The Dogs of War

[FSPilot 0]

Good point. But if I had just surrendered I'd rather stay with the coalition until the war was over, unless my hometown was under coalition control.

What about these Iraqis that pretended to surrender then shot up some Marines?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Mar. 23 2003,21:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">were the iraqi men shown on pictures considred as POW's ? i thought the coallition command said that the men would be free to go home ?<span id='postcolor'>

News to me.

Non-combatants? Yes.

Soldiers? I don't think so.

[R. Gerschwarzenge 0]

This POW conversation should continue in the other thread.

[crewcutkid 0]

Denoir, I understand that you do not support this war, but flaming the U.S., its troops, and it's people is no way to conduct oneself. The fact that you feel sympathy for Iraq is fine, although I would appreciate you not going after the U.S. After all, I don't get pissed at the E.U., do I?  

-Crew

EDIT Sry to get a little off topic.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

I have not seen any interviews at all or humiliation of Iraqi prisoners in the British media, so as far as im concerned the British at least have every right to expect the Iraqis to treat their -OUR- prisoners within the Geneva convention (if any should be taken. I dont know if the same is true of the US media.

Coalition troops are 100 miles from Baghdad, whilst areas close to the Kuwaiti border are still not under full control. But Surely that is to be expected in this most modern of strategic maneuvrist wars. Especially if Saddams Republican guard or Fedayeen forces are in action (in various locations) as reported.

There may be or indeed will be some groups of commited regular troops but the evidence (Iraqis fighting in civilian clothes or dressed in black) seems to suggest that by far the stiffest resistance is coming from the paramilitaries and republican guard units just as expected. What perhaps has not been so expected is that Saddam has deployed these groups in relatively small numbers in a large number of positions south of Baghdad.

Perhaps the presence of some of these special loyalist groups are inspiring (or forcing) regulars to fight longer than they otherwise would who knows....

Still i think some of the doom mongering (if i can characterise it as that)is perhaps a little misplaced. Things are broadly going to plan just as Avon said. I would like to think all people will hope for that seeing as the longer the war goes on the more the suffering all around increases.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (crewcutkid @ Mar. 23 2003,20:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, I understand that you do not support this war, but flaming the U.S., its troops, and it's people is no way to conduct oneself. The fact that you feel sympathy for Iraq is fine, although I would appreciate you not going after the U.S.<span id='postcolor'>

I'm not flaming anybody and I am neither supporting the Iraqis nor the US in this conflict. I'm just giving you a clear analysis of the current situation based on the fact that have been reported.

[theavonlady 2]

Israel's Chanel 1 just reported coalition forces in N. Iraq town of Mosul have come upon a cement factory that wasn't, if you know what I mean.

[crewcutkid 0]

Seems to me that these "Loyalist" forces may be like the Soviet Political officers from WW2. You run, we shoot. Maybe the nerve gas isn't for our troops after all. You dig?

-Crew

[crewcutkid 0]

So were these the same brits who found some of their rockets with the Iraqis, the same guys who found the Cement Factory?

-Crew

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Terry Lloyd the ITN news reporter missing earlier is indeed now reprted dead.

Also i have seen BBC footage from Basra (looked like the outskirts) and have heard two audio reports from there so Al-Jazeera is in fact not the only media reporting from there.

I understand that Al-Jazeera do not have any embedded reporters- so that may be the only angle they lack

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 23 2003,20:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Coalition troops are 100 miles from Baghdad, whilst areas close to the Kuwaiti border are still not under full control. But Surely that is to be expected in this most modern of strategic maneuvrist wars. Especially if Saddams Republican guard or Fedayeen forces are in action (in various locations) as reported.

There may be or indeed will be some groups of commited regular troops but the evidence (Iraqis fighting in civilian clothes or dressed in black) seems to suggest that by far the stiffest resistance is coming from the paramilitaries and republican guard units just as expected. What perhaps has not been so expected is that Saddam has deployed these groups in relatively small numbers in a large number of positions south of Baghdad.

Perhaps the presence of some of these special loyalist groups are inspiring (or forcing) regulars to fight longer than they otherwise would who knows....<span id='postcolor'>

Rumsfeld confirmed today that the coalition troops have so far neither engaged nor been engaged by Republican Guard units apart from the aerial attacks on their infrastructure. those are regular troops and reserves. There is nothing that indicates the opposite.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Still i think some of the doom mongering (if i can characterise it as that)is perhaps a little misplaced. <span id='postcolor'>

I think that the mindless optimism that some are displaying (if i can charecterise it as that) is perhaps a little misplaced. I suppose that lack of military education is to blame for that. They are pushing through Iraq yes, but they are not taking any ground. And they can't do shit once they reach Baghdad. It's the same mistake that the Soviets did in 1979 in Afghanistan. Both the American and British politicians are aware of the situation. The signs are all there, just listen to what they really say instead of hearing what you wish to hear.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also i have seen BBC footage from Basra (looked like the outskirts) and have heard two audio reports from there so Al-Jazeera is in fact not the only media reporting from there.<span id='postcolor'>

Probably in the outsikrts since Basra is still in the hands of Iraq. (related article)

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (crewcutkid @ Mar. 23 2003,20:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Seems to me that these "Loyalist" forces may be like the Soviet Political officers from WW2. You run, we shoot. Maybe the nerve gas isn't for our troops after all. You dig?

-Crew<span id='postcolor'>

Isnt it possible that the Iraqis fighting are doing so because they love their country and see the US as an invader? Without getting political, the way I see it is that some people will fight for their country no matter how much they disagree with the government.

[theavonlady 2]

There's a local report here that says the US suspects Russia of interfering on Iraq's behalf with military satellite transmissions used for targetting and pilot/ground communications.

Movie material.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Well, it looks like the Iraqi Army has given up on actually defeating Coalition forces in favor of just hurting them as much as possible. To that end they're doing such wacky things as dressing soldiers up in civvies, surrendering and then calling in artilery, and of course everyone's favorite: laying low for a day or two and then coming out to play in a supposedly secure town.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

For silly me...what is he firing there

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 23 2003,21:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For silly me...what is he firing there<span id='postcolor'>

Looks like some sort of Sabot round, no?

Hmmm......... a shoulder tank.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 23 2003,20:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Rumsfeld confirmed today that the coalition troops have so far neither engaged nor been engaged by Republican Guard units apart from the aerial attacks on their infrastructure. those are regular troops and reserves. There is nothing that indicates the opposite.<span id='postcolor'>

Centcom just said that elements of RG or Special Security had infiltrated south to conduct these behind the lines resistance.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 23 2003,20:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ Mar. 23 2003,20:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Coalition troops are 100 miles from Baghdad, whilst areas close to the Kuwaiti border are still not under full control. But Surely that is to be expected in this most modern of strategic maneuvrist wars. Especially if Saddams Republican guard or Fedayeen forces are in action (in various locations) as reported.

There may be or indeed will be some groups of commited regular troops but the evidence (Iraqis fighting in civilian clothes or dressed in black) seems to suggest that by far the stiffest resistance is coming from the paramilitaries and republican guard units just as expected. What perhaps has not been so expected is that Saddam has deployed these groups in relatively small numbers in a large number of positions south of Baghdad.

Perhaps the presence of some of these special loyalist groups are inspiring (or forcing) regulars to fight longer than they otherwise would who knows....<span id='postcolor'>

Rumsfeld confirmed today that the coalition troops have so far not engaged or been engaged by Republican Guard units apart from the aerial attacks on their infrastructure. those are regular troops and reserves. There is nothing that indicates the opposite.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Still i think some of the doom mongering (if i can characterise it as that)is perhaps a little misplaced. <span id='postcolor'>

I think that the mindless optimism that some are displaying (if i can charecterise it as that) is perhaps a little misplaced. I suppose that lack of military education is to blame for that. They are pushing through Iraq yes, but they are not taking any ground. And they can't do shit once they reach Baghdad. It's the same mistake that the Soviets did in 1979 in Afghanistan. Both the American and British politicians are aware of the situation. The signs are all there, just listen to what they really say instead of hearing what you wish to hear.<span id='postcolor'>

Or the Sixth Army advancing on Stalingrad.

I am NOT comparing the US to Germany here, but in the 'those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it' category, it's striking in some ways how similar it is.

The German Sixth Army made a headlong rush to seize Stalingrad, since Hitler decided it was going to be a 'defining moment' in the fight against the USSR. They pretty much cleaned up on the whole advance across the Don, but in the end their supply lines and logistics were stretched too far and the Russians were able to encircle them.

Now, there is no hope in hell that the Iraqis are going to encircle the Americans. Just wont happen. But this is a good example of what happens when you have long supply lines, and you dont properly secure the entire length of them.

I was totally surprised when I heard they were essentially bypassing Nassariya, instead of sezing it and making sure it was under control. No matter how secure the bridgeheads, leaving the city alone means that troops and militia in there can pretty much come out at will to attack the supply lines. Not so good.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 23 2003,20:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, it looks like the Iraqi Army has given up on actually defeating Coalition forces in favor of just hurting them as much as possible. To that end they're doing such wacky things as dressing soldiers up in civvies, surrendering and then calling in artilery, and of course everyone's favorite: laying low for a day or two and then coming out to play in a supposedly secure town.<span id='postcolor'>

They never had any illusions of defeating coalition forces. They are outnumbered and outgunned by beter equipped and better trained units. They do however have another advantage: the US support for the war is not without boundary. Start sending a couple of US kids in boxes home each day and that support will evaporate. Look at Somalia and what effect it had when they started to drag the corpses of US servicemen in the streets of Moga.

Iraq has time on it's side and trading territory for that is a sound plan.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was totally surprised when I heard they were essentially bypassing Nassariya, instead of sezing it and making sure it was under control. No matter how secure the bridgeheads, leaving the city alone means that troops and militia in there can pretty much come out at will to attack the supply lines. Not so good.

<span id='postcolor'>

And that's all it takes. They don't need to fight off the coalition forces. All they need to do is to capture or kill a couple of B-unit kids from the supply lines each day. Show that on CNN for some time and you'll have a fast withdrawal from Iraq.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 23 2003,20:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For silly me...what is he firing there

<span id='postcolor'>

not a specialist of AT warfare , but it could be really well be a TRIGAT missile fired with a Milan launcher

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Mar. 23 2003,21:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">not a specialist of AT warfare , but it could be really well be a TRIGAT missile fired with a Milan launcher<span id='postcolor'>

Oh....... I was on the right track. Nifty!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Trigat.dont know but I  didnt find any image of a Trigat with a pointed head...usually TRIGAT look like this!

[ran 0]

not a TRIGAT , just a more classic Milan missile :

http://www.jed.simonides.org/missile....es.html

Milan 2 or 3

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Mar. 23 2003,20:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Trigat.dont know but I  didnt find any image of a Trigat with a pointed head...usually TRIGAT look like this!

<span id='postcolor'>

that's the helicopter fired version

the shoulder launcher version is shorter , but yes , it has a round nose

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

GRRRRR mffffff...WHAT IS IT THEN..can I get a honest authentic true realistic precise errorless answer?