The Iraq thread 4

[Akira 0]

How large is that sign? 100m is basically an American football field length...how the hell am I suppose to read that sign a football field away...unless I have binoculars with me.

So basically I have to get within their 100 meters to read the sign that warns me to stay 100 meters back...at which point I'm blasted. And what about cars ahead? To the side? Is the sign plastered all over the vehicle?

Just askin' cause I really don't know...

[Daniel 0]

Yep, very Akira.

I guess it would become common knowledge to stay away from convoys once the first few drivers have been shot at. Obviously we don't know the facts (even the media), everyone is just specualting, but what other means of keep a convoy safe are there? Convoys are targeted by insurgents, so this seems like a necessary precaution.

EDIT: Well said Lt Pheonix.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Convoys are always going to be great targets for insurgents - it goes without saying.

But then it's extremely likely that anyone on CP is going to be under fire, and probably have to kill someone (note that "someone").

Sure, it's nice asking people to stay away from convoys on their roads in their own country, but accidents happen.

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that CPs can go to Iraq and not expect to have to kill someone (or try to, anyway). Thus the definition of a mercenary as someone kill someone is rather accurate. It's gonna happen. if you wanna be paid to kill someone, join the army (or rejoin) as it's infinately more legal and you get trained for it. The problem with that is I imagine that a large number (not a large proportion per se) of civilian security men in Iraq are ex-soldiers who left the military under a cloud.

You ask me, the whole thing stinks in every possible way...

[Messiah 2]

How large is that sign? 100m is basically an American football field length...how the hell am I suppose to read that sign a football field away...unless I have binoculars with me.

So basically I have to get within their 100 meters to read the sign that warns me to stay 100 meters back...at which point I'm blasted. And what about cars ahead? To the side? Is the sign plastered all over the vehicle?

Just askin' cause I really don't know...

only on the rear of the vehicles i believe...

so yes, would be hard to spot from 100m BUT seeing as CP operators have been in the country for over a year if not longer, it would be common knowledge not to approach

[ralphwiggum 6]

In a nutshell, US miltary has been engaging in active PR warfare in Iraq. It's argument was that the story of truth had to get out and it was doing it.

Here's a funny thing. Isn't Iraq's mediaalready free to do things as they wish?

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/5454573/detail.html

Quote[/b] ]WASHINGTON -- Military officials in Baghdad for the first time Friday described a Pentagon program that pays to plant stories in the Iraqi media, an effort the top U.S. military commander said was part of an effort to "get the truth out" there.

The U.S. officials in Iraq said articles had been offered and published in Iraqi newspapers "as a function of buying advertising and opinion/editorial space, as is customary in Iraq."

The idea has been criticized in the United States, and John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to the Pentagon Friday for an explanation. President George W. Bush's spokesman said the White House was "very concerned."

Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Iraq, said that third parties -- which would include the Washington-based Lincoln Group -- were used to market the stories to reduce the risk to the publishers.

"If any part of our process does not have our full confidence, we will examine that activity and take appropriate action," he said in a statement. "If any contractor is failing to perform as we have intended, we will take appropriate action.

He also defended the program as critical to the war effort.

"The information battlespace in Iraq is contested at all times and is filled with misinformation and propaganda by an enemy intent on discrediting the Iraqi government and the coalition, and who are taking every opportunity to instill fear and intimidate the Iraqi people," his statement said.

Leaving a Pentagon meeting with Defense Department officials in Washington, Warner, R-Va., said the program was a serious problem.

But Warner told The Associated Press that, "Things like this happen. It's a war. The disinformation that's going on in that country is really affecting the effectiveness of what we're achieving, and we have no recourse but to try and do some rebuttal information."

And Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that, "We want to get the facts out. We want to get the truth out."

Warner met with chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita and members of Pace's staff, but only bumped into Pace on his way out of the building.

Meanwhile, a Pentagon spokesman said Friday it was not clear whether the program violated the law or Pentagon policy, a Defense Department spokesman said Friday.

"You can do something perfectly legal, but that is inconsistent with the policy or procedures of the department. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the right thing to do," said spokesman Bryan Whitman.

He said the department is still gathering information on the matter.

Warner initially requested a Capitol Hill briefing for the committee, but committee spokesman John Ullyot said those plans were changed "at the Pentagon's request."

Whitman said the department was still gathering information about the program and the multimillion-dollar contracts that included paying Iraqi newspapers and journalists to plant favorable stories about the war and the rebuilding effort.

"We don't have all the facts," he said, including whether or not defense officials in Iraq knew exactly what was happening or whether they believed any of it was improper.

Military officials in Iraq say the program is a critical tool on the Iraq battleground.

"The purpose of this program is to ensure factual information is provided to the Iraqi public," Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman, said in Iraq.

But Congress members and the White House have expressed concern.

"A free and independent press is critical to the functioning of a democracy, and I am concerned about any actions which may erode the independence of the Iraqi media," Warner said earlier.

One of the companies involved -- the Washington-based Lincoln Group -- has at least two contracts with the military to provide media and public relations services. One contract, for $6 million, was for public relations and advertising work in Iraq and involved planting favorable stories in the Iraqi media, Defense Department records show.

The other Lincoln contract, which is with the Special Operations Command, is worth up to $100 million over five years for media operations with video, print and Web-based products. That contract is not related to the dispute over propaganda and was not for services in Iraq, according to command spokesman Ken McGraw.

The Lincoln Group shares that Special Operations contract with SYColeman, a division of L-3 Communications, and Science Applications International Corp., a San Diego-based defense contractor.

The program came to light just as Bush released his strategy for victory in Iraq. It includes the need to support a "free, independent and responsible Iraqi media."

"We're very concerned," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "We are seeking more information from the Pentagon."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., characterized the program as a scheme that "speaks volumes about the president's credibility gap. If Americans were truly welcomed in Iraq as liberators, we wouldn't have to doctor the news for the Iraqi people."

[chops 111]

The point that "it would be common knowledge to stay away from convoys" is ridiculous in the extreme. Killing people because you've got a sign on the back of your car.

If the contractors are "just trying to stay alive", they should go home now.

[Messiah 2]

again... thats your opinion

i'm asuming you know that sticking you finger in the plug socket will have some bad results?

i'm asuming you know that diving into a frozen lake naked will have some bad results?

i'm asuming putting your face into a blender will have some bad results?

I'm asuming yourself holding a gun up at the police would have some bad results?

How long after 9/11 did it take you to remember not to take sharp objects to the airport? Almost instantly i'd guess? How close were you to the sign in the securty area of the airport when you realised that? I'm guessing not within 100miles.

are those rediculous assumtions to make of you?

I'm asuming then, that these people who've lived with the new laws, CP workes and military that have come with this 'occupation' would by now (after what... two years or so?) have learnt/been told/realised that approaching a convoy isn't a wise decision. Although i agree that they probally could have chose other actions, than just aiming at the driver - shooting the wheels etc?

again... perhaps its SOP to shoot at the driver, in the same way British SO19 shoot for the body because it's the largest part to aim for, even though it is more likely to cause death with all the major organs there... him or you is one way to look at it.

[NurEinMensch 0]

Disgusting really!

Let me come to your country, put a sign at the back of my car and start shooting people who get too close. Wonder how long it takes your people to learn...

[Messiah 2]

im not going to argue with ignorance... you've skimmed over all my points in favour of posting utter nonsense in rebuttle to a point that has seen many good points for and against it... Next time, sit back, think, and then, and only then, post.

[Daniel 0]

Don't bother Messiah, it's not worth it. Many of your points arn't even being referenced too. Even whe you try to make it clear you are just voicing an opinion. Nevermind mate.

[lwlooz 0]

Yeah,don't bother Messiah. Who cares about human lifes these days anyways.Its bad enough that those "crazy" car-driving Iraqis give those mercs a hard

day at work,now they are even criticized for possibly shooting innocent civilians.What has this world come to really , full of weakos.

*Sarcasm off

[Messiah 2]

seriously... is that what you deem a sensible and mature way to argue a point... try using the preview button and read how dumb you sound.

At no point have i devalued human life (removed). I've said my points, and the sensible part you could play (although you, like so many of this forum, are most likely incapable of literate, well though out, discussion, and find it necessary to attempt a whitty, but rather embarrasing comment).

I've discussed both for and against the events shown on that video, stating where i agree and dont agree with the actions. I, like any normal, free thinking person, also feel that any loss of life in those incidents is tragic, but i also feel that as per usual, the full story hasnt come across, and the usual bashers on these forums feel that they have a duty to shout bloody murder on a subject they have little evidence, or justification to comment on.

Perhaps you support the insurgents and their attempts to destabalise their own country, killing men and women who are there, not always because they support their governments, but because they have job to do, and many firmly believe they are helping people in Iraq. These, let me remind you, are the same insurgents that feel taking christian peace workers as hostage, an acceptable course of action.

like Daniel also wrote, i am, and was always, merely voicing my opinion on the matter, how we have no way of knowing the true nature of those incidents and why they occured - what's to say that before the camera was turned on, the same vehicle had begun shooting at the convoy? Exactly... nothing. I feel that the people who came on these forums and started moaning and crying about something that may not even have occured is just as disgraceful as what some of you think i'm saying.

it's amazing, in our day and age, that expressing ones opionion is met with such one tracked, simple minded stupidty as yourself, clearly shown by your inability to formulate but one intelligent and worthwhile comment. Grow up.

(edited to remove expletifs and ranting - am in a rather foul mood today after work)

[Jinef 2]

I always enjoyed the hard callous attitudes enjoyed by the people sitting at home in soft comfy chairs with soft hands and well maintained cocks.

We all understand the average infantry's attitude about the press and the enemy and these civilian contractors:

The Press:

"The press should fuck off until the job is complete and not compromise our operational security. By reporting things in real time they give the enemy effective AAR so they can adopt their tactics to better kill me. They release speculations on our plans leading to us getting ambushed and killed. I know people who have been killed by the press."

The Enemy:

"The Enemy can be any colour, any race or anyone. If I am told to kill him I will, with hatred. The enemy can be Iraqi, British, American, French, German, Russian, Chinese, South African and I will not give a fuck. My job is to kill and ensure my unit survives. I will fire my weapon on anyone I am told to by my superiors despite how much I trust their judgement. It is not my job to question, I must fix the enemy and then destroy him."

Civilian Contractors:

"What a bunch of fucking idiots, the world will be better off without people of such stupidity. We do not have choice but to be here and to kill. They do. One section who does not have a radio can fuck up an entire company plan. Having a platoon strength of people running around playing soldier without any formal links to our forces and our plans are a big compromise. Stick them on checkpoint duty as that is all they can be trusted with, better them get killed than us. Fuck em."

Not what you were expecting?

It is not your job (A bunch of civilians) to analyse the military tactics. It is your job to read the wonderfully acute media, and decide if you want to have your money being spent on a conflict. I certainly don't, I would rather pay for healthcare and housing personally.

Don't be fooled, your little opinions on how the Army kills people will not really deter it. If WP is one way to psycologically destroy the enemy by killing civilians and burning them alive the military will have a go at it. Why not?

The military sees these rules on torture and weapon limitations only as a problem if they are caught using them

Of course then the opinion becomes, oh of course we don't endorse that kind of behaviour, some NCO will get knocked down to private and we will ensure this tragic mistake never happens again. You really might be suprised as to what kind of weaponry the militaries have on readiness to be used .... it would sicken you civilians.

As you know my opinion is always idealist and left winger, trying to spend money on healthcare and housing and other stupid things like that. However my opinion also contains a hard dose of reality. We should avoid killing people but when we do start to do it this is how it should be done.

Toodles.

[Messiah 2]

nicely said

[Jinef 2]

Messiah -

Lwlooz is German and looking at it from a neutral perspective.

Quote[/b] ]"Perhaps you support the insurgents and their attempts to destabalise their own country, killing men and women who are there, not always because they support their governments, but because they have job to do, and many firmly believe they are helping people in Iraq. These, let me remind you, are the same insurgents that feel taking christian peace workers as hostage, an acceptable course of action."

Your either with us or your against us argument eh?

How original.

Looz is slightly disgusted with the whole 'civilians conducting war for money' idea. What is the price of human life?

Would you kill someone for money? A life as a hitman? Looks cool in the movies but these people are doing it for real and when finally someone decides they are legitimate targets you get all hot around the collar because they happen to be your nationality ...

Isn't the value of life equal, as they keep teaching us; or is that exempt when people who are being fucked in the arse turn around to give us a problem?

Edit: I have played with looz for 2 years thus I am biased as I spring to his defence. Objectively speaking life has less value than the cost of the cheapest food as we let thousands starve every day. It's always nice to have a nice little rant sprouting the fairy tale line occasionally though.

[Daniel 0]

Sorry for being slightly off-topic, but I have to say:

Wow.

What a sobering page of posts.

Anyway, continue guys. My opinions on the subject shift with every post, it's umbelievable how many different viewpoints there are.

[Messiah 2]

Jinef, fair enough - but i rather he attempt to communicate his perspective in a mature manner, rather than just slating and criticising something he doesnt agree with - surely if he added his own views, he'd add to the discussion, not detract? Granted i could have held myself back from going for the jugular so quickly

surely the army is no different then? You get paid, among other things, to take human life. My nationality has nothing to do with it, i'd even go as far as saying you havn't the faintest idea what nationality i am. I'm not british, if that's what you believe - so i have a fairly neutral standpoint from the perspective - i do however have a friend who does this 'hired killer' work (as some of you like to put it) - he's not being paid to kill, he's being paid to protect life, as they all are.

not exactly the with us or against us argument, more the argument that the insurgents are hardly conducting themselves in a pleasant manner either (disregarding what the video does or doesnt show) - we're not discussing who the enemy is here, or who is right or wrong in fighting each other. I know i'd defend my country with life and limb if it came to it - thats not what's at question here - i was defending these CP workers over the cries of blood murder seeing as those videos are out of context and inconclusive.

The value of human life is indeed equal, but im not quite sure what this has to do with this. Im not criticising the insurgants for defending their home, but i am dubious about the methods they choose, and the people they take hostage. Human life is equal, but so is the right to defend your own. These insurgants, im sure, would be just as happy shooting the driver of a convoy vehicle.

{edit} noticed your addition - indeed, the value of human life is a hard one to ratify seeing as Uk food production is kept purpousfully low to keep prices artificially high for farmers, when that excess food could feed the starving - but we're verging off topic obviously... Please rant on, you additions and comments is most welcome and interesting - i'm quite enjoying this

[Jinef 2]

Messiah -

I noticed in another thread about computer game programming that you moved to the UK. However that is irrelevant as I interpreted your point of view to be British nationalistic "We need to have an empire again". Sorry for insulting your stature there :P

The Army is no different in that aspect when people join, obviously a few people enjoy the concept of killing people so they do join the Army. However basic training in the British Military thoroughly removes all aspects of politics from the lowest levels of the fighting units and strives to replace any apprehension about killing or indeed any desire to kill with desire to do the job (notice the irony). Fighting units need to fire their weapon quickly and accurately in order for the entire Army to be effective. If the fireteam does not work the Army does not work. The ideal rifleman/gunner has no political thoughts whatsoever. He simply follows his orders and pulls the trigger without hesitation.

It seems to me the US Military has yet to learn the value of seperation of politics from the fighting units, however they compensate with overall 'right wing' ideology which make it easier for US soldiers to kill. This allows recruitment of soldiers from higer education backgrounds to use more sophisticated weaponry and concepts. (I use the words right wing with caution as there is so much pre-loading in people's minds of what this consists of however please try to understand my use of it. It simply means more confidence in one's own ways and their lack of empathy with other's ways allowing easier 'pulling of the trigger'.)

The insurgents cannot be expected to conduct themselves in a pleasant manner as their former society by all western standards was not pleasant. The public and media can not expect the military to constantly maintain the moral high ground. Doing so will elongate the war and cause attritional defeat most likely.

It is far cheaper for the insurgents to salvage explosives and fire an AK47 than it is for the US to lose a US soldier with $10,000 of equipment in each IED. (Please do not take offense at my valuing of soldiers, yes in our societies they are immensely value due to their life and other social factors but in war they are given a value of combat power and equipment cost. This perception of value also leads to defeat as society cannot accept such great loss whereas the military can)

"These insurgents, im sure, would be just as happy shooting the driver of a convoy vehicle."

I am dubious as to if they would. (Sticking my neck out here)Through our media they learn that everytime a soldiers dies or someone 'serving' their country dies although suspected impact is always high, a politician comes on and nullifies the pain with all the patriotic spin neccessary to maintain a nation's willingness for war. Meaning that less value is placed on soldier's and combatants life than that of 'innocents'. Especially innocents from the West. The insurgents would much prefer to kill missionaries/aid workers/red cross personell as it furthers their objective to remove the western forces from Iraq.

In Vietnam in took 50,000 soldiers for the government to concede. However the media had less access to the war and it took longer for the public to react. In this heightened age of media it may take 10,000 combatant casualties and maybe 500 Western 'innocent' casualties to fully turn the public opinion.

Some of what I am saying proven facts of war and history, others are my opinion and perceptions of modern trends. They shouldn't be difficult to seperate

I hope this adds interesting ideas for you to all rip apart.

[Messiah 2]

Some of what I am saying proven facts of war and history, others are my opinion and perceptions of modern trends. They shouldn't be difficult to seperate

I hope this adds interesting ideas for you to all rip apart.

lol, i hope you dont think i just purpousfully rip things apart for my enjoyment

all very well said mate, although rather too much for me to digest at this hour (and the girlfriend is getting cranky that im still at the computer). I hope you dont mind, but i'll write a more solid and well founded reply in the morning when i have time, but i doubt there's much to be said, as i agree with pretty much all you've said.

thank you, though, for some very very interesting facts outlined in the first part of your post. Most enjoyable to read.

till tomorrow

[NurEinMensch 0]

im not going to argue with ignorance... you've skimmed over all my points in favour of posting utter nonsense in rebuttle to a point that has seen many good points for and against it... Next time, sit back, think, and then, and only then, post.

I don't expect you to argue. I expressed my feeling towards it, and nothing you had said before made me feel less disgusted.

If people feel the need to go to Iraq that's their decision. When they don't feel nice and comfy there, they should get back home, instead of making the whole deal worse. Whatever the reason for that shootout was, it shouldn't have happened in the first place, and it surely didn't make the situation better.

If you have to take such drastic measures to insure your safety, you're in the wrong spot.

[Jinef 2]

Just a mentionable note:

I feel it acceptable for you to have opinions on whether contractors/military forces should be there in the first place.

However when you see a 10 second clip without any context or if anything what a reporter "thinks" is happening I do not see any grounds for argument.

Military exercises are confusing, war is a whole lot more confusing. One of the large determining factors in any battle is which side is more confused. How reporters expect to independently decipher what is going on from a few hundred metres is a ridiculous notion.

What video clips show is a small fraction from one point in view in one place at one time. How people can look at them and start drawing up dissertations is quite absurd.

If you see a video tape of an Iraqi being shot you can draw one conclusion - someone is dead. What you may not see is the handgrenade, the trigger for the bomb, the can of fruit which looks like a grenade.

NurEinMensch -

Relative to the average scene in London or New York it is drastic. Just another usual day in occupied Iraq. If it disgusts you write a letter to your government representative detailing the war to be wrong and your country should oppose it publically. If you get the whole of Europe denying the UK and US trade, you will soon see a much more docile UK and US. Of course that won't happen as too much money is involved and everyone's country that sells Arms/Food to agressors is essentially aiding the war.

[jtec 0]

A quick post here from moi. Havent really read much into this but i thought i will give you my quick thoughts on the war. Its all to do with money and ego's plain and simple. I dont know how true the stats are of how many civilians have died (30000+) but its gonna be a bloody big number by the time the egotastic bush and blair pull out of the country.

Really disagree with this war and always have. I would never fight for England (may call me spineless or whatever but send the people who start the wars out there instead) as you just have to look at the old veterans to see how badly they have been treated for giving their lifes for this country.

I can understand why some people in Iraq are taking up arms and shooting back at allied soldiers. Think how you would feel if some other country came over to your country and started blowing the shit out of your town/city and killing friends and family? Would you sit there and watch everything you have be destroyed?

Maybe they should just change this "war on terror" to "war of terror"

[harley 3 1185 0]

No offense, jeftec, but I'm slightly confused.

I can understand your being opposed to the war (I also was against it from the start), as that's a common sense opinion. However, I'm intrigued as to why you'd "never fight for England". First off you'd be fighting for Britain, and you'd be fighting for your country - not the politicians. Are you saying that it Britain should go to war with China tomorrow, you wouldn't serve if the call came?

And I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't fight when you obviously must spend quite a bit of time playing on our very own military simulator, or be a part of UKF (whose team members are of a very high calibre). Unless you're of a religious persuasion where killing is totally abhorrent (and even Quakers signed up and did service in two World Wars), you would be made to fight anyway, simple as.

I worry indeed, that "The War on Terror" is a terrible misnomer, as it seems to have caused more terror than it has dissapated. "War against those whom the United States Government views as a Threat" may be more accurate, or "War to finish the mess we started in Iraq". Lord only knows how many civilians have died over there now, although I'm pretty sure that it's well over 30,000, and God only knows what the repercussions will be over the next decade, quarter century. We all know how Vietnam is seen today - i.e. not in the best eyes. We know how the situation in Iraq is already seen today, with nowhere near the level of commitment as was seen in South East Asia and after less than three years. How this will be spun out could affect us all for years to come...

[jtec 0]

No offense, jeftec, but I'm slightly confused.

I can understand your being opposed to the war (I also was against it from the start), as that's a common sense opinion.  However, I'm intrigued as to why you'd "never fight for England".  First off you'd be fighting for Britain, and you'd be fighting for your country - not the politicians.  Are you saying that it Britain should go to war with China tomorrow, you wouldn't serve if the call came?

And I find it hard to believe that you wouldn't fight when you obviously must spend quite a bit of time playing on our very own military simulator, or be a part of UKF (whose team members are of a very high calibre).

Not religious at all mate as that too is a thing that is problematic from past to present.

Just for the simple reason that im dead against taking someones life just because im am told to do so. Wars are always started due to someones ideology and im simply not a follower. Also as stated the veterans of past wars are treated like dirt here with younger generations having no respect for them, freezing to death at home due to not being able to afford fuel bills, being robbed by drug abusers (list goes on)

The only time i would fight is for my family and friends and that would then only be if their life is in direct danger.

And as for playing a war simulation, that is all i see it as. I do enjoy a good old blast of flashpoint and i know the difference between real life and a computer simulation.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Well, wars are not always started out of idealogy - World War II for example was fought due to the fact that if Germany and Japan were not defeated, alot of innocent people would have died anyway. The price the Allies paid going to war and securing victory had to be paid -in blood.

I agree that alas our pensioners and veterans are treated like s***, partly because we have governments who watch the bottom line all the time and just don't care, and partially because none of the scumbag yobs today have an inkling of what a good number of them went through; only our fathers or those of us who have seen combat will know what they endured in many cases. It's just basic ignorance.

Unfortunately many pensioners and veterans here in Britain have been so debilitated by the neglect shown to them by society (and no doubt they're absolutely dumbstruck by what Britain has become that they can't organise like veterans in America say - every time I go over there whatever time of year I can always see an old man with his VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) sidecap walking along the street, see bumper stickers saying "Corps veteran, WW2", read in the paper about another VFW organisation event and just feel the respect felt for veterans in general. I regret to say I just don't see that here except when the poppies come out. Our respect should just come for one day a year when we observe a two minute silence on Remembrance Day, yet that is what young people think.

Back on topic, slightly, I'm sure that many pensioners today look on the Iraq war and think "Why? Did we serve so that we could invade who we liked like Hitler and Tojo?" I'm pretty sure that those Great War veterans still around will remember Britain's own trouble-fraught invasion of Iraq and occupation on the tail-end of The Great War. What a pity they had to see it happen all over again.