could have carried a sandbag in their kit? I'm sure they would have loved that.

It may have been viable (getting the stuff there, not soliders carrying sandbag s in their kit) but I'm not certain.

[FSPilot 0]

Well they don't have to carry a sandbag with them, all they'd need is the bag, it's not like there's no sand to be found anywhere

I know why they're not using them now (logistics), but at the AFB I used to live at (McGuire AFB, NJ) they had these huge cement barricades placed at the gates, so once your ID was checked they'd wave you through and you'd have to zig-zag through the barricades. It worked like a charm, you couldn't go fast. If you ask me they probably will put a few of them before and after checkpoints so they have to slow to approach and slow to leave (they can't just slowly approach the guard and speed off).

They also had a humvee-mounted M-60 about a klick strategically placed and hidden down the road. In case anybody somehow managed to get through the barricades they'd be eating led before they even saw the M60. But I guess that wouldn't do much good here as most of the damage seems to be done in blowing up the checkpoint, not passing through it.