The Iraq thread 4

[SFWanabe 0]

Quote[/b] ]War is a costly thing in all aspects of life.

War is how power hungry people like bush get oil...........

[Tovarish 0]

Just read this long but interesting article dealing with the reasons the Iraqi Air Force was a complete no-show this time around (The coalition obviously expected some sort of last stand from them - remember those Patriot missile friendly fire incidents). Quite a few interesting tidbits of information such as:

Quote[/b] ]Certainly, the dictator still had good reasons to suspect elements within the IrAF of disloyalty. Barely a year later, on 30 September 2002, a MiG-23 that took off from the al-Bakir AB (better known as "Balad SE" in the West), to take part in a bombing exercise, suddenly turned away towards the Tharthar lake, where Saddam and his entourage were staying in the luxurious al-Tharthar Palace. Approaching the area undisturbed the pilot was shot down by the palace guards, using a MANPAD, before he could hit the palace building. The pilot ejected and the plane crashed with its bombs still strapped to their racks. He was arrested and brought to Saddam Hussein, who interrogated him personally for some time. Meanwhile, several Mi-25 and BO.105 helicopters of the IrAAC brought in additional bodyguards to the area and then attacked and strafed the local fishermen on the Tharthar Lake – before many of them were arrested as well. Finally, the al-Bakir AB was closed and all the commanding officers arrested as well: Saddam interrogated the injured MiG-23 pilot in front of them, and then burned him to death. But this was not the end of Saddam's wrath. All the commanding officers at al-Bakir were eventually executed.

While it is impossible to describe the human tragedy of many similar cases, they all vividly illustrate the relationship between the Iraqi dictator and the former Iraqi Air Force, and also explain his security paranoia: if Saddam wanted to survive, he had to keep the IrAF on a very short leash. Clearly, this could not help improve the war-fighting capabilities of the Iraqi air defences at all.

Read in full here

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]And as the latest news show it´s just another US military investigation stunt as it seems. The two Italian officials that participated in the investigation refused to sign the US military investigational report. Surprising ?

So maybe it´s you who shouldn´t rush to conclusions billybob.

erm...taken from my old post soon after the article was posted:

Quote[/b] ]MPH is the only problem

Again, it is the MPH that is the problem in which I already posted. The article gives the illusion that they agree with majority of findings.

Just like in the movie "Enemy of the State":

Quote[/b] ]US satellite recorded checkpoint shooting, shows speed of Italian car

CBS Fri Apr 29,12:28 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US satellite reportedly recorded a checkpoint shooting in     Iraq last month, enabling investigators to reconstruct how fast a car carrying a top Italian intelligence official and a freed hostage was traveling when US troops opened fire.

The report, which aired Thursday on CBS News, said US investigators concluded from the recording that the car was traveling at a speed of more than 60 miles (96 km) per hour.

Giuliana Sgrena has said the car was traveling at a normal speed of about 30 miles an hour when the soldiers opened fired, wounding her and killing Nicola Calipari, the Italian agent who had just secured her release from a month's captivity.

US soldiers said at the time of the March 4 incident that the car approached at a high rate of speed and that they fired only after it failed to respond to hand signals, flashing bright lights and warning shots.

The conflicting accounts were among a number of differences that have prevented US and Italian authorities from reaching agreement on what happened.

CBS, citing     Pentagon officials, said the satellite recording enabled investigators to reconstruct the event without having to rely on the eyewitness accounts.

It said the soldiers manning the checkpoint first spotted the Italian car when it was 137 yards (meters) away. By the time they opened fire and brought the car to a halt, it was 46 yards (meters) away. CBS said that happened in less than three seconds, which meant the car had to be going over 60 miles an hour.

CBS said Italian investigators refused to accept that the Americans were justified in shooting so quickly, arguing among other things that the checkpoint was not properly marked.

[Wilco 944]

Quote[/b] ]And as the latest news show it´s just another US military investigation stunt as it seems. The two Italian officials that participated in the investigation refused to sign the US military investigational report. Surprising ?

So maybe it´s you who shouldn´t rush to conclusions billybob.

erm...taken from my old post soon after the article was posted:

Quote[/b] ]MPH is the only problem

Again, it is the MPH that is the problem in which I already posted. The article gives the illusion that they agree with majority of findings.

Just like in the movie "Enemy of the State":

Quote[/b] ]US satellite recorded checkpoint shooting, shows speed of Italian car

CBS Fri Apr 29,12:28 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US satellite reportedly recorded a checkpoint shooting in     Iraq last month, enabling investigators to reconstruct how fast a car carrying a top Italian intelligence official and a freed hostage was traveling when US troops opened fire.

The report, which aired Thursday on CBS News, said US investigators concluded from the recording that the car was traveling at a speed of more than 60 miles (96 km) per hour.

Giuliana Sgrena has said the car was traveling at a normal speed of about 30 miles an hour when the soldiers opened fired, wounding her and killing Nicola Calipari, the Italian agent who had just secured her release from a month's captivity.

US soldiers said at the time of the March 4 incident that the car approached at a high rate of speed and that they fired only after it failed to respond to hand signals, flashing bright lights and warning shots.

The conflicting accounts were among a number of differences that have prevented US and Italian authorities from reaching agreement on what happened.

CBS, citing     Pentagon officials, said the satellite recording enabled investigators to reconstruct the event without having to rely on the eyewitness accounts.

It said the soldiers manning the checkpoint first spotted the Italian car when it was 137 yards (meters) away. By the time they opened fire and brought the car to a halt, it was 46 yards (meters) away. CBS said that happened in less than three seconds, which meant the car had to be going over 60 miles an hour.

CBS said Italian investigators refused to accept that the Americans were justified in shooting so quickly, arguing among other things that the checkpoint was not properly marked.

Can wait to see how this turns out, I wonder what she is going to say about it when they find out that the car was infact traveling faster then 30mph(if it was).

Satellite recordings don't lie

[theavonlady 2]

Can wait to see how this turns out, I wonder what she is going to say about it when they find out that the car was infact traveling faster then 30mph(if it was).

Satellite recordings don't lie  

Just remember her original musings about the joyride they were having until the got stopped by the bullets:

Quote[/b] ]The car kept on the road, going under an underpass

full of puddles and almost losing control to avoid them. We all

incredibly laughed. It was liberating. Losing control of the car

in a street full of water in Baghdad and maybe wind up in a

bad car accident after all I had been through would really be

a tale I would not be able to tell.

- "My Truth"

[denoir 0]

Can wait to see how this turns out, I wonder what she is going to say about it when they find out that the car was infact traveling faster then 30mph(if it was).

It's quite simple. If it was going the speed the US claims it was, then there's no way in hell the soldiers could have

1) Shouted

2) Waved flashlights

3) Fired warning shots in the air

before opening fire on the car. If it took three seconds from the point they spotted the car until they opened fire on it, then there's no way in hell those in the car were properly warned.

[theavonlady 2]

Can wait to see how this turns out, I wonder what she is going to say about it when they find out that the car was infact traveling faster then 30mph(if it was).

It's quite simple. If it was going the speed the US claims it was, then there's no way in hell the soldiers could have

1) Shouted

2) Waved flashlights

3) Fired warning shots in the air

before opening fire on the car. If it took three seconds from the point they spotted the car until they opened fire on it, then there's no way in hell those in the car were properly warned.

Keep trying.

Quote[/b] ]U) At approximately 2050 hours, Specialist Lozano saw a car approaching the on-ramp, approximately 140 meters from his position. (Annexes 79C, 134C, 144K). Specialist Lozano, holding the spotlight in his left hand, shined his spotlight onto the car before it arrived at the Alert Line. (Annexes 79C, 85C). At this time, Sergeant Domangue acquired the vehicle’s headlights and saw the spotlight shining on it. He then focused his green laser pointer onto the windshield of the car as it reached the Alert Line. (Annexes 87C, 129C). Both Specialist Lozano and Sergeant Domangue perceived the car to be traveling in excess of 50 mph (and faster than any other vehicles that evening). (Annexes 79C, 87C, 129C, 134C).

(U) The car crossed the Alert Line still heading towards the Soldiers’ position without slowing down. Specialist Lozano continued to shine the spotlight, and shouted at the vehicle to stop, a fruitless effort, but an instantaneous reaction based on his training.

30 UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

(Annexes 85C, 130C). Without slowing down, the car continued toward the Warning Line with the spotlight and laser still on it. (Annexes 79C, 87C, 129C).

(U) The car continued to approach at a high rate of speed, coming closer to the Soldiers than any other vehicle that evening. (Annexes 79C, 87C, 129C). When the car got to the Warning Line, Specialist Lozano, while still holding the spotlight in his left hand, used his right hand to quickly fire a two to four round burst into a grassy area to the on-coming vehicle’s right (the pre-set aiming point) as a warning shot. (Annexes 79C, 87C, 125C, 129C, 134C).

(U) The vehicle maintained its speed as it went beyond the Warning Line. (Annexes 77C, 79C, 81C, 83C, 129C, 131C, 132C, 133C). Staff Sergeant Brown, a New York City Police Officer trained in vehicle speed estimation, estimated the car was traveling at 50 mph and believed that it would not be able to stay on the road around the curve at that speed. (Annex 83C). Specialist Lozano dropped the spotlight and immediately traversed his weapon from his left to his right, without having to move the turret, to orient on the front of the car. With both hands on the weapon, he fired another burst, walking the rounds from the ground on the passenger’s side of the vehicle and towards the car’s engine block in an attempt to disable it. (Annexes 77C, 79C, 81C, 83C, 87C, 129C, 131C, 132C, 133C). The rounds hit the right and front sides of the vehicle, deflated the left front tire, and blew out the side windows. (Annexes 104C, 105C, 132C, 1I).

Source: Full report. Note that classified information was clumsily leaked by the US military in the original PDF file.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]War is a costly thing in all aspects of life.

War is how power hungry people like bush get oil...........

It also the way for the MJ-12 to create the New World Order. By getting the US to attack every country and put there own people in charge, we are one step closer to it.

It's conspiracies all along.

[Baphomet 0]

Quote[/b] ]Can wait to see how this turns out, I wonder what she is going to say about it when they find out that the car was infact traveling faster then 30mph(if it was).

Satellite recordings don't lie

It's entirely too convenient for the military to take a grainy sattelite image and say "Yeah, we have sattelite images, but we're not going to show you. You'll just have to trust us. Like you did when the U.S government told you all that Saddam had WMD... You'll just have to take it on faith, that we wouldn't lie or exercise overzealous undisciplined force".

How many insurgent attacks happen per month? How many individuals are killed at checkpoints in iraq per month?

Taking the report from avon as an unchallenged fact is a little more than irresponsible being as that it's more or less known that the goverment and military have shown they'll lie to get their way.

However denior has, a point. In the course of three seconds. There was no time to warn anyone adequately.

[ralphwiggum 6]

2 yrs ago  

CNN article 2yrs ago: http://www.cnn.com/2003....ex.html

of course some standard reply from some would be that the banner was put on by the USS Lincoln's crew, not by the administration, or he only meant that major combat was over, not the whole war and did say that it's a still long road ahead.

[Wilco 944]

[ig]http://www.crosslink.net/~closeout/vets/mission-accomplished.jpg[/ig]

2 yrs ago  

CNN article 2yrs ago: http://www.cnn.com/2003....ex.html

of course some standard reply from some would be that the banner was put on by the USS Lincoln's crew, not by the administration, or he only meant that major combat was over, not the whole war and did say that it's a still long road ahead.

It was over in the fact that the enemy we went to war with was finished, not the insurgency that boiled up after the war.

How is this relevant to the recent news about the italian hostage?

[FerretFangs 0]

It was over for that massive crew, who had put in a lot of "overtime", and deserved some recognition, and perhaps a little personal attention from a grateful CINC.

[ralphwiggum 6]

[ig]http://www.crosslink.net/~closeout/vets/mission-accomplished.jpg[/ig]

2 yrs ago  

CNN article 2yrs ago: http://www.cnn.com/2003....ex.html

of course some standard reply from some would be that the banner was put on by the USS Lincoln's crew, not by the administration, or he only meant that major combat was over, not the whole war and did say that it's a still long road ahead.

It was over in the fact that the enemy we went to war with was finished, not the insurgency that boiled up after the war.

How is this relevant to the recent news about the italian hostage?

this is Iraq thread, not Italian hostage discussion only thread. furthermore, it was 2 years ago today, so even more relevant.

also, don't forget to take image out from quotes per forum rules. I editted your post.

the enemy might be dead, but the false WMD argument is a historical fact now.

[FerretFangs 0]

And obviously, sometimes the ends DO justify the means.

[ralphwiggum 6]

but that end has yet to come, and don't even have any idea how it will turn out to be.

[FerretFangs 0]

I know Saddam and sons isn't causing anymore mass graves to be filled.

[ralphwiggum 6]

but just as many are getting killed everyday. instead of secretly getting dragged and burried, now they are bombed on open street.

It seems like the pro-war crowd is forgetting that same Hussein they despise did the atrocities while US was supporting him through Iraq-Iran war. now that the false pretense is blown, they are saying 'but Hussein was a dictator!' and when it is pointed out that he was a monster made by US, they say 'that's why we are going in!'.

it is hilarious that those crowds think we are doing a heroic job of getting rid of the evil dictator, when all we are doing is paying debt to Iraqis for supporting the same dictator. in other words, we should be apologetic to Iraqis for turning our eyes away when mass graves were piling up, and paying the debt to Iraqis. when we are doing this going around and killing people, acting holier-than-thou is not the way to go.

[FerretFangs 0]

It's just as honorable to clean up ones own mess. You can't say that no good has come of this war, simply because Saddam and sons have been served. You can't simply ignore that fact and cram the genie back i the bottle. It's already history.

[ralphwiggum 6]

gloating as if you are doing a world of favor is not honorable, but despicable. one good out of this war is that it clearly showed what a mediocre decision making was done on TBA's part. it was two years ago when pro-war crowds were chanting 'Iran next, then Syria then North Korea' so far they are still stuck in Iraq. you can't ignore that fact.

[theavonlady 2]

pro-war crowds were chanting 'Iran next, then Syria then North Korea'

Do you have a video of these chanting crowds?

[FerretFangs 0]

I'd like to know who was "gloating", as well. I was simply stating facts.

[ralphwiggum 6]

not really, but when you are on internet discussion forums long enough, they tend to say those things. don't play dumb avon. you know that there were those who called for an attack on the axis of evil + syria for 'hiding' Iraq's WMD

on the similar note,

[ralphwiggum 6]

I'd like to know who was "gloating", as well. I was simply stating facts.

Quote[/b] ]And obviously, sometimes the ends DO justify the means.

Quote[/b] ]I know Saddam and sons isn't causing anymore mass graves to be filled.

Quote[/b] ]You can't say that no good has come of this war, simply because Saddam and sons have been served. You can't simply ignore that fact and cram the genie back i the bottle. It's already history.

[FerretFangs 0]

Nope, no gloating there. It's all fact.

[ralphwiggum 6]

let's say NY Mets beat Boston RedSox. then they go around saying 'We beat the Boston.' to Bostonians. It's statement of fact, but also gloating.

gloating - A feeling of great, often malicious, pleasure or self-satisfaction.