The Iraq Thread 2

[Frisbee 0]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. The Apache didn't have infantry support ready. If they had doodled around for an hour, someone could have snuck up behind and RPGed it in the tailpipe.

Ok,let me rephrase it.

It would be better if there were more men on the ground to handle these kind of things,for all sides.

But seeing how the us resources are stretched already,and the un isn't about to be allowed to take command,there won't be a solution anytime soon.

Quote[/b] ]That's very nice of you to put more lives at risk but I can understand US forces declining the suggestion.

True,but you can't keep peace or disarm rebel groups if you're holed up in bunkers,and only get out when you're in a relatively cushy gunship.

(all of the above,imo,these aren't facts as far as i know)

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]...or disarm rebel groups if you're holed up in bunkers,and only get out when you're in a relatively cushy gunship.

You want to bet? An Apache can do a pretty good job at disarming rebels.

[turms 0]

i cant believe that some people in here are advocating the "shoot first, then ask" principle. You just cant justify this incident, no matter how you twist it.

I agree.

What do you agree with?

What's twisted now?

Why is this a case of shoot first, ask later, when we're dealing with weapons drop-offs during war time?

First you have to prove that it is infact a weapon. You have failed to convince me that it IS a weapon, shooting around everything that might be a weapon is not the answer to uphold order.

[theavonlady 2]

i cant believe that some people in here are advocating the "shoot first, then ask" principle. You just cant justify this incident, no matter how you twist it.

I agree.

What do you agree with?

What's twisted now?

Why is this a case of shoot first, ask later, when we're dealing with weapons drop-offs during war time?

First you have to prove that it is infact a weapon. You have failed to convince me that it IS a weapon, shooting around everything that might be a weapon is not the answer to uphold order.

I don't have to do anything. You've got the problem. Not me.

edit: g'nite folks! 10:50PM here. Tomorrow is another day!

[Cephalid 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]With killing, you just generate more hate, makes your live even more difficult.

Do you speak on behalf of the Iraqis who have lost their own people and help from the UN and Red Cross because of these anti-Coalition (more: anti-Iraqi) assailants? I wonder......

Who wants to establish peace and stability?

I give up. Why don't you tell us.

Well, as far I can remember the Americans occupied the Iraq, to remove SH and his WMD's. So it is up to them.

So do you now establish peace and stability by allowing Baathists back into power or by letting mostly imported extremists blow you up?

Make up your mind. What do you want? I bet you anything that the majority of Iraqis are not happy with their pipelines being sabotaged, their police stations being blown up and relief organizations being scared away. The less the coalition deals with these attackers, the worse it will get.

Have I mentioned somewhere that you should allow this? What I was saying is, you should try to keep the loses on the Iraqi side as low as possible, because every dead men is a reason more to fight against Americans.

But as Ran mentioned before, you should try to win their hearts, but may be it is already to late for that.

It seems to me as they are adopting the same strategy as the Israelis with the Palestinians and I can't see any success there. Well in Israel they can may solve there problem with the fence they are building, but that's something the Americans can't do in Iraq. But that’s another topic, which doesn't belong in here.

Edited:

Edit removed and posted in a new post.

[Cephalid 0]

edit: g'nite folks! 10:50PM here. Tomorrow is another day!

Reminds me that I am hungry.

[joltan 0]

Ok, I just saw the long version. Now, what can be seen, what happens in what order? Here's a short overview:

It shows a pickup driving up to a truck that is parked besides a field. A man get out and talks to the one next to the truck. He takes something out of the truck that (to my eyes) resembles a long and thin object that is wrapped in a cloth. Maybe a rifle, maybe a shovel, maybe something completely harmless. He runs into the field and throws it away and immediately returns to the car. Then the second man runs into the field and places something else in the field. A smaller object it seems (like a vase, a bomb or something completely different). He also immediately returns to the cars, where the other is sitting in the pickup now.

<cut>

Again we see the two man standing besides the pickup, one runs back into the field, not sure wether he picks something up again. he returns, they stand next to the cars, then one of them walks into the field where the tractor has arrived at about the place where they dumped the first thing. The chopper starts to shoot, but something is wrong (gun pointed in the wrong direction???), and the men on the ground don't seem to react. The man reaches the tractor, the driver gets out and the man starts to pull a cloth out from under the tractor. Most likely the one where the first 'thing' was wrapped into. At that moment the tractor driver gets smoked on his way to the truck, then they kill the guy at the tractor and then they wait for movement near the truck. The guy there peeks out from under the truck, they open fire, and a short moment afterwards he comes crawling out slowly. They finish him off.

First: the two men act suspicious, but that depends on the interpretation.

Second: The 'tube' is thin, much too thin for a missile. It may be a rifle or a spade, but that can not be determinded as its definitely wrapped in cloth.

Third: At no moment is there any weapon visible, no matter what the pilots say.

Fourth: The guy arriving in the tractor is most likely just a framer working his field.

Fifth: There is a cut inbetween, and while the time can't be too long (At least the farmer doesn't work a single row more on his field inbetween) we do not know what happened.

Sixt: After the cut the second 'object' I saw is no longer visible.

Conclusion: We don't know what happened inbetween the cuts, what the object they were throwing away was, etc. But there was no danger for that chopper, nor did they seem to be armed apart from what they threw away - and what we do not know if it was a weapon at all. The farmer seems to be unrelated to what the others are doing, but maybe they know each other. He leaves the tractor without hesitation.

I see no reason why they had to kill them. Arresting them would have been more sensible if they really were resistance fighters. Also they didn't pose an immediate threat to the chopper. Murdering the wounded is a war crime, whether he was a resistance fighter or a civilian.

[Longinius 1]

Quote[/b] ]The more you're lax, the more they'll resort to strengthening their attacks. You're just offering them incentive.

Yes, and the more you opress or strike at a people, the harder they fight back. Living in Israel, you should know this. Giving the enemy hope and a chance at a better life is the only way to stop them from striking back.

Terrorists and geurilla fighters, no matter where in the world, lose as soon as they do not have the support of the population. And they lose the support as soon as the population feels safe and has hope. As long as the population lives in terror of their liberators / government the opposition will be able to work efficiently.

[Longinius 1]

According to Joltans description, isnt it quite possible that they were actually there to maybe fix something on the tractor? Or the farming equipment attached to it?

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/oneill_charges_040113.html

Quote[/b] ]Jan. 13— President Bush ordered the Pentagon to explore the possibility of a ground invasion of Iraq well before the United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, an official told ABCNEWS, confirming the account former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill gives in his new book.

The official, who asked not to be identified, was present in the same National Security Council meetings as O'Neill immediately after Bush's inauguration in January and February of 2001.

"The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces," the official told ABCNEWS. "That went beyond the Clinton administration's halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force."

In The Price of Loyalty, O'Neill says that from the very start of his administration, Bush was focused on ousting Saddam. Bush says that his policy at the time was merely a continuation of the Clinton administration's stance. White House aides have suggested O'Neill, whom Bush fired in December 2002, is merely trying to sell books.

Both the official who spoke to ABCNEWS and O'Neill have acknowledged that Bush had not yet made up his mind for a ground invasion at the start of his administration, but they say officials were told to find ways to get rid of the Iraqi leader.

"Getting Hussein was now the administration's focus, that much was already clear," O'Neill says in his book.

Defense Secretary Rumsfeld disputed O'Neill's account today. "I don't know what meetings he could have been in," Rumsfeld told reporters during a Pentagon briefing.

Classified Documents?

A briefing paper for O'Neill — and obtained exclusively by ABCNEWS — directed him to work on "keeping Saddam's finger off the trigger" by stopping imports of military technology. The Treasury Department is now investigating whether O'Neill took classified documents for the book. He says he did not.

"I don't honestly think there's anything that's classified in those 19,000 documents," O'Neill said on NBC's Today Show today.

Regardless of whether the book uses classified documents, it has been a headache for the White House. O'Neill insists he did not intend to cause the president any embarrassment.

[joltan 0]

According to Joltans description, isnt it quite possible that they were actually there to maybe fix something on the tractor? Or the farming equipment attached to it?

They act suspiciously, that's a fact. But wether they are resistance fighters, criminals or wether it just LOOKs that way can not be determined from the images.

[toadlife 3]

Whats so startling about that story? Isn't it prudent to have contingency plans?

Edit: This is regarding the story you posted Ralph. THis video debate is clogging up everything.

[Cephalid 0]

The American have definitely a policing job in Iraq, at least since the day GW announced that the war is over. This of course involves that SH and his supporters are hunt and arrested. But this can’t be done the Wild West way, see who shoots first.

As police you are allowed to shoot, when your live is in direct danger, what was not given as everybody could see in this tape. Can you imagine the impact this will have on the Iraqi people, should they finally discover, that these guys were bringing some tools to do some repairs or likewise. You always have to take this possibility into account, if you want to keep the good mood up.

Of course policing is associated with greater danger, but for any length of time, you have the greater chance of winning the support of the local population. They need to see that you take your job serious and they don’t have to live in fear of you. Once you won their support, it will be difficult for resistive combatant to hide and find assistance. These combatants even have to live with the fear of being betrayed.

[NavyEEL 0]

Facts: The three Iraqis were involved in preparing an ambush for American forces. An AH-64D Apache crew disposed of all three of them, as well as their vehicles.

Okay regardless of whether it was "right" to kill that other man, or whether ground forces should have been brought in, these are the facts. Dispute them all you want, but this is what happened.

Now, as far as the role of Apaches and "policing"... it is rather difficult to capture someone when you are in an ATTACK helicopter that has only two seats--both of which are occupied. Since ground forces were nowhere in the area, they could not have come in to capture the men themselves. Why were there no ground forces in the area? Well I still don't have an official answer for that, but my only guess is that it wouldn't seem to smart to send in ground forces to eliminate their own ambush. If they are planning to ambush ground forces, send in aircraft... If they are planning to attack air forces, send in ground forces... etc. It's basic military strategy.

And this wasn't a "police" mission... it was an attack mission to eliminate the threat that these men posed to American ground forces. Hence why they used the Apache... the "A" in AH-64 does stand for Attack. The pilots did have a clear objective, and they completed it. It's not like they just decided to kill these men for the hell of it.

[Cephalid 0]

Facts: The three Iraqis were involved in preparing an ambush for American forces.  An AH-64D Apache crew disposed of all three of them, as well as their vehicles.

Okay regardless of whether it was "right" to kill that other man, or whether ground forces should have been brought in, these are the facts.  Dispute them all you want, but this is what happened.

Now, as far as the role of Apaches and "policing"... it is rather difficult to capture someone when you are in an ATTACK helicopter that has only two seats--both of which are occupied.  Since ground forces were nowhere in the area, they could not have come in to capture the men themselves.  Why were there no ground forces in the area?  Well I still don't have an official answer for that, but my only guess is that it wouldn't seem to smart to send in ground forces to eliminate their own ambush.  If they are planning to ambush ground forces, send in aircraft...  If they are planning to attack air forces, send in ground forces... etc.  It's basic military strategy.

And this wasn't a "police" mission... it was an attack mission to eliminate the threat that these men posed to American ground forces.  Hence why they used the Apache... the "A" in AH-64 does stand for Attack.     The pilots did have a clear objective, and they completed it.  It's not like they just decided to kill these men for the hell of it.

OK.

I still think a SWAT team would have been the better response.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Whats so startling about that story? Isn't it prudent to have contingency plans?

Edit: This is regarding the story you posted Ralph. THis video debate is clogging up everything.

read carefully, it implies that TBA was more willing than merely follow what TCA had in mind. IT is insufficient to prove that TBA wanted to go to war, but it definitely does not look good when TBA claimed WMD to be the reason for Iraq war.

[NavyEEL 0]

OK.

I still think a SWAT team would have been the better response.

Agreed! I'm sure a SWAT team would love an all-expense paid vacation to Iraq.

[Balschoiw 0]

I don´t like to quote myself but chit chatting and total bullshit brought me to do it.

I would really be happy if someone actually reads it !!!

NavyEel where do you get these facts you speak of from ?

Quote[/b] ]

We see the back of tractor here. Attached to tractor you see seeding machine. You also see that tractor already did some rows as traces are visible on ground. The driver hops off as soon as man runs up to tractor. The other man rounds tractor and goes to engine from the left. camera now fixes on man going away from tractor and he gets killed. Now the camera swings back and what you see is that the man who went to left side of tractor pulls a blanket or jacket from the drivers cabin of  the tractor.

In my opinion it is understandable that if there was an issue with the tractors engine the mechanic would have placed a blanket under the tractor to avoid the dirt and make a comfortable working place. Why he pulls it out will remain his secret, but maybe he didnt see the consequences of firing on other man and wanted to get the blanket to put out fire caused by 30 mm and wanted to aid the other man. Remember, it was night and the man at tractor didnt see that the other one literally exploded.

Edit:

Another interesting thing: The pickup truck is not manned there is noone in. After big truck got hit you see a heat signature in the left window of pickup. This is only the heat reflection from burning big truck. Pilot falsely assumes that a person is in truck after that.

Another question I´d like to ask. If there were any missiles why didnt the pilots destroy them ? Does not make much sense to kill the people and leave the supposed weapons untouched.

2nd edit: watched it again and you see man at left of tractor already pulling jacket or blanket out of drivers cabin before the first man gets shot. Watch it again. You see it for a short moment.A stored AA or RPG in the cabin is unlikely if you know the measure of that rockets.

The ammo type used by Apache for 30mm gun is either

HE or HEDP (high-explosive dual-purpose) ammunition.

Both ammunition types have high explosive capacity. If there were any rockets, mortars AA´s on back of pickup truck you would have seen that by ignition or partial burst or high heat emission. None of that could be seen.

I´ve seen several trucks, pickups, technicals pumped by Apaches in Somalia live. They looked pretty different when they got hit and carried RPG or heavy ammo types. Firearms ammo crackles up maybe not instantly but it will. There was no trace of all that in video. Even a slight ammo explosion would have been very visible. This goes for the men hit also.

The temperatures caused on impact of HE ammo no matter if HE or HEDP is extremely high.

Yeah and I want to know where they placed a mine or an IED ?

Neither do I see shovels, nor do i see a crate where they put in the IED, nor is the place a lively convoi route (looks like a one way agricultural way to me), nor is there any cover where they could place an IDE and finally where is that mystic IDE ?

Wouldn´t it have been better to destroy it as well ? Why has this not be done ?

This explanation looks very jerky to me as none of it´s content can be verified with video.

The men on the pics would be total idiots if they placed an IDE in open terrain without shovels or digging equipment with a farmer nearby cultivating his land...

And sure...they will meet up with 3 vehicles although they know there is tight air surveilance above them since day number 1 of GW2.  

I guess this will be another incident that the pentagon says will be "investigated" like hundreds else.

Anyone from the US here knows where they publish these results as the first should really be finished by now ?

There were a lot of that cases but untill today I haven´t seen any result of the "investigations". It´s more likely coverup than investigation.

And for the intel:

Yes the US intel in Iraq is always the best and always real...

especially in Iraq.

I can remember more innocent people getting killed by false intel in this war than sucessfull missions based on US intel.

Come over it. Words, nothing but words. Still that won´t bring up love within Iraqi´s hearts. But hell who cares, it´s the american way.

Tactics have changed from "shoot first, ask later" to "shoot first, don´t ask questions, we are investigating it"  

EDIT:

Another thing I have to say also is how quick people here jump over an argument as they see that they are wrong. I´m typing my fingers off to get you informed about 30 mm HE effects or the way tractor behaved or the way people moved, or the conclusion that they didn´t have rifles and such and it is just ignored. You skip  it when you see that you can´t make a point anymore and dig it in.

A discussion runs different. That´s kind of stupid.

I want your answers on all that. I am in military for a really long time, have been to several peacekeeping/enforcing missions. Have seen multiple vehicles go up, people die etc.

If you are not interested in what I say tell me. To ignore the things I said is as plain stupid as going to war with Iraq for the WMD reasons.

Ignorance does not make intelligent and smart.

And for you Avon. Don´t ask questions if you are not interested in answers and prefer to run away if they don´t fit your assumptions.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]I still think a SWAT team would have been the better response.

A little bit impractical . Besides, I think SWAT teams aren't really trained in dealing with RPGs.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]RPG

Yeah sure...RPG wherever it was...

Ah well we found some RPG in Bagdad, let´s toast some people for that.

There was no RPG !!!

I´m sure within the next 5 minutes someone will come up and tell us that they were developing WMD´s on the acre.

[NavyEEL 0]

I don´t like to quote myself but chit chatting and total bullshit brought me to do it.

I would really be happy if someone actually reads it !!!

NavyEel where do you get these facts you speak of from ?

Quote[/b] ]

We see the back of tractor here... ...A discussion runs different. That´s kind of stupid.

I want your answers on all that. I am in military for a really long time, have been to several peacekeeping/enforcing missions. Have seen multiple vehicles go up, people die etc.

If you are not interested in what I say tell me. To ignore the things I said is as plain stupid as going to war with Iraq for the WMD reasons.

Ignorance does not make intelligent and smart.

I will read it!!! I read every post when I am involved in a discussion such as this... how else can you make a valid argument, or understand where other people are coming from? I won't be able to post for a while though, as I have some duties to finish up first. I will post later tonight, once my work is finished, and hopefully I can clear up any issues.

[Cephalid 0]

Quote[/b] ]I still think a SWAT team would have been the better response.

A little bit impractical . Besides, I think SWAT teams aren't really trained in dealing with RPGs.

Well when you have an M1 as protecting device around you, it will be quite a strong argument to drop your RPG and surrender.

Good night to everybody.

[Balschoiw 0]

Interesting study of the US Army war college.

All the theoretical invaders should have a look:

Quote[/b] ]

Army War College study blasts U.S. war on terrorism

Mon January 12, 2004 04:16 PM ET

(Page 1 of 2)

By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Iraq invasion was "an unnecessary preventive war of choice" that has robbed resources and attention from the more critical fight against al Qaeda in a hopeless U.S. quest for absolute security, according to a study recently published by the U.S. Army War College.

The 56-page document written by Jeffrey Record, a veteran defense expert who serves as a visiting research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College, represents a blistering assessment of what President George W. Bush calls the U.S. global war on terrorism.

Pentagon officials on Monday said Record was entitled to his opinion, but reiterated Bush's view that Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terrorism.

Record urged U.S. leaders to refocus Bush's broad war to target Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America, and its allies. Record said the Iraq war was a detour from real anti-terrorism efforts.

Record criticized the Bush administration for lumping together al Qaeda and President Saddam Hussein's Iraq "as a single, undifferentiated terrorist threat."

"This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action," Record wrote.

"The result has been an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable al Qaeda," Record wrote.

Faculty at the Army War College, an academic institute run by the Army since 1901, produce analyses of military and national security issues, with scholars encouraged to take a critical look a existing policies.

Lawrence Di Rita, the top Pentagon spokesman, said, "There's no question he's entitled to his views."

"People are publishing stuff all the time. That's the value of kind of having people throw analysis out there. You learn even from analysis you don't agree with. I don't even want to characterize it as something I don't agree with because I just haven't read it," said Di Rita, adding that he does not know if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld plans to read the document.

Record faulted the administration for fusing disparate enemies such as rogue states, terrorist groups and weapons of mass destruction proliferators into a monolithic threat.

In doing so, he said, the administration "may have set the United States on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the United States."

Record said the administration's declared goals "are unrealistic and condemn the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security," as well as being fiscally, politically and militarily unsustainable.

These goals include destroying al Qaeda and other such transnational groups, making Iraq a stable democracy, bringing democracy to the rest of the autocratic Middle East, ending terrorism as a means of irregular warfare, and stopping proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to real and potential enemies, Record said.

In an interview, Record took issue with the very concept of a war on terrorism.

"Terrorism is a common noun. It's a technique. How do you make war on terrorism as opposed to specific terrorist organizations?" Record asked.

"I don't think that it is within America's power to rid the world of terrorism. ... The idea that you're going to be able to expunge this form of warfare from the world, I think, is really stretching it."

Douglas Lovelace, head of the Strategic Studies Institute in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, where Record works, said the report "should enter into the debate or at least be considered by those who are formulating strategy and policy.

Well it´s an US expert with miltary knowledge.  Do you need more to start your thinking process ?

Source:

Reuters

Quote[/b] ]does not know if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld plans to read the document.

That´s really nice. Rumsie needs a plan to read a document with 56 pages.  

[bn880 5]

Holy molly, I have just watched that AH64 video myself, what I would like is a list of you who think this is normal procedure, I'll keep that as a reference when I want to know who's who here.

This is what I will say: too much training to make them think it's a video game, not a drop of reasonable thought coming from the pilot. This is exactly the kind of stuff I know is happening in Iraq, well we all know. Even civilians get this treatment regularly, basically: Damn, someone shot an RPG at US, we don't know where from so lets blow up this civilian vehicle.

[Balschoiw 0]

Meanwhile in US peaced Iraq:

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A car bomb exploded outside a police station in central Iraq Wednesday, killing five people and wounding nearly 30, while the U.S. military said it had captured one of Saddam Hussein's top lieutenants.

Denmark said initial tests showed mortar shells found buried in Iraq this month did not contain any chemical substances as originally suspected, and the Pentagon said a growing proportion of U.S. military deaths in Iraq were due to suicide.

On the political front, U.S. Governor Paul Bremer's administration in Baghdad signaled it was striving to meet demands, particularly by top Shi'ite Muslim cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for a more democratic handover of power to Iraqis.

Near Saddam's home town of Tikrit, attackers killed two Pakistanis and a Turk, firing into trucks they were driving in a convoy carrying U.S. military supplies, Iraqi police said.

The U.S. military said five people were killed and 29 hurt in the car bombing in the restive town of Baquba, about 40 miles north of Baghdad. Many victims were Iraqi police.

 RELATED ARTICLES

FACTBOX-U.S. Most Wanted List of Iraqis

 

There were conflicting reports on whether it was a suicide attack.

CONFLICTING REPORTS

Police said they had seen a person driving the car and believed he had strapped his foot to the accelerator. Witnesses said a green car charged toward the main gate of the police compound and detonated in front of police and passers-by.

But a U.S. military spokeswoman said the car had been packed with grenades and mortar bombs and was detonated remotely. U.S. forces defused two other car bombs found in the area, she said.

NOW read this properly again !!!

Quote[/b] ]Denmark said initial tests showed mortar shells found buried in Iraq this month did not contain any chemical substances as originally suspected, and the Pentagon said a growing proportion of U.S. military deaths in Iraq were due to suicide.

Short version : No WMD´s , nono. And US soldiers are pretty happy with their job down there