Tex -USMC- 0 Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Personally I hate persons who betray and rat on people and I would never trust them.<span id='postcolor'> I can understand this, but I mean, come on. The guy betrayed Saddam friggin' Hussein. That's a little like a Russian busting a cap in Stalin's ass or a Cambodian wasting Pol Pot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 04 2003,08:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can understand this, but I mean, come on. The guy betrayed Saddam friggin' Hussein. That's a little like a Russian busting a cap in Stalin's ass or a Cambodian wasting Pol Pot.<span id='postcolor'> And my point is that even if the traitors do good (from my perspective), I would never trust them, since they have the mind-set of a traitor. Who's to say he wouldn't bust a cap in my ass next? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ April 04 2003,08:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 04 2003,08:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can understand this, but I mean, come on. The guy betrayed Saddam friggin' Hussein. That's a little like a Russian busting a cap in Stalin's ass or a Cambodian wasting Pol Pot.<span id='postcolor'> And my point is that even if the traitors do good (from my perspective), I would never trust them, since they have the mind-set of a traitor. Who's to say he wouldn't bust a cap in my ass next?<span id='postcolor'> Fair enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 04 2003,05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Capture of Saddam International Airport = Severe reduction in the Iraqi ability to hit Coalition supply lines. We can ship it via air freight straight to Baghdad now. Â Expect C-17's and C-5's to start arriving as soon as an air umbrella can be established. Â Plenty of big fuel storage tanks as well.<span id='postcolor'> 1) The airport isn't caputred. The Iraqis launched a successful counterattack this morning. 2) Saddam International Airport is within SAM range from central Baghdad. I think that the Iraqis would welcome juicy big slow targets like C-17's and C-5's. In theory you're right though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PFC Mongoose 0 Posted April 4, 2003 I wonder why the U.S. doesn't send a bomber into SAM protected airspace, have it drop perhaps chaff munitions, or other missile-fooling devices, and have some fighter-bombers or some such following at a safe distance, waiting for the SAMs to open up, then taking them out before they can be moved or adjusted. Perhaps it isn't viable, perhaps it is considered a waste of a sortie (though I hardly think so, however, I'm obviously not really qualified to make such reccomendations.), or perhaps they are, and I just don't know it, because they aren't dicussing their attack plan in that great of detail. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,08:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1) The airport isn't caputred. The Iraqis launched a successful counterattack this morning.<span id='postcolor'> Where did you get this? Reuters claims the counterattack failed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 4, 2003 From AFP, five minutes ago (news feed). They say that the Iraqis control the approach to Baghdad and the northern part of the airport. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 04 2003,09:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder why the U.S. doesn't send a bomber into SAM protected airspace, have it drop perhaps chaff munitions, or other missile-fooling devices, and have some fighter-bombers or some such following at a safe distance, waiting for the SAMs to open up, then taking them out before they can be moved or adjusted.<span id='postcolor'> The SAMs are in placed in urban areas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,09:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">2--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 04 2003,092)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder why the U.S. doesn't send a bomber into SAM protected airspace, have it drop perhaps chaff munitions, or other missile-fooling devices, and have some fighter-bombers or some such following at a safe distance, waiting for the SAMs to open up, then taking them out before they can be moved or adjusted.<span id='postcolor'> The SAMs are in placed in urban areas.<span id='postcolor'> yeah, Wild Weasel and SEAD missions can get pretty messy, and are generally not copacetic for heavily populated urban areas. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PFC Mongoose 0 Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ April 04 2003,09:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 04 2003,09:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PFC Mongoose @ April 04 2003,09<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I wonder why the U.S. doesn't send a bomber into SAM protected airspace, have it drop perhaps chaff munitions, or other missile-fooling devices, and have some fighter-bombers or some such following at a safe distance, waiting for the SAMs to open up, then taking them out before they can be moved or adjusted.<span id='postcolor'> The SAMs are in placed in urban areas.<span id='postcolor'> yeah, Wild Weasel and SEAD missions can get pretty messy, and are generally not copacetic for heavily populated urban areas.<span id='postcolor'> That makes sense. And from what I gather, aircraft aren't having too many problems from the SAMs, I just keep hearing about Apaches going down. Still, if they want to tak Baghdad, and if, once the retake/secure that airfield, they want to use it, sooner or later, I think those SAM sites will have to go... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted April 4, 2003 "And my point is that even if the traitors do good (from my perspective), I would never trust them, since they have the mind-set of a traitor. Who's to say he wouldn't bust a cap in my ass next?" I am not sure I'd call this guy a traitor. As I gather, he wasnt a soldier and he wasnt in service of his country in any official way. He might have been on the US side since day one, and if thats the case I dont think he is a traitor. If my government took a turn for the worse and we got a Göran Hussein in power then I'd have no doubts about opposing him any way possible. Call him a traitor if you want to, thats up to you. But I beg to differ. He did a stand up thing in my book. (Then I just happen to believe that he could have done it to get a free ticket to America some how, but thats just me) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 04 2003,09:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am not sure I'd call this guy a traitor. As I gather, he wasnt a soldier and he wasnt in service of his country in any official way. He might have been on the US side since day one, and if thats the case I dont think he is a traitor. If my government took a turn for the worse and we got a Göran Hussein in power then I'd have no doubts about opposing him any way possible.<span id='postcolor'> Let's say that you and your buddies were working in Göran Hussein's office as, say, janitors. You would then sneak out of Stockholm to meet the Yankee troops knocking on the door of the aforementioned city and tell them that now would be an excellent time to raid the office and waste mister Göran Hussein. You also report the disposition of security personnel in Göran's office complex. You then sneak back and carry on as usual, but evac the place well in advance of the coming raid to fetch your wife and head to safety of the grateful Yankee troops. However, you could not tell any of your janitor buddies of the coming raid, since some of them might be informers of mister Göran Hussein. The raid comes and some of your janitor buddies are caught in the crossfire. The surviving ones, having heard that it was you who called the raid upon the place, will never trust you again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Longinius 1 Posted April 4, 2003 "The raid comes and some of your janitor buddies are caught in the crossfire. The surviving ones, having heard that it was you who called the raid upon the place, will never trust you again." Supporters of Hussein would of course never be able to trust me, but that doesnt mean other people can't. To me a traitor is someone who betrays his friends, as in, switching sides. This guy might always have been on the US side and in that case I dont think he should be called a traitor. Atleast not by us, but I could understand if Saddam loyalists did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 04 2003,06:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mohammed @ April 03 2003,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"I love America. I like America. Why, I don't know,"<span id='postcolor'> Who would have thought a Iraqi could sum up my feelings. Â Well, me too Mohamed, me too. And to save others the time. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY LIES AND PROPAGANDA. Â HOW CAN YOU STAND THIS @#)@$<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lynch, a 19-year-old supply clerk, continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds... Lynch was also stabbed when Iraqi forces closed in on her position, the official said, noting that initial intelligence reports indicated that she had been stabbed to death. -- US Official<span id='postcolor'> </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">An examination revealed the 19-year-old private had "no multiple gunshot wounds or knife stabs" Lynch said, adding that there had been "no entry whatsoever". -- Lynch's father<span id='postcolor'> ...Sure would be simple if every durn person just told the truth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jinef 2 Posted April 4, 2003 I saw this video footage of some Kurdish rebel people and a reporter backed up by seven American 'special' forces. They were walking happily along this road when the Kurds noticed enemy postions on a hill 100 metres away. So the american started chatting to his friends with his radio and said "we have a contact front" and remained standing there. Obviously the Iraqi's noticed a bunch of people standing in the road pointing at them so they opened fire, the American said something like "they are shooting at us, let's get in to cover" probably directed at the news guy. We then saw the News guy sitting in a fox hole looking quite bored, "Well the American special forces are bringing in airstrikes, we've been here for about and hour now etc." Anyway, from what i've heard the British are being all nice and lovely to the citizens of Basra - just wait till they get drunk! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 04 2003,10:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">To me a traitor is someone who betrays his friends, as in, switching sides. This guy might always have been on the US side and in that case I dont think he should be called a traitor. Atleast not by us, but I could understand if Saddam loyalists did.<span id='postcolor'> This discussion is a little too academic. What I was trying to say: When that Iraqi ratted on the hospital, he knew that it would come under attack. In an attack, innocent civvies like the hospital personnel (who also might hate Saddam but are not doing anything about it because they want to survive) might get caught in the crossfire. How would these people feel if they heard that one of their own had sold out the hospital, even if his motives were noble? They would feel betrayed. Traitors betray. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 04 2003,10:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, from what i've heard the British are being all nice and lovely to the citizens of Basra - just wait till they et drunk!<span id='postcolor'> LOL Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 04 2003,10:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I saw this video footage of some Kurdish rebel people and a reporter backed up by seven American 'special' forces. They were walking happily along this road when the Kurds noticed enemy postions on a hill 100 metres away. So the american started chatting to his friends with his radio and said "we have a contact front" and remained standing there. Obviously the Iraqi's noticed a bunch of people standing in the road pointing at them so they opened fire, the American said something like "they are shooting at us, let's get in to cover" probably directed at the news guy. We then saw the News guy sitting in a fox hole looking quite bored, "Well the American special forces are bringing in airstrikes, we've been here for about and hour now etc." Anyway, from what i've heard the British are being all nice and lovely to the citizens of Basra - just wait till they get drunk!<span id='postcolor'> I`ve seen something like that,too. The special forces were behind an earth wall, saying stuff like "Where is he? Where is he?" While there was fire from one distant MG. They were totally mixed up, almost panically calling in airstrikes, taking cover here and there as if in immediate danger. Â Geeeeze, there`s one MG somewhere firing in the distance and the GIs begin to piss their pants when air support is not there at once. The funny thing about that incident: the kurd fighters were sitting and standing everywhere totally relaxed and laughing at the US "Special Forces". What I`ve seen so far from the British Forces is very good. Good fighting from what you hear and they behave professional in the field and nice towards the civilians when not fighting. A whole different matter than the US Forces. That`s the way a soldier should be. Brits, you can be proud of your boys, even if they fight in that stupid war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jinef 2 Posted April 4, 2003 I don't know how the Americans can call this whole Lynch escapade good, and that she is a hero? Have they forgotten that due to the overly swift punch towards Bahgdad and the US military not scouting and holding terrain were the main reason for this convoy being attacked. Oh but of course it would be safe if it didn't come down to a good load of American style incompetence when it comes to map reading! How the American media has a memory span of a goldfish is amazing! I'm just going to continue posting things about where the military screws up. I'm not going to bother with friendly fire, i'm sure i got boring in the first gulf war! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 04 2003,10:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know how the Americans can call this whole Lynch escapade good, and that she is a hero?<span id='postcolor'> It`s good for her and her family she`s back. But she`s no hero. She just happily survived the tactical mess that left the US back lines uncovered. Hero is an often used word in the USA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted April 4, 2003 3 civillians killed at checkpoint south of Bagdad. US marines shot at a car coming in towards their checkpoint. 3 people were killed. One was a kid 4 years old. The power failure in Bagdad was probably caused by Blackout bombs used by coaltion. These cluster bombs release carbone strings wich disable power plants and other electric installations. The assumption that Saddam has ordered to cut off power makes no sense as the Iraqi forces are not NV equipped and a well lit city at night would make it easier for his forces to engage the NV equipped coaltion forces. For sure the coaltion forces will not admit the useage as they did with the marketplace bombings and the clusterbomb useage in Nasirija and Basra. Funny commet. A US marine blew two toes off when he stepped on a clusterbomb bomblet in Basra (town area). An accident that is impossible to happen if you follow the coaltion briefings as they tell they don´t use them in urban areas. Well the two toes maybe tell a different story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bernadotte 0 Posted April 4, 2003 I have a few questions regarding the present and future military tactics being employed by the US/UK forces in Iraq: <ul>[*]Have the allies started bulldozing or blowing up the thousands of Iraqi civilian homes and apartment buildings situated in potentially strategic locations so that they will not be used by Iraqi snipers? [*]Do the allies intend to locate and demolish the family home of Iraqi suicide bomber, Sergeant Ali Jaffar Moussa Hamadi Al-Nomani, to discourage other such attacks? [*]Do the allies plan to construct strategic settlements where hundreds of thousands of Americans and Brits can live in air conditioned luxury alongside poor Iraqi villagers? [*]Do the allies plan to connect these settlements with new secure highways that only Americans and Brits will be able to use? [*]Will the allies prohibit a UN observer force from setting foot in Iraq? [*]Will the US/UK veto any and all UN resolutions aimed at criticising any of the above tactics? ...just curious. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 04 2003,11:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">[*]Do the allies plan to construct strategic settlements where hundreds of thousands of Americans and Brits can live in air conditioned luxury alongside poor Iraqi villagers?<span id='postcolor'> Should be a hit in UK. People could leave their foggy and cold island and come down to Iraq to get wasted and party. Cheap Iraqi poontang would of course be available.... Seriously, though, your sarcasm is nasty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 04 2003,12:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have a few questions regarding the present and future military tactics being employed by the US/UK forces in Iraq: <ul>[*]Have the allies started bulldozing or blowing up the thousands of Iraqi civilian homes and apartment buildings situated in potentially strategic locations so that they will not be used by Iraqi snipers? [*]Do the allies intend to locate and demolish the family home of Iraqi suicide bomber, Sergeant Ali Jaffar Moussa Hamadi Al-Nomani, to discourage other such attacks? [*]Do the allies plan to construct strategic settlements where hundreds of thousands of Americans and Brits can live in air conditioned luxury alongside poor Iraqi villagers? [*]Do the allies plan to connect these settlements with new secure highways that only Americans and Brits will be able to use? [*]Will the allies prohibit a UN observer force from setting foot in Iraq? [*]Will the US/UK veto any and all UN resolutions aimed at criticising any of the above tactics? ...just curious.<span id='postcolor'> LOL and all dribble. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 4, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 04 2003,11:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The assumption that Saddam has ordered to cut off power makes no sense as the Iraqi forces are not NV equipped and a well lit city at night would make it easier for his forces to engage the NV equipped coaltion forces.<span id='postcolor'> CentCom has confirmed that they blew the power out so that they could conduct recon within the city. What they didn't mention is that they destroyed the water distribution system as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites