E6Hotel

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,1203)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Those soldiers concluded that the van was being driven by a bomber. Â And now you've concluded that I saw your question as soon as you posted it and then spent the following 57 minutes trying to answer it. Â Â See how easy it is to jump to the wrong conclusions.<span id='postcolor'> Ah, but you're assuming that I assumed you spent all 57 minutes thinking about the question. Â At least I assume so. What were we talking about? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ April 02 2003,15:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wait , you set up a check point while you don't actually have anything like that around ? in the few french checkpoints i've seen more or less recently recently , there were most of the time a large panel of heavy weapons ready to be used if needed , things such as .50 Hécate rifles and FR-F2's but , i'm sure that even a trained m24 (or whatever 308 or equivalent rifle your army uses) could stop a car if trained to , a pick-up isn't an armored jeep , i doubt you'd need a SASR just to stop it<span id='postcolor'> Keep in mind that I'm not familiar with Army T/O's, so I don't know what weapons that have available.  I can tell you from the Marine Corps standpoint: In a Marine battalion there are a grand total of two SASR's and 8 M40's.  In addition, there are only 16 Marines authorized to fire those weapons.  A Bn CO won't give up his scout/snipers in the middle of a war to man vehicle checkpoints. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ April 02 2003,10:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I should note that this is my opinion from the knowledge I have, before some false-patriots start some verbal clash again. Funny enough that all my prior prognostics showed to be true  <span id='postcolor'> [Dr. Evil] Righhttt. [/Dr. Evil] How's that slaughter of "ALL I repeat ALL" inhabitants of Basra by the Royal Marines coming along?  Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ April 02 2003,07:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">E6Hotel, LMAO! Â Leave it to you Marines, typical.<span id='postcolor'> Well I've gotta say, I hear that Delta had something to do with it. Â Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 02 2003,07:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't see why suicide bombers would have to force through checkpoints. They can calmly drive, wait for the soldiers to approach the van and then detonate.<span id='postcolor'> Yep. Â I believe, though, that SOP is for drivers and passengers to exit the vehicles with hands in plain sight. Â In any case, there will be more deaths due to these types of attacks. Â Nature of the beast. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 02 2003,0704)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes it is and it aint going to get better either. Iraqi paramilitaries will make sure that you can't differentiate between civilians and military in disguise. Which will result in more civilian casualties, more opposition against the war and more future terrorists.<span id='postcolor'> Call me optimistic, but I suspect that Iraqi civilians will quickly grasp that barrelling down on coalition checkpoints is a bad idea. Â One obvious improvement on our part would be more effective warnings/explanations about the need for caution in approaching coalition troops. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Personally? You want my real opinion? OK, but you won't like it.......<span id='postcolor'> Whether I like your opinion of not doesn't matter. Â For what it's worth, I am capable of respecting an opinion different than my own. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,06:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would confirm that the van was a threat before I fired. I would rather take the risk of being killed and my squad being killed than potentially kill innocent civilians. Admittedly, thats from a standpoint of not actually being in that situation myslef, but that's what my gut and morals would tell me to do. Maybe I wouldn't make good US soldier material. Â <span id='postcolor'> This is not intended as an insult, so don't take it as one: Â I agree that you might not make a good soldier. Â That's okay, I'd personally prefer that people not have to take actions that they don't like (it's why I'm against any sort of mandatory service). Â Unfortunately, coalition forces in Iraq don't have that luxury. Â Sometimes people have no choice but to go with the lesser of two evils. Â There is no way that given the situation faced by soldiers and Marines in Iraq that they should not be allowed to defend themselves against credible threats. Â From a military standpoint, a van with an unknown driver and unknown cargo, that has not stopped after verbal warnings and warning shots, represents such a threat. It's a crappy situation. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wires @ April 02 2003,05:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They should put spike strips 100m or so out from the road blocks that'll stop them  but at least shoot the driver first then see if they keep coming if they do then it's serious.<span id='postcolor'> The ideal situation for a high-speed avenue of approach is to have a "slalom" of staggered jersey bouncers, forcing approaching vehicles to slow down to navigate through them.  Unfortunately, 5,000lb concrete barriers are in rather short supply in the infantry. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know enough about the nature of the checkpoint. Â Were there clear signs? Â Barricades? Â Trenches? Â Was the road closed? Â Was the vehicle going to be approached (putting soldiers at risk anyway) if it had stopped properly?<span id='postcolor'> I don't know either. Â I must admit it's refreshing that you at least acknowledge the uncertainty of the situation. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Confused and feckless drivers may be rare, but still they must vastly outnumber suicide bombers.<span id='postcolor'> Â Not according to Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,05:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In other words, the probability that this soldier was killing innocent civilians was much higher than the odds he was killing a bomber.<span id='postcolor'> That's an opinion, and a pretty big gamble to be taking with your men's lives. Â One last thing I'd like to point out: Â It took you about 57 minutes to post a reply to my question. Â How much time do you think the soldiers at the checkpoint had? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not saying it was malicious intent. I'm saying it was imcompetence. And when incomptence ends up with people dying, someone needs to be held accountable. Anyway, I will wait to hear the outcome of this one, I don't think we have enough facts at hand to confirm or deny negligence.<span id='postcolor'> Explain to me how it was incompetence. Â Soldiers reacted reasonably to a perceived and credible threat. Better yet, explain what you would have done differently. Â Please don't give some variant along the lines of "I'd have waited with my fingers crossed and hoped that the van wasn't packed to the gills with C4." Â Surely you can do better than that. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Are they really that generous and warm hearted, or is it hush money?<span id='postcolor'> Yes, we really are that generous and warm-hearted. Hey, you asked. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Bernadotte @ April 02 2003,04:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Indeed, training is very important. Â After all, look what happens when the occassional van full of women and children haven't been properly trained about how to behave within 250 meters of an occupying force.<span id='postcolor'> Yes, it's a bad situation. If you had been in charge of the soldiers at the checkpoint, what would you have done? Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">E6 hotel - so because the Iraqis leaders and extremists are bad guys (and no one is disputing they are), does that mean all tactical blunders and friendly fire etc etc committed by coalition forces are their fault? I don't think so.<span id='postcolor'> No, and I've never claimed otherwise. Â What I am saying is that a tactical blunder is not the same thing as following ROE's. Â Especially when the opposition is trying to take advantage of your ROE's by intentionally placing the civilians they're supposed to protect at risk. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,04:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The cold hard fact is that if US followed international law, those 7 people would be alive today.<span id='postcolor'> If Saddam gave a damn about laws 1,500,000 Iraqis (give or take) might be alive today. Â If the U.N. gave a damn about enforcing its resolutions 500,000 Iraqis might still be alive today. Â The difference is that after we take him down (if he's not already a worm feast) there's a chance to put an end to this garbage. Semper Fi

Leave it to my Devil Dogs to track down a 19-year old blonde chick in the middle of the freakin' desert. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Someone, somewhere f**ked up, and needs to be held responsible.<span id='postcolor'> Those f**k-ups you're looking for are Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf and the rest of his crackpot goons. Â They will indeed be held responsible, or reduced to component molecules, whichever can be arranged first. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sure, I can understand the checkpoint guys being twitchy after the recent car bombings, but that's no excuse to get sloppy.<span id='postcolor'> They didn't get sloppy, they followed their ROE's. Â Verbal warnings, warning shots, and they didn't engage until the vehicle was within 250m. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They are soldiers, payed to put their life at risk.<span id='postcolor'> We're not paid to be frickin' stupid, though. Â We're sure as hell not paid to trust the Iraqi army won't drive high explosives into our basecamps, as you're implying we should. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Iraqi civilians didn't get any such choice.<span id='postcolor'> More evidence that the f**k-ups referenced above are, indeed, f**k-ups. Â I know that we're freakin' savages and all that, but we're trying damned hard not to kill civvies. Â It would be nice if the f**k-ups shared our concerns. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 02 2003,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The first duty of care of the coalition troops is to safeguard the lives of Iraqi civilians. If this means placing themselves in danger to confirm that a vehicle is hostile and not full of innocent children, then so be it.<span id='postcolor'> A dead soldier can't safeguard anything. Â "Confirming that a vehicle is hostile" => Waiting for bomb to detonate. Â Not a very good plan. Â Confirming that a vehicle appears hostile (as these soldiers did) is as reasonable a criteria as can be applied in this type of situation. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 01 2003,23:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again, there were no warning shots. At all.<span id='postcolor'> Again, there apparently were.  You really should re-read the WP article. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!"<span id='postcolor'> Washington Post (again) To paraphrase:  "You just [expletive] killed a family because you fired a warning shot too slowly!"  This isn't just my interpretation of the event. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Post reporter, however, quoted a 3rd Infantry captain as saying the checkpoint crew did not fire warning shots quickly enough. The Post described a captain watching the incident through binoculars and ordering the soldiers by radio to fire a warning shot first and then shoot a 7.62mm machine-gun round into the vehicle’s radiator. When the vehicle kept coming, the captain ordered the soldiers to “stop him!â€<span id='postcolor'> MSNBC </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And so what's taken place is a very unfortunate incident, which is still under investigation in which seven to 10 women and children were actually shot up after warning shots were fired and fired -- and shots were fired into the engine.<span id='postcolor'> CNN The BBC does note discrepancies in the reporting of the incident; however, as you'll notice the issue of whether the shots were fired is not in dispute: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There are two different versions of what happened. According to coalition Central Command, the soldiers first fired warning shots, then aimed at the engine, and finally targeted the vehicle itself. But the Washington Post newspaper quotes a senior officer as telling a subordinate: "You killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough."<span id='postcolor'> BBC The irony here is that I'm actually claiming that the soldiers did something that my four years of infantry training (three years front-line experience in antiterrorism) taught me never to do. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 01 2003,21:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A court martial can be held at any time under military law.<span id='postcolor'> Theoretically speaking, can a Brit be court-martialed for refusing to follow an illegal order? Â I would assume no. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ April 01 2003,20:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">that's where a squad's sniper would have entered in action if there was one in the basic US squad battle order ...<span id='postcolor'> And if grasshoppers had doorgunners frogs wouldn't phuck with 'em. But you are correct. Â If a shooter with a SASR had been present this may have turned out differently. Â Unfortunately, that's not the T/O. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 01 2003,2008)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am quite sure a machinegun of 7.62 caliber would wreak havoc to an engine if it fired several rounds into it. I have seen cars shot up, at shooting ranges, from various distances. And the engines look like a real mess.<span id='postcolor'> I'm not sure how much first-hand experience you've got with mechanics and machinegunnery, but I've got more than a little with both. Â I'm telling you, hitting a moving target the size of an engine block with a 240G from at least 250m away, from the front (smallest target cross-section) would be harder than hell. Â That's assuming a smooth road with the target moving perfectly straight. In addition, a 240G is an "area," not a "point" weapon. Â What this means is that even if a gunner managed to hit the block, the other rounds from the MG's cone of fire would have chewed up the van's occupants anyway. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 01 2003,2008)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Any way, provided they actually did shoot warning rounds and shots into the engine (which they didnt according to the article I read) dont you think a civilian would stop at that point?<span id='postcolor'> Read the article closely. Â Nothing happened after the warning shot(s). Â The Captain on the scene berates his soldiers for not firing warning shots quickly enough. Â I won't comment on this particular example of leadership. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 01 2003,2008)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Use your common sense, would any family man continue driving with his children and wife in the car??<span id='postcolor'> Yes, I expect a civilian would stop. Â I'll bet the soldiers at the checkpoint would have expected a civilian to stop, too. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,19:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So you think it's an excuse for blowing up every Iraqi civilian vehicles moving in your general direction?<span id='postcolor'> Of course not. Â If that vehicle continues its approach after the steps taken to warn it off, though, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the "crew" has hostile intent. Semper Fi

First things first, this was an Army checkpoint. Â Not that it makes much difference, but let's keep the facts straight. Other excerpts from the article: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Johnson said afterward that he initially suspected the driver might have been a suicide bomber, because he did not behave like others who approached the intersection. All the other vehicles stopped and turned around when they saw us," he said. "But this one kept on coming." Two days earlier, four 3rd Infantry Division soldiers were killed when a suicide bomber detonated explosives in his car at a checkpoint. In Washington, the Pentagon issued a statement saying the vehicle was fired on after the driver ignored shouted orders and warning shots."<span id='postcolor'> Washington Post </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 01 2003,19:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now, if the captain had time to shout out those orders, and wait for results in between, I am quite sure the van was spotted at quite a fair distance or going at a rather slow pace. Not very long, but like stated above the car was moving much slower or over a much longer stretch of road.<span id='postcolor'> According to Denoir, the car was 250m away from the checkpoint when the occupants were engaged. Â This was after the verbal warnings, warning shot(s) and attempts to destroy the radiator. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 01 2003,19:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They didnt see the car loaded with women and children?<span id='postcolor'> Because, as we all know the Iraqi army wouldn't use civilians as shields or "draft" unwilling soldiers by kidnapping their family members. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 01 2003,19:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Lets say they managed to miss this, they still havent identified it as a hostile target. Still, they choose to just blow it to pieces, fully aware that it could be a civilian car.<span id='postcolor'> Per CNN: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"The soldiers then fired warning shots into the air and the engine that were ignored. Unable to see inside the van, the soldiers fired into the passenger compartment of the vehicle "as a last resort," a Central Command statement said."<span id='postcolor'> CNN I say again: Â Trying to stop a vehicle 250m away by blowing out the radiator or the tires is pointless. Â Locking the block is the only way to do this, and I'm not sure 7.62 is capable of that in the first place. Â Keep in mind that to get to the block you'd have to shoot away the various components that mount on the front of the engine, such as the alternator, water pump, frame crossmember, etc., etc. Â Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,1908)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ok, so you might argue that the poor US Marines did not recieve enough training. Very well, then those that didn't prepare them for this should be responsible.<span id='postcolor'> Actually, we were extensively trained in the effects of high-speed vehicle approaches in Beirut in '83. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ April 01 2003,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And I guess the proper way to disable a van, using as little violence as possible, is to open up with it with all you got? Because shooting at the engine or tires is surely not an option, even if your commander orders you to do so.<span id='postcolor'> A few questions and/or observations for you: 1) Â How much time do you think it would take for a van going oh, let's say 64 km/hr to cover 250m? 2) Â If a vehicle is that close, unless you manage to crack the block and lock up the engine's entire reciprocating assembly it can still make it to your position. Â Shooting the tires out? Â Haven't you ever seen an episode of "Cops?" Â You don't need tires to drive, they just make the ride smoother. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 01 2003,16:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's basic guard routine. Or were you sick the day they taught that?<span id='postcolor'> I assure you, I never missed a day. Â Our rules for deadly force: D: Â Use only the Degree of force necessary. O: Â The Order to halt will be given. N: Â Never fire a warning shot. S: Â Shoot to disable when possible. H: Â Hostages will be a consideration but not a deterrent to the immediate recovery of [subject material deleted]. Semper Fi

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ April 01 2003,01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As to the American soldiers killing civilainas unintantionally that's a debate which one should not get into.<span id='postcolor'> I agree, unless the person trying to argue that point enjoys being made to look like an idiot. Semper Fi