The Dogs of War

[theavonlady 2]

Iran calls on Shi'ites to revolt.

(Hey! I didn't says Sunis! )

[Balschoiw 0]

It´s not only me

Kofi Annan on civillian casualties

See what I mean ?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It´s not only me  

Kofi Annan on civillian casualties

See what I mean ?<span id='postcolor'>

It is only you. Kofi Annan does not charge the US (or Iraq, for that matter) with malicious intent to kill civilians.

[Balschoiw 0]

He is a diplomate ! For god´s or Jahwee´s or Allah´s sake.

Even the fact that he adresses this comment after several civillians were killed in Bagdad shows that they are having an eye on that.

Avon come on. Do you think he ´d say something like that cause he has too much time on his hands ?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,19:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">He is a diplomate ! For god´s or Jahwee´s or Allah´s sake.

Even the fact that he adresses this comment after several civillians were killed in Bagdad shows that they are having an eye on that.

Avon come on. Do you think he ´d say something like that cause he has too much time on his hands ?<span id='postcolor'>

Where was Kofi Anan until now?

How many statements for the murdered, tortured and missing in Iraq did he make prior to this war?

And let me understand you. You're saying he's a diplomat - meaning he really means to say exactly what you're saying - that the US intentionally set the marketplace as a target?

edit: G'nite all. Till tomorrow.................

[ZIKAN 0]

Any moderators (in-partial) around, to keep this thread on track? I appreciate there are many emotions regards this war, for and against, but the last few days of posts have gotten side tracked with anti coalition statements, and people taking the morale high ground when really this thread was deemed not political.

[ralphwiggum 6]

good point Zikan. hopefully they stop now.

[Guest]

Don't worry Zikan. I and other mods are keeping a track on it. Now the discussion of coalition or iraqi on purpouse targeting civilians as a strategy is a part of the war, not the politics surrounding it. So while being on the border, they have not crossed to the political area.

When there have been political statements such as the discussion if the war is just, the posters have been told off. Many posts have been deleted. We are continuing to enforce this policy and any post considered to be too political is deleted without notice.

Furthermore I'd like to direct you to the board rules, §2.6

[pathfinder 0]

Hmmm lots of pages to sift through.....would anyone have a link to the disabling of the 2 m1a1 tanks? And a link to info about those boxes all coalition vehicles that are suppose to prevent friendly fire. thx

[Blaegis 0]

Earlier today somebody mentioned the possibility of defensive/disruptive landmine warfare by the Iraqis. I does make sense: traditionally mines are a weapon of choice for any defending belligerent - it's hard to find a more cost-effective weapon (especially when assymetric warfare is concerned). However, I wonder how well are AP and AT mines suited for the desert soil? I mean, if the terrain is either constantly-shifting sand dunes or rock, it'd make it problematic to deploy and camouflage minfields. Any ideas if that's true?

Most nations would also be reluctant to lay minefields on their own territory, but I don't think it applies to Saddam...

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ Mar. 26 2003,19:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Earlier today somebody mentioned the possibility of defensive/disruptive landmine warfare by the Iraqis. I does make sense: traditionally mines are a weapon of choice for any defending belligerent  - it's hard to find a more cost-effective weapon (especially when assymetric warfare is concerned). However, I wonder how well are AP and AT mines suited for the desert soil? I mean, if the terrain is either constantly-shifting sand dunes or rock, it'd make it problematic to deploy and camouflage minfields. Any ideas if that's true?

Most nations would also be reluctant to lay minefields on their own territory, but I don't think it applies to Saddam...<span id='postcolor'>

I'm certainly no expert but - most deserts are not consisting of sweeping sand dunes. On the contrary, only relatively small parts of deserts are. The majority of most deserts are rocky and stony, and has a relatively hard ground covered only by a thin layer of dust (me thinks) .

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,17:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes but we have a huge variety of military networks to chose from.<span id='postcolor'>

With all due respect for your ten years of service (only have nine myself), a couple of things:

1)  I'd suggest re-evaluating the reliability of the network that provided this gem:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,13:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">British troops have been ordered to engage ANY I repeat ANY persons in civillian clothes. No matter if they are actually fighting or not. Basra has been declared a military target wich in the language of war means that any inhabitant, military or not is an enemy and will be shot if possible.<span id='postcolor'>

This network seems to be staffed by complete retards.  I just thought you'd like to know.

2)  </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,13:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I doubt that the missiles were actually mislead. I think they are fired with purpose into civillian areas to put pressure on the people and in the end on the regime itself. The strikes will be mentioned in comparison with the accuracy of the rest of the missiles on Bagdad and the US officials will claim the percentage of the "mislead" missiles is low overall.<span id='postcolor'>

At least you qualified this as a personal opinion.  Needless to say, I think you're wrong.  It should be pretty simple to prove your case, though -- a simple link with Rumsfield claiming that Tomahawks and JDAM's are infallible should suffice.  Happy huntin'.

Semper Fi

[Balschoiw 0]

Mines in pure desert are not very good for both parties of a conflict.

The mines tend to "pop up" after a while. Means the sand covering them is blown away. AT mines cant be dug in deep. They need to be close to surface. Therefore mines that are dug in some time ago tend to come up. Godd for mine clearing commandos, bad for the ones who dug them in.

But mining roadways within desert is a bit different. The roads are most of the times somehow "built" wich means roads are not of the sand found in open desert but they used different materials to build them or the ground gets comprimated by the weight of the vehicles passing over it after a while. the light weighted sand also is blown away by vehicles and the desert winds. Both makes a frequently used desert road a tick harder than pure desert passages. Mines can be used here but also with the risk of popping out after a while.

Right now there have been multiple AP mine fields found in Iraq. At oil field and near villages. The tigris beaches also appear to be mined in large extends. There is a huge variety of AP mines used in Iraq therefore there is no clear "rule" on their useage. Mine field found till now range from single AP mines at oil vaults to minefields of 500m´s square near populated areas. The AP mines that have been found are in desert camo of course.

[Guest]

I saw an interesting piece on Rapport (Swedish news) about the refugee situation: there is none. They predicted 500,000 -1,000,000 would flee Iraq once the war started.

Instead about 100,000 Iraqi from neighbouring countries have entered Iraq to fight for Saddam.

Another interesting thing is that this weekend BBC decided that it would no longer show real-time footage from Iraq, but that they would introduce a 20s delay so that explicit images can be censored. They also had an interview with BBC's news director who sad that the system with embedded reporters was very good in one way since they got direct information and very bad because they are subjected to heavy restrictions on what they can report.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) I'd suggest re-evaluating the reliability of the network that provided this gem:

Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,13:37)

British troops have been ordered to engage ANY I repeat ANY persons in civillian clothes. No matter if they are actually fighting or not. Basra has been declared a military target wich in the language of war means that any inhabitant, military or not is an enemy and will be shot if possible.

This network seems to be staffed by complete retards. I just thought you'd like to know.

<span id='postcolor'>

Basra has been declared as a military target by coaltion forces. The whole town. This should be public now.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">At least you qualified this as a personal opinion. Needless to say, I think you're wrong. It should be pretty simple to prove your case, though -- a simple link with Rumsfield claiming that Tomahawks and JDAM's are infallible should suffice. Happy huntin'.<span id='postcolor'>

this is what I already said:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The strikes will be mentioned in comparison with the accuracy of the rest of the missiles on Bagdad and the US officials will claim the percentage of the "mislead" missiles is low overall.<span id='postcolor'>

I remember 3 or 4 days ago Rumsfeld saying during a press conference that the weapons used on Bagdad or elsewhere in Iraq are that accurate that noone ever has seen such accuracy before. Even during the last seconds before impact the missiles are able to decide if they hit the right targets or not. It was not me saying that, but Rumsfeld. I wonder how the market place or the civillian houses could match the prefed imges in the missile´s guidance comp. You see ?

[Guest]

It's not a question of weapon precision, I think. It's more likely an intelligence fuckup then a technical malfunction, especially since two cruise missiles hit the market.

[E6Hotel 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,19:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Basra has been declared as a military target by coaltion forces. The whole town. This should be public now.<span id='postcolor'>

[sarcasm] I suppose that the Brits will be greatly relieved that we can now level Basra from the air. [/sarcasm]  I am not disputing that Royal Marines are entering Basra.  I am disputing the claim that they have been ordered to gun down noncombatants.  Frankly, I find it amazing that you lend that statement credibility.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Mar. 26 2003,19:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I remember 3 or 4 days ago Rumsfeld saying during a press conference that the weapons used on Bagdad or elsewhere in Iraq are that accurate that noone ever has seen such accuracy before. Even during the last seconds before impact the missiles are able to decide if they hit the right targets or not. It was not me saying that, but Rumsfeld. I wonder how the market place or the civillian houses could match the prefed imges in the missile´s guidance comp. You see ?<span id='postcolor'>

Again, I am not disputing that Tomahawks and JDAM's are accurate, they are undoubtedly the most accurate munitions ever used.  I am disputing the claim that "since they're perfect, any civilian deaths must be intentional."  For the sake of argument, let's project a 1% error rate (which BTW is about 700% lower than the usual rate quoted) -- with at least 1,500 weapons used so far (this number is probably low, but it's the most recent number that I can definitely recall hearing), that leaves 15 off-target.  No technology is "perfect" -- you know that.

Semper Fi

[Tydium 0]

Pentagon have said that they weren't targeting anything near the residental district that were hit today. They said that they were targeting iraqi surface to surface missile launch sites elsewhere and they were suggesting that while they couldn't be sure that it wasn't US missile it could have been iraqi missile that hit the residental district.

There are also reports that iraqi armored convoy has broken out from Basra and are heading south.

I have been thinking why they are leaving Basra (where they are relative safe) and heading into open desert where they can easily be destroyed by coalition airpower. Well i suppose that they are attempting a counter-attack. If successfull they could threaten coalition supply lines but it sounds pretty doomed from the beginning.

[Guest]

They're apparently moving towards al-Faw to reinforce the troops that are currently making life unpleasent for the British in the area.

At the same time there are reports of over 1,000 military vehicles going south from Baghdad towards the American-British forces that are heading towards Baghdad. It would seem like the Iraqis have had a boost of morale. I think it's a mistake though. They should have waited it out in the cities.

[FallenPaladin 0]

The communication between Iraqi strategic planers and their fighting forces still seems to be pretty intact. If there are really armored vehicles that broke out from Basra (under Coalition control ) that can mean a few things. They are moving to reinforce other troops like denoir mentioned. If they do so the Coalition in Basra and the surrounding area must be very weak, otherwise such a breakout and convoy to another city couldn`t work. Also the Iraqis seem to believe they can defend Basra without their armored vehicles (another possible indicator for weak Coalition forces there) . In addition to all that the Iraqis seem to be pretty good informed about what`s going on, otherwise they couldn`t coordinate such moves like described above. Actually it seems a little weird to me that the Iraqi forces are able to choose where to fight in so many cases. If I was an invasor I`d try to set up the places to fight any time. The Coalition forces seem to have a problem with that.

[foxer 0]

This probably already been brought up.But whats your thought on about the 3,000 chemical suits they found in the hospital(iraqi soldiers were hiding in it) in iraq(forgot the cities name)?

If they go in the desert with their tanks and all that is kinda stupid.I mean US,brits have more range on them,then they have on the us.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

"There are also reports that iraqi armored convoy has broken out from Basra and are heading south."

Yes between 70-120 vehicles (BBC-no idea where that figure came from) left Basra at about 12:30 today (according to embedded reporters) heading for the Al Faw peninsula. Its held as i recall by 40 commando Royal Marines. Being marine commandos they are a light unit with little armour so 100+ Iraqi tanks would present a challenge. But its still suicidal for the Iraqis. The Marines just have to call air support.Thats just what they have done(appently the column dispersed and split up after coming under air attack)

The Iraqis tried it a bit earlier as well when (approx) 50 tanks make a break out west but 20+ were reported destroyed and the rest retreated (thats when those 2 Challengers hit each other i believe) ,thats according to both embedded reporters and 'independants' on the outskirts of Basra.

Also the current idea here is that the 'uprising' was more of a demonstration (ie not armed) possibly even a student demonstration as it centred on the university (it is reported).

FallenPalladin-"Also the Iraqis seem to believe they can defend Basra without their armored vehicles (another possible indicator for weak Coalition forces there)"

Not really weakness- there is the 7th armoured division the 'Desert Rats' waiting outside as well as marine commandos and potentially elements of the 16th air assault brigade. Its still not really enough to dominate a city like Basra(and of course they could be dispersed thinly ...its possible) But i think they CAN defend Basra without tanks (mostly T55s anyway). Mostly theyve relied on assymetrical combat hi-jacking civilian areas etc, they can do it without T55s (which just provide targets for airstrikes).

This attack seems to be in line with other Iraqi mechanised 'attacks' , which are really just semi-suicide according to all reports i have heard. It may be intended to break the morale of Coalition troops ,show the bravery and loyalty of Iraqis etc. I dread to know what they did to get some of those men to drive out in those tanks (unless it is a genuine show of national loyalty as some people would suggest).

Balschoiw-Military OBJECTIVE would i think be a more accurate term for the British intention (that being to enter and hold the city for some period). I dont know where you got TARGET from.Bad press report or bad source. If the British really wanted to demolish Basra and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians then does anyone doubt that they technically could do much 'better' than they are now?

[Longinius 1]

"This probably already been brought up.But whats your thought on about the 3,000 chemical suits they found in the hospital(iraqi soldiers were hiding in it) in iraq(forgot the cities name)?"

My thoughts are that it could be a mobilisation warehouse. You would probably find similar things in most countries. Hospitals are excellent places to stock up on equipment that could help save lives, like chemical suits.

"If they go in the desert with their tanks and all that is kinda stupid.I mean US,brits have more range on them,then they have on the us."

Depends on when and where, I reckon.

[cam0flage 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (foxer @ Mar. 26 2003,23:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This probably already been brought up.But whats your thought on about the 3,000 chemical suits they found in the hospital(iraqi soldiers were hiding in it) in iraq(forgot the cities name)?<span id='postcolor'>

I think it will become a good reason to speculate more on the "hidden weapons of mass destruction", as mr. Bush said today. But it is also a fact that almost every army on this planet has these kind of suits, so I wouldn't be too worried about this.

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Longinius-"Hospitals are excellent places to stock up on equipment that could help save lives, like chemical suits."

Not to mention AK variants, heavy machinegun ammunition, grenades ,RPGs, AA ammunition, mortars...

and not only hospitals-

Ba'ath party buildings ,mosques ,schools , universities ,peoples houses

etc