The Iraq Thread 2

[FSPilot 0]

I'm getting tired of this.  People who weren't there are instead sitting in their homes placing judgement on the coalition forces in Iraq.  Completely ignoring the fact that this was a relatively bloodless conflict, completely ignoring the fact that it was over in a matter of weeks, and only focusing on the minute amount of bad things that happened.

If you're not an A-10 pilot, I don't want to hear a word out of your inexperienced self talking about all the mistakes a real A-10 pilot made.  If you're not a general I don't want to hear a word out of you about how a general should of done this and not that.

You people seem to forget that you're sitting in front of a TV or computer screen and watching this, you're not experiencing it.  You don't even know half the story and you're not in a position to judge these people.

[Tovarish 0]

If you're not an A-10 pilot, I don't want to hear a word out of your inexperienced self talking about all the mistakes a real A-10 pilot made.  If you're not a general I don't want to hear a word out of you about how a general should of done this and not that.

You people seem to forget that you're sitting in front of a TV or computer screen and watching this, you're not experiencing it.  You don't even know half the story and you're not in a position to judge these people.

By the same token you shouldn't talk about those subjects either, and that would kind of kill the purpose of this thread. Very ironic of you of all people to be bringing up this argument. After all, you were an expert on the circumnstances leading up to the Cuban Revolution. Batista's great democracy and all that

[booradley60 0]

I'd like to hear some opinions about how the Iraq conflict is going to affect the US presidential election next year. Honestly, I'm afraid of giving my own in fear of being downcast by everyone here representing the epitome of righteousness.

[FSPilot 0]

If you're not an A-10 pilot, I don't want to hear a word out of your inexperienced self talking about all the mistakes a real A-10 pilot made.  If you're not a general I don't want to hear a word out of you about how a general should of done this and not that.

You people seem to forget that you're sitting in front of a TV or computer screen and watching this, you're not experiencing it.  You don't even know half the story and you're not in a position to judge these people.

By the same token you shouldn't talk about those subjects either, and that would kind of kill the purpose of this thread. Very ironic of you of all people to be bringing up this argument. After all, you were an expert on the circumnstances leading up to the Cuban Revolution. Batista's great democracy and all that

Which I believe I apologized for. It'd be nice if you accepted it and quit bringing it up.

[Tovarish 0]

Which I believe I apologized for.  It'd be nice if you accepted it and quit bringing it up.

That's really neither here or there but as I remember you simply brushed it off and apologized in general to anyone you had pissed off...which from what I recall on the last Iraq thread were not just one or two.

I'm simply pointing out that restricting discussion to topics on which we're all experts would result in considerably lower post counts. We all have opinions, and forums like these are the places to air them. If you don't like that, don't read them. I've lost count of the number of people (in addition to myself) who've posted something to the effect of "bangs head agaist wall" after trying to debate something with you. Yet you're still free to air your opinions and that's fine and dandy. Now you're the one feeling frustrated about an argument and want to shut us up because we're not qualified to have an opinion? Thats a laugh .

[FSPilot 0]

I'm not talking about airing your opinion on anything.

What's pissing me off is people who don't know what they're talking about insulting other people. Whether they have a right to do it or not doesn't matter, it still pisses me off.

[Tovarish 0]

Whether they have a right to do it or not doesn't matter, it still pisses me off.

Quite honestly, in the past you've had that effect on me, and if I'm not mistaken I'm not the only one. Welcome to the club.

[FSPilot 0]

So people talking about things which they know nothing about has no effect on you? Doesn't seem like it to me. Certainly you don't have a double standard do you?

[Tovarish 0]

So people talking about things which they know nothing about has no effect on you?  Doesn't seem like it to me.  Certainly you don't have a double standard do you?

...it's amazing how you do that....take a post and  seemingly ignore anything you might not like...and somehow out of thin air construe a message from that post that the poster never intended and seems only apparent to you.

Ok...let's try to make this clear...somehow I doubt it will get across to you, but alas, I can only hope.

YOU of all people, being offended by people "talking about things which they know nothing about" is at best highly ironic. I dismiss any UNSUPORTED  argument, and I will sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with an argument which is REASONABLY WELL SUPPORTED.  Sometimes people get pissed off during arguments. Tough, suck it up, and try to argue in a civilized and coherent manner.That's the essense of debate.

Get it? if you do, good, if not, I eagerly await to be fascinated by what you'll construe from this post.

[Major Fubar 0]

Just because you aren't an expert on a subject doesn't mean you don't have a right to comment on it.

I'm not a mechanic, but I feel justified to comment if my mechanic does a shitty job of repairing my car.

Simlarly, I've never flown a jet or driven a tank, but I still feel justified to question the USAs disproportionately large friendly kill ratio.

And this has been an issue back to the last gulf war and even earlier. After the debacles in GW1, you'd think a LOT of training and preparation would have been put into avoiding these kind of incidents this time around. Face facts, the competency of these pilots DOES need to be questioned.

[Warin 0]

I am only going to say this once:

People are entitled to their opinions. If you can discuss differences of opinion trationally, then everything will be good.

If flaming or name calling results, people will be taking vacations from the forums.

Please be civil. We dont all think alike, but it is refreshing to find civility among people even when they dont agree.

Thank you.

[FSPilot 0]

Tovarish

Quote[/b] ]YOU of all people, being offended by people "talking about things which they know nothing about" is at best highly ironic. I dismiss any UNSUPORTED argument, and I will sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with an argument which is REASONABLY WELL SUPPORTED. Sometimes people get pissed off during arguments. Tough, suck it up, and try to argue in a civilized and coherent manner.That's the essense of debate.

Ok, now let's review my post.

YOU, being a person who has been repeatedly pissed off at me for not knowing what I was talking about, are apparently not pissed off at this other guy who is talking about something he knows nothing about. Now it looks like a double standard to me, but of course it isn't right?

Major Fubar

Quote[/b] ]Just because you aren't an expert on a subject doesn't mean you don't have a right to comment on it.

I'm not a mechanic, but I feel justified to comment if my mechanic does a shitty job of repairing my car.

Simlarly, I've never flown a jet or driven a tank, but I still feel justified to question the USAs disproportionately large friendly kill ratio.

Apples and oranges. You drive your own car, so you've got real first hand knowledge of how well it's driving and therefore how good a job the mechanic did at repairing your car. FallenPaladin, on the other hand, is knocking some A-10 pilot for a friendly fire incident. Now I'm sure it's a safe wager that FallenPaladin has never flown an A-10, or possibly even any type of airplane, especially in combat.

I respect his right to voice his opinion on anything, but I'm not going to get chewed out for not knowing what I'm talking about while someone else goes right ahead with it.

Anyway, back on topic.

Quote[/b] ]And this has been an issue back to the last gulf war and even earlier. After the debacles in GW1, you'd think a LOT of training and preparation would have been put into avoiding these kind of incidents this time around. Face facts, the competency of these pilots DOES need to be questioned.

Questioned? Maybe. Insulted? No.

I do think the USAF needs to start some type of friendly fire training program to get these numbers down though.

[Tovarish 0]

Ok, now let's review my post.

YOU, being a person who has been repeatedly pissed off at me for not knowing what I was talking about, are apparently not pissed off at this other guy who is talking about something he knows nothing about.  Now it looks like a double standard to me, but of course it isn't right?

No....see, there has been reasonable support to the argument that the US has a friendly fire problem. For example, the fact that in GW1 and GW2, British armor was attacked by US aircraft. British aircraft also flew a significant number of missions, and so far they haven't killed any US tanks. While the fact that this is an indication of a problem is debatable, there is something to debate, with valid arguments on either side.

Now what you do, if not simply making up facts to suit your argument, such as the "Military Coup" of the Cuban Revolution or the overthrown "Democracy" of Batista - is simply repeat the same "facts" over and over again - such as the "fact" that Go-pills caused the friendly fire incident involving Canadian troops and US Pilots. A fact which is only supported by the pilots and their defense lawyers, and which has been dismissed by the USAF and by US and Canadian military inquiries. The first example is ridiculous, and it did indeed piss me off. The second has support of very little credibility at best.I acknowledge that there is an extreemely small posibility the pilot is just a scapegoat and it was his command that was at fault and the Go pills make you homicidal and reckless...but your parroting that "fact" as the cause given that it's the story of the pilots and their lawyers vs. the findings of both militaries is mildly annoying.

[Major Fubar 0]

Quote[/b] ]Just because you aren't an expert on a subject doesn't mean you don't have a right to comment on it.

I'm not a mechanic, but I feel justified to comment if my mechanic does a shitty job of repairing my car.

Simlarly, I've never flown a jet or driven a tank, but I still feel justified to question the USAs disproportionately large friendly kill ratio.

Apples and oranges.  You drive your own car, so you've got real first hand knowledge of how well it's driving and therefore how good a job the mechanic did at repairing your car.  FallenPaladin, on the other hand, is knocking some A-10 pilot for a friendly fire incident.  Now I'm sure it's a safe wager that FallenPaladin has never flown an A-10, or possibly even any type of airplane, especially in combat.

I respect his right to voice his opinion on anything, but I'm not going to get chewed out for not knowing what I'm talking about while someone else goes right ahead with it.

OK, I kinda see your point...but...even forgetting the example I gave, people certainly have a right to comment on the competency of others even if they have never "walked a mile in their shoes", so to speak. How about a surgeon that screws up an operation - should only other doctors be allowed to question his competency? How about a truck driver who wipes out a station wagon and the family in it through poor driving - should only those with 18 wheel driving experience be allowed to criticise his driving?

But taking your line, maybe you shouldn't comment on how Saddam ran his country, unless you've ever run a country yourself!  

But Warin is right - we all have a right to express our opinions. We have a right to criticise trigger-happy, amphetamine pumped, gung-ho pilots, and you have a right to criticise us for criticising them...

[FSPilot 0]

Major Fubar

Quote[/b] ]OK, I kinda see your point...but...even forgetting the example I gave, people certainly have a right to comment on the competency of others even if they have never "walked a mile in their shoes", so to speak. How about a surgeon that screws up an operation - should only other doctors be allowed to question his competency? How about a truck driver who wipes out a station wagon and the family in it through poor driving - should only those with 18 wheel driving experience be allowed to criticise his driving?

In my opinion, yes.

I learned a lot about flying when I took ground school courses. But when a class was held up by a crash investigation outside I didn't chime in with my opinion on the matter. Just because you have an opinion and you have a right to voice it doesn't mean you're right in criticising it.

Quote[/b] ]But taking your line, maybe you shouldn't comment on how Saddam ran his country, unless you've ever run a country yourself!

To be fair I don't think I ever criticised Saddam on running his country Just for killing people, which we've all been in a position to do but hopefully haven't done it.

Quote[/b] ]But Warin is right - we all have a right to express our opinions. We have a right to criticise trigger-happy, amphetamine pumped, gung-ho pilots, and you have a right to criticise us for criticising them...

And you have the right to criticise me for criticising those who criticise them.

Tovarish

Quote[/b] ]No....see, there has been reasonable support to the argument that the US has a friendly fire problem. For example, the fact that in GW1 and GW2, British armor was attacked by US aircraft. British aircraft also flew a significant number of missions, and so far they haven't killed any US tanks. While the fact that this is an indication of a problem is debatable, there is something to debate, with valid arguments on either side.

Now what you do, if not simply making up facts to suit your argument, such as the "Military Coup" of the Cuban Revolution or the overthrown "Democracy" of Batista - is simply repeat the same "facts" over and over again - such as the "fact" that Go-pills caused the friendly fire incident involving Canadian troops and US Pilots. A fact which is only supported by the pilots and their defense lawyers, and which has been dismissed by the USAF and by US and Canadian military inquiries. The first example is ridiculous, and it did indeed piss me off. The second has support of very little credibility at best.I acknowledge that there is an extreemely small posibility the pilot is just a scapegoat and it was his command that was at fault and the Go pills make you homicidal and reckless...but your parroting that "fact" as the cause given that it's the story of the pilots and their lawyers vs. the findings of both militaries is mildly annoying.

And what about FallenPaladin spouting "facts" about friendly fire incidents? He hasn't shown me any sources, certainly no first hand experience.

[Tovarish 0]

And what about FallenPaladin spouting "facts" about friendly fire incidents?  He hasn't shown me any sources, certainly no first hand experience.

Why would he have to? He was merely stating his personal opinion on the nature of the A-10 pilot, and US military personel in general based on discussions we've had on these forums about the high incidence of FF the US military seems to suffer from. The supporting arguments can be found in this and other threads. I wouldn't reinvent the wheel either - given tham it's generally widely accepted here that there IS a problem - the most debatable part is who's responsible, how to fix it, and how big a problem it really is.

[FSPilot 0]

Tovarish

Quote[/b] ]Why would he have to? He was merely stating his personal opinion on the nature of the A-10 pilot, and US military personel in general based on discussions we've had on these forums about the high incidence of FF the US military seems to suffer from.

I'm upset at his comments about the A-10 pilot. I've already said that the US military has a problem with friendly fire.

[Tovarish 0]

I'm upset at his comments about the A-10 pilot.  I've already said that the US military has a problem with friendly fire.

Cool, we got that. I've been upset about things you said too. I'm just saying it happens. It dosen't justify telling everyone to shut up on the subject. Debate it with him if you like, or ignore him, or tell him his comment was over the top. In short - deal with it. No need to try to censor topics.

[MLF 0]

The question is do US Pilots have training on Friendly nations vehicles and not just there own. i know British RM commandos use a crude but effective method of identifying russian Vehicles ie BMPs and also Warrior APC's etc etc, the other question is are those Bright Orange tarpalin as i can best desribe it effective.

[ralphwiggum 6]

i'm sensing that this thread will go offtopic. this thread is about Iraq war and its aftermath. please do not drive this thread offtopic.

[FSPilot 0]

Tovarish

Quote[/b] ]Cool, we got that. I've been upset about things you said too. I'm just saying it happens. It dosen't justify telling everyone to shut up on the subject. Debate it with him if you like, or ignore him, or tell him his comment was over the top. In short - deal with it. No need to try to censor topics.

I didn't tell anyone to shut up about it.  I told them I didn't want to hear it.  Told him that his comment was over the top.

MLF

Quote[/b] ]The question is do US Pilots have training on Friendly nations vehicles and not just there own. i know British RM commandos use a crude but effective method of identifying russian Vehicles ie BMPs and also Warrior APC's etc etc, the other question is are those Bright Orange tarpalin as i can best desribe it effective.

Well in Iraq (*cough*on topic*cough*) most US, and probably all coalition vehicles I'd imagine, had an IR display on their side so an airplane using an IR sensor (most AGM-65 "Maverick" sensors are IR, FLIR sensors too) would see this and identify it as friendly.

what i think needs to be done is teaching everyone who holds a weapon what friendly equipment looks like.  i dont know if this is being done in the US today, but there needs to be some sort of training to help soldiers, pilots, tank crews, identify what they're aiming at before they shoot it.  i dont want to be flying a hog one day and see "16" on my RWR and wonder if it knows i'm friendly.

[FallenPaladin 0]

FallenPaladin, on the other hand, is knocking some A-10 pilot for a friendly fire incident.  Now I'm sure it's a safe wager that FallenPaladin has never flown an A-10, or possibly even any type of airplane, especially in combat.

I respect his right to voice his opinion on anything, but I'm not going to get chewed out for not knowing what I'm talking about while someone else goes right ahead with it.

Anyone who knows that the A10 is a slower aircraft to destroy tanks should know (from theory of course) that the visibility has to be better in an A10 than in a F15 flying faster and higher. That leads to a better possibility of identifying the target which should anyone with it`s finger on the trigger do before shooting. The A10 pilot failed in his first run on the British tank, either because he was unqualified or had some other problems... (or he just ignored the fact that it was a british tank) , but then he did his second attack run. Now you tell me that I don`t know what I`m talking about and that I should shut up, while a A10 pilot does a second attack run at a friendly target. Who`s not knowing what he does? That pilot when he did his second was either totally incompetent or ignored that his target was British because he wanted to blow something up like in the movies. It`s very hard to find any "positive" reasons for that A10 pilot firing at that british tank. FSPilot, explain us based on your experience and knowledge why he attacked this friendly tank with the British flag on it driving in a British convoy. What made him do so?

Now I`m really interested!

[FallenPaladin 0]

And what about FallenPaladin spouting "facts" about friendly fire incidents?  He hasn't shown me any sources, certainly no first hand experience.

The A10 incident is a "fact". Then there is Balschoiws post where he points out those gunship pilots who wanted to blow up friendly tanks, too. If Balschoiw writes something like that I take it for granted because he surely is the one here on the forums with the most experience when it comes to military and field experience. If you want more FF incidents use google.com, because if I listened them here it would just be biased and ignored by you.

[Schoeler 0]

FallenPaladin, I think where you are pissing the Americans on this forum off the most is with your failure to make the distinction between the pilot's wanting to blow up "friendly" tanks and the pilot's wanting to blow up "enemy" tanks that he failed to identify as friendly(through lack of training, an overly aggressive attitude, go pills, or some as yet unidentified reason). Clearly, if the man is sane, he thought he was shooting at the enemy. Why he couldn't identify the tanks as friendly, I don't know, but it happened.

I don't think any of those pilots intended or desired to kill friendly forces, they wanted to kill the enemy, and for some reason believed the friendly forces were the enemy. No American in his right mind wants to kill an ally and if he did, he would most certainly go to prison for it.

[Major Fubar 0]

Yeah FP, the pilot was obviously stupid, not evil!