The Dogs of War

[PFC_Mike 2]

The bus was on the front page of the Los Angeles Times...so much for "we don't show corpses" as a US journalistic standard.

What were the circumstances of the engagement? Seems really odd that a bus would ram a Bradley... Maybe US troops tried to flag it down, and it didn't stop? It wouldn't surprise me if that's what happened and the US forces didn't stop shooting until the bus and everyone/everything stopped moving. Though it seems odd that the Iraqis would be lying face down in the sand outside the bus.

[FSPilot 0]

ALL, Halt.

[hellfish6 7]

I appreciate the warning, Bn880 - and thank you for the link. I think it's important to remind us all that this isn't just a war waged on TV half a world away. I only hope that the mods don't ban you for it.

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Mar. 29 2003,06:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ALL, Halt.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, I think this is a good idea...It might give the 4th ID a chance to catch up to the fight.

[FSPilot 0]

And the 101st up north to get their stuff together.

[Guest]

Good article about what I've been saying about bombing civilian infrastructures when the military campaign isn't going too well. They did it in Yugoslavia and they have started doing it in Iraq.

[-Siegfried- 0]

Well, this stop just ocnfirms what iraqwar.ru is being saying now for days, that "At the current level of combat operations and at the current level of Iraqi resistance the coalition may face a sharp shortage of troops and weapons within the next 5-7 days, which will allow the Iraqis to take the initiative. The White House took this conclusion of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff with great concern"

For those of you who have not read these Russian analysis check them out here

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 29 2003,08:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good article about what I've been saying about bombing civilian infrastructures when the military campaign isn't going too well. They did it in Yugoslavia and they have started doing it in Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

So,...you dont think that communication lines are a strategic target?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Mar. 29 2003,09:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 29 2003,08:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good article about what I've been saying about bombing civilian infrastructures when the military campaign isn't going too well. They did it in Yugoslavia and they have started doing it in Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

So,...you dont think that communication lines are a strategic target?<span id='postcolor'>

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they are changing their game plan. In the normal case they would have bombed it on the first day. Taking out enemy communications is step one in any war.

They didn't becuase they "want to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people". Apparently they have changed that strategy and it could also be seen by the bombing of the TV station in Baghdad - which is not a military target btw.

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 29 2003,09:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Mar. 29 2003,091)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 29 2003,08:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good article about what I've been saying about bombing civilian infrastructures when the military campaign isn't going too well. They did it in Yugoslavia and they have started doing it in Iraq.<span id='postcolor'>

So,...you dont think that communication lines are a strategic target?<span id='postcolor'>

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they are changing their game plan. In the normal case they would have bombed it on the first day. Taking out enemy communications is step one in any war.

They didn't becuase they "want to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people". Apparently they have changed that strategy and it could also be seen by the bombing of the TV station in Baghdad - which is not a military target btw.<span id='postcolor'>

I see what you are saying now...I thought you meant they should not have taken out the comm at all.

I kind of had the feeling that it would be hit before the actual assault on the Capital.

Iraqi TV was also a legitimate target in my opinion.

It was allowing the Regime to spread information, and propoganda in attempt to rally people against the Coalition.

Then again...it was the Iraqis who took out the water system in Basara, and the Brits are reportedly trying to get it back in service.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Mar. 29 2003,09:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraqi TV was also a legitimate target in my opinion.

It was allowing the Regime to spread information, and propoganda in attempt to rally people against the Coalition.<span id='postcolor'>

So you mean that a suicide bombing of the BBC building in London would be alright too? It's a state television too and a propaganda tool for the Anglo-American forces.

Or even better, that it would be ok to hunt down British and American reporters?

[FallenPaladin 0]

"Terroristen und Spione"

That`s a very good article on how bad journalists are treated by american forces and how bad POWs are treatened by the Coalition forces, too. Unfortunately this article is only german, but it also mentiones that the Coalition forces recieved orders to "shoot anything that moves". For the people, which will come up with statements like "just Fallen`s anti-war-propaganda" :

n-tv is linked to CNN and belongs to this media group, so it`s normally quite pro-Coaltion.

[Samelborp 0]

Very interesting article from insider sources about the risks of the initial USA's battle plan for the invasion.

a little quote:

As the adage goes, armchair strategists talk forces while military professionals talk logistics. And the logistics of Iraqi Freedom break down to a set of daunting statistics. An armored or air-mobile division on the move consumes roughly 550,000 gallons of fuel a day. COSCOM, just to supply V Corps's forward forces with the requisite 1 million gallons of fuel, must have 3 million gallons in its pipeline. Each of the tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers in the Iraqi theater, meanwhile, consumes at least a liter of water an hour. The harder those units and soldiers fight, the higher their ammunition, fuel, and water requirements climb. The longer the logistics pipeline stretches, the greater the strain on inadequate transportation equipment.

[madmedic 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 29 2003,09:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Mar. 29 2003,09:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraqi TV was also a legitimate target in my opinion.

It was allowing the Regime to spread information, and propoganda in attempt to rally people against the Coalition.<span id='postcolor'>

So you mean that a suicide bombing of the BBC building in London would be alright too? It's a state television too and a propaganda tool for the Anglo-American forces.

Or even better, that it would be ok to hunt down British and American reporters?<span id='postcolor'>

a) We did not "suicide bomb" the Iraqi TV (Iraqis did however drive up to a military checkpoint in a taxi today, wave to the American soldiers for help...and suicide bomb them when they approached.

Killing 5

I do not condone "suicide bombing" anything.

b) Yes, if I was planning on invading England...I would take out as many of their avenues of communication as possible, including television.  (and I have heard from some Brits that the BBC needs a good bombing anyway )

c) The BBC is not run by the British military

[joltan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Mar. 29 2003,09:58)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Terroristen und Spione"<span id='postcolor'>

Well, that part about the CNN Korrespondent who gave the exact position of his unit is quite understandable - that IS a security breach, especially if reported live. CNN can also be received in Iraq...

The story about what happened to the israely and portugese correspondents and the POWs is disturbing on the other hand. It has also been mentioned earlier in this thread, but that german article provides a bit more detail.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

You cant really compare BBC to the iraqi Tv anyway. And frankly i dont think the iraqi people care, i mean dont they get tired of seeing  troops from 1991 marching and the same old madman fireing the same old shotgun all they long. 

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpeedyDonkey @ Mar. 29 2003,11:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You cant really compare BBC to the iraqi Tv anyway. And frankly i dont think the iraqi people care, i mean dont they get tired of seeing  troops from 1991 marching and the same old madman fireing the same old shotgun all they long.  <span id='postcolor'>

shotgun ? i've only seen him firing a lee-enfield rifle , a mauser hunting rifle and an ak (he may have also fired a SKS , but i'm not sure)

[Blake 0]

Al-Jazeera is confident in showing blood-spattered skulls but god forbid if they dare to show too short women's skirts

[joltan 0]

Blair's 'execution' story a lie?

In this artikcle the sister of one of the 'executed' victims tells the story that she was informed (and that it was confirmed to her after Blair made his public accusation) that her brother died when his car was attacked.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Mar. 29 2003,12:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SpeedyDonkey @ Mar. 29 2003,11:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You cant really compare BBC to the iraqi Tv anyway. And frankly i dont think the iraqi people care, i mean dont they get tired of seeing  troops from 1991 marching and the same old madman fireing the same old shotgun all they long.  <span id='postcolor'>

shotgun ? i've only seen him firing a lee-enfield rifle , a mauser hunting rifle and an ak (he may have also fired a SKS , but i'm not sure)<span id='postcolor'>

I dont mind if he has a mouse hunting rifel as long as he isn´t aiming it towards me

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Mar. 29 2003,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Al-Jazeera is confident in showing blood-spattered skulls but god forbid if they dare to show too short women's skirts <span id='postcolor'>

yeah , i too prefer the contrary ... the western medias , especially german TV

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

"So you mean that a suicide bombing of the BBC building in London would be alright too? It's a state television too and a propaganda tool for the Anglo-American forces."

First the BBC is not exactly state television. Its not payed for by taxes but by license fees. The government is not able to broadcast 'propaganda' on it. In fact in the last few days coverage on all terrestrial channels in the UK has been distinctly negative. Secondly ,yes i would expect it to be bombed and as others have indicated TV is not a necessity like water or food. The only problem for me is the number of civilians killed. Press freedom is nice and desirable but in times of war im not surprised to see the enemies inhibited. Especially seeing as Iraqi TV is clearly an uncritical propaganda

mouthpiece. Unlike the BBC.

Me-"Everyone knows that Churhill and Hitler were overthown by their populations as soon as large scale civilian bombings started....."

Placebo-"What in the world have you been smoking mate"

sarcasm lite possibly?

I have read an article about some buses in the times.I think its relevant to the ones Badgerboy mentioned. According to the article some of the Iraqi militants or regular soldiers walked around as civilians and scouted Coalition positions during the day and then at night they all loaded up onto large white buses and drove to attack positions. The US Marines noticed these buses kept appearing just before engagments and soon they cottoned on to what was happening. What lengths they go to to identify whether the bus has hostiles inside or not before they fire who knows.

Not cricket but war.

According to the latest theory apparently gleaned from British soldiers who have spoken to 'agents' inside Basra,the 'uprising' was actually a struggle between elements of the Ba'ath party. Some of those not deemed loyal enough (responsible for the thousand or more surrenders in the south)

were executed and some may have tried to fight back .Or something like that.

The Kurdish have overrun a major Ansar al-Islam stronghold and Ansar have had to run to thr hills.

A suicide bombing against US forces has been reported in Najaf. This could well cause the US forces in the area to crack down on civilian movements (which would make them more unpopular).

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (madmedic @ Mar. 29 2003,11:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a) We did not "suicide bomb" the Iraqi TV (Iraqis did however drive up to a military checkpoint in a taxi today, wave to the American soldiers for help...and suicide bomb them when they approached.

Killing 5

I do not condone "suicide bombing" anything.<span id='postcolor'>

Suicide bombing or cruise missiles? What's the difference? The only thing that I can see is that it takes guts to blow yourself up which cannot be said of pressing a button to launch a tomahawk.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">c) The BBC is not run by the British military<span id='postcolor'>

Neither is Iraqi TV. It's run by the ministry of information, a civillian agency.

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

and I have heard from some Brits that the BBC needs a good bombing anyway

<span id='postcolor'>

I have some mixed feelings about BBC. In many aspects they publish the same sensless propaganda as their US counterparts, but from time to time they do report other aspects of the war as well. While CNN and Fox barely mentioned the 50 killed in the most recent market attack, BBC actualy had it as a major story.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Mar. 29 2003,12:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blake @ Mar. 29 2003,12:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Al-Jazeera is confident in showing blood-spattered skulls but god forbid if they dare to show too short women's skirts <span id='postcolor'>

yeah , i too prefer the contrary ... the western medias , especially german TV <span id='postcolor'>

Really?? I bet and hope you`ve never seen Gute Zeiten, Schlechte Zeiten or Deutschland sucht den Superstar...

[Longinius 1]

"Al-Jazeera is confident in showing blood-spattered skulls but god forbid if they dare to show too short women's skirts"

Yes, and in that aspect its almost American. Its OK to show people killing eachother, but a bit of nudity is terrible!