Othin

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ April 07 2003,05:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I voted for other. I prefer the website http://www.iraqwar.ru to all the mentioned above.<span id='postcolor'> hahahahaha that's too funny. I voted for Foxnews but I meant to vote for Reuters. Fox has the best analysts, but reuters has covered things pretty fairly.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 07 2003,15:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> I'd say that the probabilty of planted evidence is about equal as the probability of Iraq having WMDs. Since Blix himself was pretty convinced that Iraq had not yet accounted for all the chemical weapons, it's possible that they still have 'em. The fact that they havn't used them now when the regime is taking its dying breaths disproves the initial theory of Iraq being a clear and present danger because of its WMD capabilities. So in short: Would the Anglo-American coalition military forces plant them? No. Would the CIA or something similar plant them? Why not.<span id='postcolor'>

FOXNews is reporting that two foreign news companies (one of which is Kuwati) are reporting of uprisings in Baghdad. They also say that the residents are killing Fedayeen. We'll see if this is RUMINT like the "massive" uprisings in Basra earlier in the war, or truth.

Alright, I have this working so far, but I'd like to clean it up a little bit. Right now I have six triggers that are set up for each member of Alpha platoon so that when you shoot them they'll die and not just stay in FXStandSurUniv position: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">Condition: Not Alive Alpha1 Activation: Alpha1 switchmove ""<span id='postcolor'> Is there a way that I can combine all of these into one trigger? It seems sloppy that I had to make a seperate trigger for each. I'm still lost on how to get the units to drop their weapons...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ April 05 2003,10:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ANti-ERA5 Missile ERA Anti-Anti-ERA5 ERA missile Anti-Anti-ERA5 ERA missile ERA Anti-Anti-ERA5 ERA missile ERA missile ERA. and so on, and so on... <span id='postcolor'> Eventually they're just going to shoot tanks at each other

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 05 2003,10:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It must be several layers of explosions, since Kontakt-EDZ ERA (second generation ERA 20+ years old) already dealt with tandem warheads I don't doubt however that they've developed countermeasures to that and that the Russians have already developed countermeasures to that etc etc <span id='postcolor'> The way I described it was minimalist at best. Obviously I'm not going to go into more depth on here. Go to http://www.chinalake.navy.smil.mil/vx9/cobra on SIPRnet if you want to read more. And you're right, I'm not saying it's the end all, just that it works against the newer generation of reactive armor. But as you pointed out, the Russians are probably already working on their follow on. It seems in armor and anti armor development that it's a reactionary process, and not evolutionary.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ April 05 2003,09:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (tracy_t @ April 05 2003,18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Kontakt-5 ERA cannot be penetrated by 120mm DU shells, you say?<span id='postcolor'> Already posted a couple of times before, but here it goes again: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15: "IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION "Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US. "Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles. "When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. "Richard M. Ogorkiewicz" <span id='postcolor'><span id='postcolor'> I can't speak to the penetration capabilities of the shells, but I can say that a newer Hellfire Blast Frag will defeat it. The Hellfire M was designed with just this type of armor in mind. This came about after information about the Kontakt-5 ERA surfaced and entered testing within the last few years. Two of which I was there for. It preempts the ERA with an initial explosion of its own, freeing the warhead to strike the armor of the threat. It will also work pretty good against both above and semi underground bunkers.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Potatoman @ April 05 2003,09:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraqi TV showing celebrations around what they claim is a US IFV. The turret was separated and there was no fire. I'm watching on streaming video so it was hard to see but it looked like a BMP to me  Edit: US claims of Iraqi casualities reduced to a couple of hundred.<span id='postcolor'> This one?  Someone needs to teach the Iraqi's their own GOB.  Looks like it was a BMP 1 or 2. Yahoo news picture BMP-2

Holy shit dude. Put a warning tag on that article. That first picture was brutal to see first thing in the morning I do wonder what will come of it though, since they claim that he would be stateless if booted out. Interesting though, thanks!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (killagee @ April 04 2003,22:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Interesting Analysis from http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/iraqwar_ru_020.htm Reviewing ground operations [in Iraq] analysts conclude that the desert terrain and the resulting inability of the Iraqis to fight outside of towns and villages provide the coalition with its main strategic advantage. Complete air dominance allows [the coalition troops] locating and engaging Iraqi positions and armor at maximum distance using precision-guided munitions not available to the Iraqis, while remaining outside of the range of the Iraqi weapons. Considering the course of this war and the tactics used by the coalition, [Russian military] analysts find this tactics to be far removed from the realities of modern warfare and designed exclusively against a technologically much weaker opponent. Such tactics is unimaginable on the European theater of combat with its woodlands and cross-country terrain. Foreseeing the possibility of a future military standoff between the US and North Korea the analysts are certain that the US cannot hope for a military victory on the Korean Peninsula without the use of nuclear weapons. (source: iraqwar.ru, 04-03-03, translated by Venik) <span id='postcolor'> I'm not sure where the jump in logic comes from that the tactics that are being used in Iraq are the same that would be used if there was a war in North Korea. Sounds like wishful thinking on somones part...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ April 03 2003,21:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Holy Jeebus. Â That guy must clang when he walks. Semper Fi<span id='postcolor'> For real. Â The world is better off for having people like him. Â Also: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mohammed @ April 03 2003,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"I love America. I like America. Why, I don't know,"<span id='postcolor'> Who would have thought a Iraqi could sum up my feelings. Â Well, me too Mohamed, me too. And to save others the time. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY LIES AND PROPAGANDA. Â HOW CAN YOU STAND THIS @#)@$

I also think it's important not to put to much trust in the Brits. Â If they're going to get their asses kicked by the Iraqis like this, then they need to go back and train harder. Â I'm disgusted. British Marines thrashed by Iraqis j/k <span style='color:red'><3 <3 <3</span><span style='color:blue'>Brits</span><span style='color:red'><3 <3 <3</span>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (OxPecker @ April 03 2003,19:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ April 04 2003,04:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Obviously the Brits and others on the ground in Iraq have judged the intelligence to be valid, and moreso to be a threat.<span id='postcolor'> Either that or British and other allied leaders are more concerned with ingratiating themselves with the mighty USA than acting on the evidence at hand.<span id='postcolor'> I don't think that's fair to the Brits. They have a strong military, good leadership, and public opion that disagrees with the war. The British have also enjoyed strong relationships with many nations, not just the United States. What purpose would "ingratiating" themselves with the U.S. serve? It would be hard for our two countries to have stronger military or political ties then already exist. I don't think that it's any accident or surprise that the majority of countries that have gone into Iraq with us are the ones that we have the strongest intelligence ties and crossdecking with...

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Badgerboy @ April 03 2003,19:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I don't know about you, but I'm hooked on this great new novel. I wonder if we will see one from Mr B.<span id='postcolor'> Wait, so if Iraq was a woman that was raped by the Allied invasion in the gulf war, then Kuwait was a weak man? A woman??? HOT

Sweet, I've been waiting weeks to say this! Much like Balischow I cannot reveal nor confirm my sources. Â You'll just have to take my word and the fact that the United States is not in Iraq alone. Â Obviously the Brits and others on the ground in Iraq have judged the intelligence to be valid, and moreso to be a threat.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 03 2003,18:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">So what happens if the War ends, Saddam is killed, and no stocks of chemical or biological weapons are found? President Bush: Ooops. My bad. So far every prediction the US has made about Chemical weapons in this war has been wrong, right?<span id='postcolor'> I wouldn't neccisarily say that every prediction the U.S. has made have come wrong. They definately expected Sadaam to use them earlier, but then again we haven't seen the concentrations of his forces that was expected. But, this war wasn't launched on a guess. They exist. In all likelihood if the chemical munitions aren't used in battle, it's because the Iraqi commanders refused to carry out the orders. Or that they didn't get the orders because of leadership deaths, communications problems, or dissolution of the remaining C2.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ April 03 2003,18:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I seem to remembe a report before the jump off that chemical munitions were being distributed to front line troops. Â Strange they havent materialised. Â Military Intelligence seems to be a bit of an oxymoron in this case. <span id='postcolor'> Not really strange that they haven't been used yet. Saddam knows that at this point he has the majority of the worlds public opinion in his favor. He's not going to hurt that until he's sure that he's going down and no ones going to help. Now that the Coalition forces have drawn up to Baghdad itself, the chance that he's going to use them is greater and greater. If he gives the order and his commanders decide to take it, it will be interesting to see what method he tries to employ it in. Tactics from the Iran Iraq war, or some sort of trap? We'll have to see I guess. Also if we choose to believe the opinions of some, the Coalition hasn't faced the "front line" troops yet...

If you're joining the Navy with the intention of being a SEAL then you have to pick from certain source ratings (jobs). Â You can find a list of the ratings here What will happen is you'll go through regular boot camp with everyone else, though you do have additional training in the pool. Â Then you'll go to the "A" school for whichever rating you enlisted as. Â The thing to keep in mind is that if you don't make it through the BUDS process, this is going to be your job for the rest of your Naval career. Â Here are a few I'd reccommend. HM - Medic. Â If you don't make it as a SEAL you can still serve with the Marines since they don't have their own medics. MA - Master at Arms. Â The "police" and small arms force of the Navy. Â This rating is WIDE open right now as they've just enlarged it so you'll be able to pick up promotions quickly. IS - Intelligence Specialist. Â I'm a bit biased, as this is my job in the Navy. Â Â But you collect and interpret intelligence data, work extensively with imagery, brief officers, and work with data at the Top Secret level and above. Â You'll have to pass some pretty extensive background checks for this one though. After you finish "A" school you'll head off to Coronado for your BUDS training. Â If you pass then you're off to more extensive training. Â If you don't, then you're off to fleet to work in whichever field you chose. If you're a SEAL why would you want to go DELTA? Â There is more to just changing jobs in that, you're changing branches of the military. Â It would be more trouble then it's worth, you would have to go through alot of training to learn the "quirks" of the new branch. Badgerboy. Â No, you can apply for BUDS during your initial application process to the Navy. Â You can also apply after you've been in the Navy for a few years. Â If you watch the videos you'll see 1st and 2nd classes mixed in with the Seamen and Ensigns.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (turms @ April 02 2003,18:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Dont condemn a nation becouse of acts of individuals.<span id='postcolor'> I agree with this. It was most likely a small group of people who wanted to illicit just this reaction from Americans and Brits. This just shows that idiocy is a worldwide phenomenon.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 02 2003,11:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah, Avon, can't refute something - get personal. That's the spirit! At least I don't spam the forums with inane smart-ass remarks and idiotic jokes that don't have anything to do with the topic...<span id='postcolor'> Quoted for irony.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ April 02 2003,08:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yep saw that too, we freaked out when we heard hem say that, pretty much everyone of my family was screaming that Bush had gone waaaay too far.<span id='postcolor'> I think you can chalk that down to Americans changing the meaning of words. I've heard of crusades on hunger, crusades on cleaning up lake XX, crusades on stopping crime. The majority of Americans place no religious connotations on that word.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ April 02 2003,08:40)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The article also states that the two generals in question took part in the coup against Gorbachev and were subsequently kicked out of the army. That makes them private ciitizens who can do as they like in their spare time. Once again, if you want to claim official Russian invovement, provide proof. As I said, a Kornet-E launcher or missiles or one of those funky GPS jammers with serial number would be sufficient. In other words, put up or shut up.<span id='postcolor'> Well, I guess we'll ignore the whole missile gyros incident, and Russian training (in Russia no less) of Iraqi SAM crews after the last Gulf war. Even when we present you with the physical evidence of the Kornets and Aviaconversia GPS/Glonus jammers I'm sure you'll have an excuse. "Put up or shut up" Way to intelligently debate something

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tydium @ April 02 2003,07:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not sure if this is exactly related to the war in iraq but I found a interesting article from iraqwar.ru. According to this article Russian navy is preparing to send a unit to conduct military manouvers in the Arabian Sea. Another article from the same site says that russian navy is sending ships to the Indian Ocean. I'm not quite sure are these articles are overlapping each other or are they sending two seperate units.<span id='postcolor'> That's hardly surprising. They're going to try to get their AGIs into a place to actively collect on the coalition forces. In an related article, The Russian Generals prepared Iraq for the war. No surprise really. I guess the allegations of the technicians helping working on the jammers weren't so far fetched.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mr. Snrub @ Mar. 31 2003,19:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">France is already involved in this situation - through it's strong anti-war stance, and it's position within the UN. You don't necessarily need to be part of the invading Coalition to be part of the situation - you could just be on the other side of the fence. While it's not all together pointless (ie. it has some relevance), arguing about various countries economic interests in this war won't really lead anywhere. You could argue that France, Russia, China and perhaps Germany oppose the war because of the considerable business deals they have with Iraq and other middle-eastern nations, but you can also argue that every country in the Coalition has vested interests in seeing it go ahead - the US with oil and rebuilding contracts, other countries pressing to joining the EU or get US foreign aid, Australia pushing for a free-trade agreement etc. OxPecker is right - there is a huge schism between Western and Arab views on the war and terrorism. For instance, the Arab world links most things (like this war) back to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while we see them as stand-alone events of no relation. Until we can understand their point of view, and they can empathise with ours, the extremists will keep coming. What I'm really starting to get tired of though is the typical immature arguments the general public (on both sides) is basing their opinions on. Believing Iraq and al-Qaeda are the same entity, all this France-bashing etc. I just wish the public would realise that this situation is far more complex, with far more history than they realise. Any well thought-out, rational argument from anyside can't be summarised in one catch-phrase or banner slogan.<span id='postcolor'> Well said and I agree.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (turms @ Mar. 31 2003,17:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Whatta hell has chirac to do with this war?? Hes a man of peace.And digging up fotographs from the same era that USA was a great supporter of Saddam doesnt give me a opinion seeing chirac as a warmonger,threat to the worldpeace and supporter of the dictators...<span id='postcolor'> Chirac has alot to do with this war, and everything that lead up to it. All issues of morality aside, Chirac was acting on the interests of his own country to try and prevent the war from happening. Not just because of popular opinion, but to also protect the economic interests of France in Iraq.