The Dogs of War

[theavonlady 2]

Battle of Najaf video. See this Sky News article and click on "VIDEO: Battle Report".

[Guest]

LOL. What a bucket of horse dung! Did you see that soup? Does it look like CAS could work? LOL.

So they are claiming 750 Iraqi dead and 0 coalition dead in an infantry engagement. LOL. Wow, I always thought the the Iraqi propaganda was more outrageous then the coalition. Well, I guess I was wrong...

[Guest]

Al-Jasira is showing the streets of Basra and they look pretty calm. Could be an old tape of course.

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,11:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL. What a bucket of horse dung! Did you see that soup? Does it look like CAS could work? LOL.

So they are claiming 750 Iraqi dead and 0 coalition dead in an infantry engagement. LOL. Wow, I always thought the the Iraqi propaganda was more outrageous then the coalition. Well, I guess I was wrong...<span id='postcolor'>

No. It was 7th Cavalry (armored) engagement versus Iraqi infantry. Iraqis obviously tried to exploit sandstorms and get close enough with RPGs. Reportedly managed to seriously damage two M1A1 Abrams tanks but with great losses on their side. I don't find that report that uncredible...

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,11:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL. What a bucket of horse dung! Did you see that soup? Does it look like CAS could work? LOL.

So they are claiming 750 Iraqi dead and 0 coalition dead in an infantry engagement. LOL. Wow, I always thought the the Iraqi propaganda was more outrageous then the coalition. Well, I guess I was wrong...<span id='postcolor'>

US gov. figures say the don't know if it's 200, 300, 500 or what the press is reporting. So, it seems like press hype - as the government have said they don't have a definitive number.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Mar. 26 2003,12:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't find that report that uncredible...<span id='postcolor'>

Neither do I.

This could be a proven strategy. Strand some armor, let the Iraqis move in on the killed and then............... poof!

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Al-Jasira is showing the streets of Basra  and they look pretty calm. Could be an old tape of course.  <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

Reports since last night that the Shi'ites ( ) are beginning to revolt against the Iraqi forces in Basra. More reports with some details are beginning to show up on the newswire reports.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't find that report that uncredible... <span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Neither do I.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, then you both don't know much about military engagements. Probably form watching too much Die Hard on TV.

The probability of no colaition troops getting hurt in that soup is zero. Especially if armour is involved. They cannot see 10 m ahead in that sand storm. So either the claims of Iraqi kills are pure bull, the own casualty report is bull or both. I'd go for the last one. 2:1 or 5:1 are already extreme numbers without air support. I'd probably question 5:1. But the numbers they are saying are a fairy tale. It's like when the Talibans claimed that they've killed 1000000000 US troops. It's bogus, fake, bullshit.

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

Reportedly managed to seriously damage two M1A1 Abrams tanks but with great losses on their side.

<span id='postcolor'>

According to Sky news the tanks were isolated on the other side of the river when the Iraqis blew the bridge. That's where they were killed.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 26 2003,11:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,122)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Al-Jasira is showing the streets of Basra  and they look pretty calm. Could be an old tape of course.  <span id='postcolor'>

Reports since last night that the Sunis are beginning to revolt against the Iraqi forces in Basra. More reports with some details are beginning to show up on the newswire reports.<span id='postcolor'>

Sh'ia. Repeat once more after me S-h-i-a. I've corrected you twice before on this

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,12:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sh'ia. Repeat once more after me S-h-i-a. I've corrected you twice before on this <span id='postcolor'>

Argh!

Shi'ites! Shi'ites!

Why couldn't they make it easy and call themselves the McCoys and the Hatfields?

[theavonlady 2]

Just in: another missile hit Iran. US? Iraq? Not known yet.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,10:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL. What a bucket of horse dung! Did you see that soup? Does it look like CAS could work? LOL.

So they are claiming 750 Iraqi dead and 0 coalition dead in an infantry engagement. LOL. Wow, I always thought the the Iraqi propaganda was more outrageous then the coalition. Well, I guess I was wrong...<span id='postcolor'>

Well, I`m with Denoir on that. Here in german media they give us the following numbers submitted by US generals:

500 (dead iraqi inf) : 2 (wrecked M1 tanks) .

Such an outcome of a battle is just nonsense. Even the coalition choppers have been severly damaged the days before "only" by infantry and tanks (30 of 32 choppers! ) and now they want to tell us something like that. Sure. They must`ve caught the Iraqis sleeping.

Or maybe Bush is right and the pope is wrong and Bush is really a Paladin of God`s might and waving a blessed sword in this war. Let`s create the Church of the Holy George W. Or maybe he has Excalibur and lead his forces in battle with it.

Oh, wait... Saddam is telling the same thing... He`s also fighting for God...  

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 26 2003,12:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I`m with Denoir on that. Such an outcome of a battle is just nonsense.<span id='postcolor'>

See my reply above about official US govt. statements and not press speculation.

So far you, Denoir and the press are appearing more speculative than official sources.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> Even the coalition choppers have been severly damaged the days before "only" by infantry and tanks (30 of 32 choppers! )<span id='postcolor'>

Where did it say they were "severely damaged"? They came into a lot more firepower than they imagined and retreated.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or maybe Bush is right and the pope is wrong and Bush is really a Paladin of God`s might and waving a blessed sword in this war. Let`s create the Church of the Holy George W. Or maybe he has Excalibur and lead his forces in battle with it.<span id='postcolor'>

Since I'm not Christian, I have no problems saying that the Pope is wrong. Note that I did not state that Bush is right.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh, wait... Saddam is telling the same thing... He`s also fighting for God... <span id='postcolor'>

Who cares what he says?

""I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." - Adolph Hilter, Mein Kampf (a favorite read in many an Arab capital, BTW)

[WhoCares 0]

This is almost funny.

On one side they hoped for an uprising of resistance by the Shiites, and now they tell them to wait until the allied forces are prepared. I guess, they are now in a hurry to send some SpecOps/CIA troops in the town to get the stuff organized. btw: Those SpecOps/CIA men would be dressed like civilians I suppose - isn't this against the Geneva Convention? Or is it okay, as long as they don't get involved in some actual fighting?!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 26 2003,11:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 26 2003,12:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I`m with Denoir on that. Such an outcome of a battle is just nonsense.<span id='postcolor'>

See my reply above about official US govt. statements and not press speculation.

So far you, Denoir and the press are appearing more speculative than official sources.<span id='postcolor'>

Speculative? I don't think I've given you any numbers, have I? I'm just pointing out what is reasonable given the environmental and weather conditions and the troops involved. I'm not giving you any numbers, only saying that the numbers given by Sky news are extremely implausible.

[-76-Chavez 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,11:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's bogus, fake, bullshit.<span id='postcolor'>

I am with Denoir on this one.

You need 4:1 ratio of troops to take a defence and even if the iraquis got bad equipement they would have "scored" some kills.

BTW even if the Iraquis didnt kill any US troops, the US troops would kill themself probably...

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Mar. 26 2003,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is almost funny.

On one side they hoped for an uprising of resistance by the Shiites, and now they tell them to wait until the allied forces are prepared. I guess, they are now in a hurry to send some SpecOps/CIA troops in the town to get the stuff organized. btw: Those SpecOps/CIA men would be dressed like civilians I suppose - isn't this against the Geneva Convention? Or is it okay, as long as they don't get involved in some actual fighting?!<span id='postcolor'>

Don't know what's funny about this.

12 years ago, thousands of Shiites got slaughtered because the coalition encouraged an uprising.

Now they're hesitant to promote the same thing.

Hey! If they Shiites want to revolt on their own volition, so be it.

Seems like a lesson learned from past mistakes. Good move, both for the Shiites in Basra (who can choose to do what they want) and the coalition forces, who are not yet in a position to back up such a revolt and help the Shiites.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote ([76]Chavez @ Mar. 26 2003,12:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 26 2003,11:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's bogus, fake, bullshit.<span id='postcolor'>

I am with Denoir on this one.

You need 4:1 ratio of troops to take a defence and even if the iraquis got bad equipement they would have "scored" some kills.<span id='postcolor'>

I suppose we'll just have to wait for the sandstorm to clear.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW even if the Iraqis didnt kill any US troops, the US troops would kill themself probably...<span id='postcolor'>

Yuk yuk. Chuckle Chuckle.

[theavonlady 2]

Now here's some speculative but intruiging reading.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 26 2003,11:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I suppose we'll just have to wait for the sandstorm to clear.<span id='postcolor'>

I doubt we'll ever know the whole truth. If you havn't noticed both sides only admit to what they can't deny:

Iraq: We've shot down two Apaches.

Pentagon: No you havn't. All our birds are accounted for.

Iraq: (Shows pictures of downed Apache)

Pentagon: One of our birds is missing.

Iraq: We've captured some US soldiers.

Pentagon: No you havn't.

Iraq: (Shows pictures of POWs)

Pentagon: Some of our people are unaccounted for.

Interesting strategic analysis by Retired Brig. Gen. David Grange

[FallenPaladin 0]

Yesterday I saw an interview with an GI in Iraq on the advance to the north. He said, when being asked about his impression of the Iraqi resistance: "I`m not afraid, we americans are the most deadly people of the world!"

I think that`s a pretty funny statement.  

[Blaegis 0]

Something is fishy about the reports on that engagement where 2 Abramses were lost.

First of all, how can you use long-range ATGWs if there's a massive sandstorm taking place?

Second, the Iraqis never had TOWs in their inventory. (last I checked they had AT-3, AT-4, SS-11s, Milan & HOT. Let's not forget that the rumors about Kornet-Es are just that: RUMORS. I'll believe them when the Americans produce a launcher or a missile with serial numbers)

Third, as has been pointed out, somebody got a little creative with the casualty reports, based on the information presented so far.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ Mar. 26 2003,11:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now here's some speculative but intruiging reading.<span id='postcolor'>

Possible. A senior Jordani government official said that 60,000 US troops were stationed in Jordan. The lack of information flow from the north is also very interesting. The 101st with support of some SpecOps units tried to land at Kirkuk but were repelled according to Russian reporters in the area. That's about the last that has been heard from that front.

Another possibility is that the Turkish decision not to let American-British troops on its soil really screwed over the war plans. It seemed like Bush was very certain of getting Turkish support as recently as one week before the actual shooting started.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Mar. 26 2003,13:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Something is fishy about the reports on that engagement where 2 Abramses were lost.

First of all, how can you use long-range ATGWs if there's a massive sandstorm taking place?<span id='postcolor'>

You use them from short range.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Second, the Iraqis never had TOWs in their inventory. (last I checked they had AT-3, AT-4, SS-11s, Milan & HOT. Let's not forget that the rumors about Kornet-Es are just that: RUMORS. I'll believe them when the Americans produce a launcher or a missile with serial numbers)<span id='postcolor'>

So, it's another similar weapon. Not really that important.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Third, as has been pointed out, somebody got a little creative with the casualty reports, based on the information presented so far.<span id='postcolor'>

Seems like the press but no one has a figure yet and no one official claims to.

[Tydium 0]

Coalition airstrike missed it's target and hit a residental area instead killing at least 15 civilians.

Reuters report