The Dogs of War

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

i agree that Al-quaida do not qualify as a conventional 'army' or armed force and should thus not be afforded rights under the Geneva convention. In my opinion they should be treated as criminals.

The Taliban however might be somewhat different

anyway OT..

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Mar. 24 2003,19:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2)  When we leave an objective it's because the fight's over, or we're needed somewhere else.  If you think 10 KIA makes a difference to us, all I can say is that you have a poor grasp of our history and absolutely no understanding of the Marine mindset (whether that's a good thing or not I'll leave to you).  We lose that many a month in peacetime to traffic accidents.  <span id='postcolor'>

10 KIAs or 100 KIAs or even 1000 KIAs makes little difference to the military directly, but it makes a big difference to the tax payers that finance this little endevour. It matters to the politicians who want to be re-elected. Show ten dead bodies of American kids (soldiers) every day and you'll be out of business after a couple of weeks. Since it is politically significant it becomes significant for the military too.

I mean when your secretay of defence goes on TV and comments on two possibly lost pilots, then you know you're fucked. A military that can't take casualties, can't win.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, Denoir, I think you have seriously underestimated the resolve of the American people. Look at our history. Once we get our backs up and become rankled, we fight all the more hard. Recent polls show INCREASING support for the war in the U.S. Also, the Iraqi strategy of showing the P.O.W.'s, has enraged the American people according to polls. It was a complete fuckup on their part and the plan backfired. Instead of demoralizing Americans, it increased support for and determination to win the war.

[interstat 0]

'*turns civility regulator to maximum power*

1)  The plan all along was to capture objectives and leave Royal Marines behind to hold them.  Leaving a MEU(SOC) in Umm Qasr to mop up a handful of die-hards is like swatting flies with a Buick.

2)  When we leave an objective it's because the fight's over, or we're needed somewhere else.  If you think 10 KIA makes a difference to us, all I can say is that you have a poor grasp of our history and absolutely no understanding of the Marine mindset (whether that's a good thing or not I'll leave to you).  We lose that many a month in peacetime to traffic accidents.  

Semper Fi '

You have to look at it from my point of view, as a British Citizen, trying to get a picture through various media resources.  

My father served and fought in the RAF Regiment for 20+ years, and agrees that our boys have been left to do the dirty work your boys have perhaps given up on trying to accomplish.

The additional shooting down of one of our air craft by your forces, also doesn't bode well, and the reports that an ITN reporter was killed by US friendly fire is not helpful.

I'm not trying to be vicious or nasty, just a bit tired of these repeat blunders by American forces, and poor old Brit having to go in and do the bloody house to house fighting.  Maybe some of our boys should take the American forces into Um Qasr to give them a turorial on how it is meant to be done?

'Come on, is firing Nuclear Depleted Uranium shells against the Geneva convention?

perhaps you could tell me where it is.  and, just in case you are ignorant, DU are not nuclear weapons.'

It has been omitted that Depleted Uranium shells are being used, and if they aren't banned, maybe perhaps they should be?

[interstat 0]

See here for depleted Uranium:

Depleted Uranium

[Jinef 2]

Hmm i don't like it but if they will use it just declare an area unsafe for any infantry for a day or two before sending in ground forces.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Mar. 24 2003,13:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 24 2003,05:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> A lot of nations are pissed about us developing this because it virtually renders their ICBM force useless.<span id='postcolor'>

Except that a lot of nations have enough ICBMs to kill the world ten times over. No way you're going to stop them all.<span id='postcolor'>

No, Oligo, an 85-90% success rate means we will not stop them all, but remember that the strategy of deterrence works only through the concept of mutually assured destruction. The Russians are the only nation on earth with a significantly threatening nuclear force towards the U.S. If we can knock out 85-90% of their ICBM's in space, then MAD falls apart and so does deterrence. While it makes us nice and safe in the U.S., I'm not sure its all that good for international relations. We will have to see.

[Cloney 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 24 2003,23:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">'*turns civility regulator to maximum power*

1)  The plan all along was to capture objectives and leave Royal Marines behind to hold them.  Leaving a MEU(SOC) in Umm Qasr to mop up a handful of die-hards is like swatting flies with a Buick.

2)  When we leave an objective it's because the fight's over, or we're needed somewhere else.  If you think 10 KIA makes a difference to us, all I can say is that you have a poor grasp of our history and absolutely no understanding of the Marine mindset (whether that's a good thing or not I'll leave to you).  We lose that many a month in peacetime to traffic accidents.  

Semper Fi '

You have to look at it from my point of view, as a British Citizen, trying to get a picture through various media resources.  

My father served and fought in the RAF Regiment for 20+ years, and agrees that our boys have been left to do the dirty work your boys have perhaps given up on trying to accomplish.

The additional shooting down of one of our air craft by your forces, also doesn't bode well, and the reports that an ITN reporter was killed by US friendly fire is not helpful.

I'm not trying to be vicious or nasty, just a bit tired of these repeat blunders by American forces, and poor old Brit having to go in and do the bloody house to house fighting.  Maybe some of our boys should take the American forces into Um Qasr to give them a turorial on how it is meant to be done?

'Come on, is firing Nuclear Depleted Uranium shells against the Geneva convention?

perhaps you could tell me where it is.  and, just in case you are ignorant, DU are not nuclear weapons.'

It has been omitted that Depleted Uranium shells are being used, and if they aren't banned, maybe perhaps they should be?<span id='postcolor'>

We need to keep the pressure on the Iraqis. The Marines have the Mechanized Equipment and most of the Firepower. Yes the Royal Marines are an excellent outfit and I have no doubt that they will clean up Umm Qasr.

However, if we stopped all of our heavy stuff to clean up 50 guys with machine guns, we'd be in Iraq forever! The RM don't have the Tanks to move on an engage in large battles like a Marines MEU (SOC) does. Like E6Hotel said, its using the right tool for the right job, RM Light Infantry is better for fighting in cities than a fully mechanized Marine unit.

To put this in perspective, say you are trying to take a screw out of a door. You could either take a sledge hammer and smash the door to pieces and get your screw (MEU) or simply get a screw driver and take that one screw out (RM). The MEU could clean house but there would be a hell of a lot more civ. casualties, and thats not what we need.

As for the FF incidents, shit happens when the plane is flying without transponder signals. Its also a WAR, by definition it is not pretty, people are going to die. Since these patriot batteries and planes are being operated by human beings, there is room for error. It is unfortunate, but that is the price you pay when you are fighting in a very faced paced Air-Ground War.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 24 2003,23:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,19:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Mar. 24 2003,19:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2)  When we leave an objective it's because the fight's over, or we're needed somewhere else.  If you think 10 KIA makes a difference to us, all I can say is that you have a poor grasp of our history and absolutely no understanding of the Marine mindset (whether that's a good thing or not I'll leave to you).  We lose that many a month in peacetime to traffic accidents.  <span id='postcolor'>

10 KIAs or 100 KIAs or even 1000 KIAs makes little difference to the military directly, but it makes a big difference to the tax payers that finance this little endevour. It matters to the politicians who want to be re-elected. Show ten dead bodies of American kids (soldiers) every day and you'll be out of business after a couple of weeks. Since it is politically significant it becomes significant for the military too.

I mean when your secretay of defence goes on TV and comments on two possibly lost pilots, then you know you're fucked. A military that can't take casualties, can't win.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, Denoir, I think you have seriously underestimated the resolve of the American people.  Look at our history.  Once we get our backs up and become rankled, we fight all the more hard.  Recent polls show INCREASING support for the war in the U.S.  Also, the Iraqi strategy of showing the P.O.W.'s, has enraged the American people according to polls.  It was a complete fuckup on their part and the plan backfired.  Instead of demoralizing Americans, it increased support for and determination to win the war.<span id='postcolor'>

You mean like Somalia?

Actually I agree that it boosts support, short term. Not long term however. Especially since the support for this war wasn't all you could wish for in the beginning. GW1, Bush senior had 94% support for the military action. Bush junior has about 70%.

Showing POW doesn't have any considerable effect. Showing the dead US kids does. And you don't have to take my word for it, look at the stock markets today and reports in the media.

As I said, show 10 dead servicemen each day for a couple of weeks and you'll be out of Iraq a lot quicker then it took you to get in.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 24 2003,13:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">By far, the most ridiculous aspect of US claim is that US are engaged in a "war against terror" - yet they deny prisoners taken any fair trial and consequently disrespect the Geneva-convention themselves. Actually, they are denied ANY rights what so ever since US courtsystem has ruled out a trial by US judicial system.

So, basically - US choses to follow the Geneva-convention only when it SUITS their own purposes.<span id='postcolor'>

I could e-mail you a copy of the Geneva Convention if you'd like. That way, if you chose to actually read it, you might make more effective arguments by having an informed opinion.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 24 2003,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Mar. 24 2003,137)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 24 2003,05:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> A lot of nations are pissed about us developing this because it virtually renders their ICBM force useless.<span id='postcolor'>

Except that a lot of nations have enough ICBMs to kill the world ten times over. No way you're going to stop them all.<span id='postcolor'>

No, Oligo, an 85-90% success rate means we will not stop them all, but remember that the strategy of deterrence works only through the concept of mutually assured destruction.  The Russians are the only nation on earth with a significantly threatening nuclear force towards the U.S.  If we can knock out 85-90% of their ICBM's in space, then MAD falls apart and so does deterrence.  While it makes us nice and safe in the U.S., I'm not sure its all that good for international relations.  We will have to see.<span id='postcolor'>

The only thing it leads to is that new form of ballistic missiles are developed. There are two other things that are flawed with the anti-ICBM system (besides that the tests have failed miserably under optimal circumstances - you can blame it on production or whatever, but the fact is that it doesn't work)

1) It does not protect against low trajectory medium and short range missiles. A missile launched from a sub would not be intercepted.

2) The huge downsizing of NORAD makes it improbable that you would see it coming at all.

[PitViper 0]

Denoir,

One of my friends, who was adamantly against the war, changed his opinion once he saw the pictures of the POW's. just FYI

[interstat 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the FF incidents, shit happens when the plane is flying without transponder signals. Its also a WAR, by definition it is not pretty, people are going to die. Since these patriot batteries and planes are being operated by human beings, there is room for error. It is unfortunate, but that is the price you pay when you are fighting in a very faced paced Air-Ground War.<span id='postcolor'>

Still I assure you british people are really not impressed by Americans shooting down British planes again, I agree friendly fire does happen.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You mean like Somalia?<span id='postcolor'>

That had as much to do with spineless politicians and a schizophrenic foreign policy as it did with public opinion.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Mar. 24 2003,23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir,

 One of my friends, who was adamantly against the war,  changed his opinion once he saw the pictures of the POW's. just FYI<span id='postcolor'>

As I said, I do believe that it gives more short term support. I personally don't know what was so shocking about the POW interviews. The seemed pretty much alive and in good shape so I don't see what people are complaining about.

The dead soldiers on the other hand is a completely different story. It's devastating for morale to see 18 year old Joe Average from Montana with bullet wounds and torn limbs.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You mean like Somalia?

Actually I agree that it boosts support, short term. Not long term however. Especially since the support for this war wasn't all you could wish for in the beginning. GW1, Bush senior had 94% support for the military action. Bush junior has about 70%.

Showing POW doesn't have any considerable effect. Showing the dead US kids does. And you don't have to take my word for it, look at the stock markets today and reports in the media.

As I said, show 10 dead servicemen each day for a couple of weeks and you'll be out of Iraq a lot quicker then it took you to get in.<span id='postcolor'>

Somalia is a very bad example. The U.S. citizenry didn't order a pullout, President Clinton did. This is the same guy who reviewed opinion polls before making any decision. He was a pussy in my opinion, and you can't judge U.S. resolve by his actions. I remember in '93, that a lot of Americans wanted to increase our presence in Somalia after the fighting in Mogadishu, and were pissed that the troops were ill equipped and supported. Of course, I was in the military at the time so I may be a bit biased.

Showing the dead U.S. kids has enraged most Americans. It seems the opinion has become, "Well, we are involved in it now, and since its turned out to be a real war, we ae committed to winning it." I think most Americans realize it would be disastrous for us to pull out now. The stock market isn't a reliable predictor of U.S. public opinion. I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject, and the battle for Baghdad will serve as the litmus test proving one of us right and the other wrong. I think the fighting is going to be very intense there.

[interstat 0]

Agree with you Denoir, shame that according to the polls in Britain that support for the war has grown. Some people have no spine when it comes to opposing something.

But polls are not to be trusted, who carries them out, how many people asked, what age, where was it conducted, what question is asked, etc, etc.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Mar. 24 2003,23:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,23:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You mean like Somalia?<span id='postcolor'>

That had as much to do with spineless politicians and a schizophrenic foreign policy as it did with public opinion.<span id='postcolor'>

Absolutely, but I don't think that's changed. On the contrary. As I said, a policy where casualties are so unacceptable that the Secretary of Defence goes out on TV explaining the individual missing soldiers can't win a war. There has to be a major change in attitdue if you want to win this.

Right now civilian and own casualties are out of the question and that won't work. Evident by both the rections on the latest KIAs and the developing humanitarian disaster in Basra.

[interstat 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and the battle for Baghdad will serve as the litmus test proving one of us right and the other wrong. I think the fighting is going to be very intense there.<span id='postcolor'>

defineitely, baghdad will be the big test for the Americans and US.

Anyway what about the Spanish, where the hell are they, supposed to have supported this illegal attack on Iraq? Anyone else know if they have bothered to offer anything, fuel truck, jeep, plane, bullet... anything? (hint of sarcasm creeping in)?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 24 2003,23:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Showing the dead U.S. kids has enraged most Americans.  It seems the opinion has become, "Well, we are involved in it now, and since its turned out to be a real war, we ae committed to winning it."  I think most Americans realize it would be disastrous for us to pull out now.  <span id='postcolor'>

Mhm, right. And the US near zero casualty policy is because the military can't stand seeing blood, not the politicians and the public. Please. I know you want to give the impression of a united front behind a just cause blah blah blah, but you can't change the facts. The facts are that there is a near-zero casualty policy for a reason. There is a reason why Rumsfeld is commenting on the fate of individual soldiers.

So all the talk about making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of a just cause isn't really compatible with the reality.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Mar. 24 2003,22:39)</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">you don't understand the Geneva convention. Geneva Convention only applies to uniformed forces with established chains of command. <span id='postcolor'>

Oh come on! What do you think the Geneva conventions purpose is? My guess is that it's intention is to ensure that POW are treated in a fair and humane way.

When US demanded Nato support for their "war on terror" they claimed that the WTC incident was not only an act of terror - but a declaration of war . Otherwise Nato could not have mobilised.

So this:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The question regarding the Al Qaeda is they are not uniformed and don't report to any particular national entity. Whether or not they are covered under the Geneva convention is the main question.<span id='postcolor'>

is certainly correct in a strictly judicial sense, but not morally.

If you fight a "war" you should also follow the rules!

But your country is doing it in an even worse way - you are denying them ANY judicial rights! Which means you ARE braking accepted rules of humanity.

I believe there's a word for that too *cough*

Anyway, I hope you see the dubious and immoral way of treating human beings - because your soldiers should expect the same treatment if capturd - as you are setting the standard!

[HellToupee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 25 2003,11:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Mar. 24 2003,23:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir,

One of my friends, who was adamantly against the war, changed his opinion once he saw the pictures of the POW's. just FYI<span id='postcolor'>

As I said, I do believe that it gives more short term support. I personally don't know what was so shocking about the POW interviews. The seemed pretty much alive and in good shape so I don't see what people are complaining about.

The dead soldiers on the other hand is a completely different story. It's devastating for morale to see 18 year old Joe Average from Montana with bullet wounds and torn limbs.<span id='postcolor'>

not nice to see 18 year old iraqis dead to, my friend i know from iraq would be in its army now if he was there its compulsary, article in the paper of a women contacting relatives in baghdad to fine 2 of her relatives sons dead from cruse missle attacks, they were in the army.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only thing it leads to is that new form of ballistic missiles are developed. There are two other things that are flawed with the anti-ICBM system (besides that the tests have failed miserably under optimal circumstances - you can blame it on production or whatever, but the fact is that it doesn't work)

1) It does not protect against low trajectory medium and short range missiles. A missile launched from a sub would not be intercepted.

2) The huge downsizing of NORAD makes it improbable that you would see it coming at all.<span id='postcolor'>

The thing about the new missiles is quite true, it will probably spark a new arms race.

You are quite wrong about the success of the EKV program though, and have obviously been getting the biased reports of ignorant politicians and an even more ignorant media. I encourage you to actually check the data of the intercept tests of this system. The failure in the initial tests were due to rocket booster problems from the boosters made by Rockwell, and no evaluation of the ability of the EKV to intercept missiles can be made due to a rocket booster failure, that is the fault of an entirely separate contractor. Another test failed when the cooling system that enables the IR sensor in the EKV to pick out target against the cold contrast of space was not properly charged. Once these issues were addressed, the tests of the EKV have been entirely successfull. It is a viable system despite the misgivings of some liberal politicians who don't want to approve the funding and worry about how it will effect international relations.

We have developed the Patriot PAC3 and the SM2 Block IV to intercept the theatre missiles you talk about in your second point. This war is actually showing the PAC3 is a success, if the data we are getting isn't being faked like it was in the last war. Time will tell. The SM2 is a huge success however.

The Congress has approved the EKV project already, its in the budget.

I'll try and find some links for you.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

WTF do ICBM's have to do with war in Iraq

Stick to the topic at hand please - war in Iraq

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 24 2003,23:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">We have developed the Patriot PAC3 and the SM2 Block IV to intercept the theatre missiles you talk about in your second point.  This war is actually showing the PAC3 is a success, if the data we are getting isn't being faked like it was in the last war.  <span id='postcolor'>

But the PAC3 has so far been a complete failure!

They downed 3 missiles out of 14 fired (+ one British Tornado). The PAC1 version had a 40% kill rate in Israel which is higher then PAC3 has shown so far.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Mar. 24 2003,23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WTF do ICBM's have to do with war in Iraq  

Stick to the topic at hand please - war in Iraq <span id='postcolor'>

Sorry, if you check a few pages back, the whole argument started with a debate over the capabilities of the Patriot PAC3, after one shot down the GR4. Kind of got off-track.