3.Gulf War [Archive] - The Explosives and Weapons Forum

View Full Version : 3.Gulf War

Al Nobel

March 20th, 2003, 08:17 AM

This war is against international right and Bush a war criminal.

What belongs to the war itself I´m a bit surprised that the US have started that weak.I expected massive strikes against Bagdad.
Another surprise was the Iraqi Scud attack on Kuwait.It would be interesting to know how many Al Hussein rockets have left after the UN inspections.

[ March 20, 2003, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Al Nobel ]

Anthony

March 20th, 2003, 02:44 PM

According to Bush, the war hasn't "officially" started yet, that was just a small mission to get some high ranking Iraqi politicians, including Saddam of course.

I thought that was the whole point of the "war"?

Did they honestly expect Saddam to be sitting in his palace in Baghdad or Tikrit when the deadline ran out? The man isn't *that* stupid...

Al Koholic

March 20th, 2003, 04:15 PM

I suppose it is possible with the level of intelligence probably operating in Iraq that they could have had a tip-off like that and gotten him and his cohorts or at least come close.

Problem is that getting Saddam is not the point of the war...at least not the main point. The main point is to level most of Iraq's important buildings.

darkdontay

March 20th, 2003, 04:21 PM

I think only bush is that stupid. This whole thing is a croc of.... well you know. I would love to see bushes white ass in the middle of the desert melting away and him fighting alnog side the troops. If their was any real danger to his life becuase fo the war WE would not have to go to war... Things were better back in the days when the king would fight along side his men on the battle field, he was king because he was the best fighter and such.

Politicains find it so much easier to rationalize the death of your brother in a war then their own sons, look at how their kids never get sent into the military or if they do it is rarely combative duty....

Arkangel

March 20th, 2003, 04:51 PM

I think it was Tom Clancy writing in "Hunt for Red October", that said there was a saying in upper military echelons in Russia - "the only way to guarantee that there will be no (nuclear) war is to have the launch codes implanted into the president's heart, so that only by guaranteeing his own death can the missiles be launched"

I fucking WISH!!!

darkdontay

March 20th, 2003, 06:48 PM

That is definatly something I would go for, the world leaders would be less likely to go to war if it ment their own death, which it should, as that would keep people a little more calm. Now I know that would open up other cans-o-worms, but it would help I think in slowing the tides of war. Since it is something that will never happen it is nice at least to hope it could. Though I'm not quit sure it was in th Hunt For The Red October, Atleast I do not remeber that part of the book. Well anyways, hopefully this neew batch of shit will blow over in a couple months.

Jhonbus

March 20th, 2003, 06:58 PM

In a way, Tony Blair and GWB are risking their own deaths by going ahead with this war. If it goes wrong, they will lose political office. Sure, it's not as bad as death, but it shows that they would not go ahead unless they were sure it is the right thing to do.

I think Iraq still has some of its illegal missiles, given that one flew right over Kuwait and landed in the sea. That's got to be beyond the range of a normal scud.

Arkangel

March 20th, 2003, 08:55 PM

Political isolation and a life spent making a fortune on speaking tours of the US hardly counts as a death. Not in the same way as getting bulldozed in a trench, or having your face shot off, or any of the fear that precedes it.

Sure they're taking a gamble, but their personal risk, and risk to their wealth is nonexistant.

darkdontay

March 20th, 2003, 08:58 PM

If a man walks out with a gun and shoot a hundred people cause he has a political agenda and wants to make some money he goes to jail and gets the chair. In politics it just means that he will no longer be able to hold a offcie? screw that. If this war goes wrong I want to see bush up their on the stand defedning his life as he is charged with War crimes and Crimes against Humanity. Watch him up their pleading for "Daddy" to help him....

Bush has no respect for the office or the power he commands. he shall tanish even more the distained image of America that foriegn countries allready have.

Jhonbus

March 21st, 2003, 01:18 AM

I really can't understand all this anti-war stuff.
Sure, war is bad, nobody likes it. That's a given. But the fact is, sometimes the choice has to be made to go to war. Before WWII, lots of people were against going to war on Hitler. However, Churchill stood up for what was right, rather than going down the appeasment route.
Over the last decade or so, we have been ignoring Saddam Hussein's transgressions of the rules. He has NOT co-operated fully with the UN inspections, thus violating UN resolution 1441. All the signatories to this resolution were fully aware of the repercussions for Iraq if they did not comply. But now countries like France, Russia and Germany are just going back on what they agreed on. This just makes an absolute mockery of the UN and what it attempts to acheive.
People who are protesting against this war all seem to agree that Hussein is a terrible dictator, but they are not willing to do anything about it. I call this cowardice.

darkdontay

March 21st, 2003, 03:41 AM

Please turn off CNN and get news from elsewhere and everywhere not just Propaganda spit out by mass media, their are worse palces reciveing less attention.

Things need to be done but if their is someone better to take hussins place why is this person not in power.... If their was better world leaders would have tried to put him in power. For every shitty leader their is a worse one lurking in the shadows.

[ March 21, 2003, 02:43 AM: Message edited by: darkdontay ]

Anthony

March 21st, 2003, 06:27 AM

I don't think it's cowardice, just people doubting Americas priorities and motives.

The difference between Saddam and Hitler is that Hitler was a credible threat to world peace... The allies are definitely the agressor in this action.

Agreed, WW2 was a correct time to take action, despite protests. But what about the times when war was protested, avoided and later realised to have been the "right" choice?

"the british were practicing and firing blanks at targets(don't ask me why)"

Because we're only *pretending* to help the US <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Talking about cowardice, will all the pro-warers me marching themselves to the nearest enlistment tent and showing the courage of their convictions? It's easy to call people cowards when you only have to watch it on TV... I do wish the hippies would give it a rest though.

I see America already has casualties and the oil fields burning.

Smoke Crack, Not Iraq!

"-Smithers, we're at war!
-I'll begin profiteering, sir.
-And hoarding. Leave it to the Democrats to let the Spaniards back in the pantry."

Jhonbus

March 21st, 2003, 07:44 AM

Saying that there are worse countries than Iraq, and worse people than Hussein, are no reason not to do something about Iraq. I agree that we should definitely be doing something about North Korea and Iran, not to mention Israel. Perhaps we are, I don't know.
And I don't get all my news from CNN, thankyou very much :)
Anthony, I would have joined the armed forces a long time ago if it were not for medical issues. I don't make that statement idly, either. I truly believe that people should stand up and fight to defend their country, its interests, and oppressed peoples. If it were up to me, I would re-instate National Service.

"Things need to be done but if their is someone better to take hussins place why is this person not in power...."
What? Hitler (sorry to go on about him, but he is a good example) was in power, doesn't mean there was nobody better.
"If their was better world leaders would have tried to put him in power."
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this *exactly* what we are doing right now?

[ March 21, 2003, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: Jhonbus ]

Anthony

March 21st, 2003, 08:18 AM

National service wouldn't be a bad idea. As long as it just doesn't turn worsen the problem with society by giving them a soldier/killing attitude. If the training just taught respect and discipline it would be brilliant.

"What? Hitler...was in power, doesn't mean there was nobody better"

Arguably, Hitler was pretty good at what he did... He did have a few flaws, but then no one's perfect :)

Like I've said, it's the bullshit surrounding it all that is what really bothers me!

knowledgehungry

March 21st, 2003, 10:36 AM

Nobel you bother me. <blockquote>quote:<hr /> This war is against international right and Bush a war criminal.
<hr /></blockquote>First off there was a total agreement about the UN resolution 1441 with all countries involved. The international community stated by passing that resolution that the Iraqis are defying the UN. The US and Britain are merely following through with the threats made in that resolution. Also Bush a War Criminal? That is laughable, he has been withholding the power of the US... He has given Iraq plenty of time to surrender. He could have easily wiped Iraq off the face of the Earth yet he decides to take the chance that Iraqis will surrender. You say it is all about oil, the only reason France is against the war IS oil. They get oil from Saddam in exchange for them giving him weapons. I am goin to laugh my ass off if Saddam does use WMDs, i would love to see chiracs face "Um i guess he still does have WMDS :o " all the shit people have said about saddam being "reformed" and giving up his weapons will be thrown right in their tree hugging faces! Nobel I believe that some of the missiles fired were actually banned missiles that were supposedly destroyed :rolleyes: .
And Dark dontay where do you get your news from the internet :rolleyes: <a href="http://www.treehuggersunite.com" target="_blank">www.treehuggersunite.com</a> :rolleyes: If you have a more reliable source of News i would love to hear it. I think the best thing to do would be to watch the French news AND CNN to see both sides, obviously they are BOTH biased. The truth is where it always is... in the middle.
Well im off to make some smoke bombs to throw at protesters :p

Arkangel

March 21st, 2003, 11:23 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> First off there was a total agreement about the UN resolution 1441 with all countries involved. The international community stated by passing that resolution that the Iraqis are defying the UN. <hr /></blockquote>1441 was a hard won resolution anyway, and was forced through because Tony Blair managed to persuade Bush to delay the decision he'd already virtually made, to invade Iraq.

But how many of the countries that voted for it would have agreed if they had been told at the outset that military action would be underway inside 5 months. For fuck's sake, UNMOVIC weren't even fully deployed yet. Bush was busy saying that "this isn't about inspections" when they were only 5 weeks into their work. Quadrupling the inspectors would still only have cost a fraction of what we're spending now, and would have the full support of the world.

And that's where the veil falls aside. There never WAS any real intent to do this through the UN :rolleyes:

vulture

March 21st, 2003, 01:08 PM

Knowledgehungry again you show the weakness of the warmongering people in the US. When you don't like something you hear you immediatly start insulting the other side because you either have no good arguments or can't be bothered to think.
Now THAT worries me!

Another interesting bit is that first Bush gives Saddam the ultimatum to leave the country and then a few hours later the message comes we will still attack. Now, I wonder what really happened? Maybe Saddam really packed his bags and was ready to go?
If you say he was such a dictator, then he wouldn't have any problems leaving his people behind and making a run for it while transferring money to swiss bancaccounts.

Also, the story about the scuds is also highly biased. How far is it from the Iraqi border to the Kuwaiti coastline? Not very far. Also, those missiles could very well have been fired from the peninsula where all the oil was being stocked.

BTW, thumbs up for the British troops. While the american soldiers talk to the camera without helmets and standing on a tank, giggling how they shot 4 Iraqi observers (with a 20+ tank division :rolleyes: ) the british troops have taken control of the biggest oil reserve and the cameras show them taking key locations and staying in cover.

I'm afraid that the arrogance of some US soldiers will get them killed when they really face some opposition.

10fingers

March 22nd, 2003, 02:30 AM

Right on Jhonbus and Knowledgehungry!
It is apparent that a lot of you other guys are either too young to remember the first gulf war or you have poor memories.
Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. The UN authorized the use of force to eject them from Kuwait. Iraq lost that war. There was a surrender agreement in which the Iraqis had to abide by certain conditions. One of these was to eliminate their WMDs in 45 days. It is now 12 years later and we're still fucking around with this guy!
The conditions of the surrender agreement of 1991 are still in force. The US and British have been enforcing the no-fly zones and occasionally bombing radar and anti-aircraft missile sites for the last 12 years. All this with UN approval.
Another stipulation of this surrender agreement was that any failure to comply would result in military force. This has never expired.
There have been approximately 16 UN resolutions in the last 12 years which Iraq has violated.
Resolution 1441, which the UN passed last November said that there would be "severe consequences" if Iraq did not comply. To me this does not mean that we are going to send in a bunch of pansy ass treehugging war protestors to plead with Saddam to be a nice guy.
The US never needed another UN resolution to use force, it was given twelve years ago and in the recent resolution, 1441. The failed attempt to get another resolution for force was only to appease world public opinion and more importantly to sway the British public in order to give Blair some political cover.

Bitter

March 22nd, 2003, 05:13 AM

I'm pro-war.

Why ? Becuase it makes the UN look irrelevent. Hopefully this will be the first step on the road to getting rid of it altogether. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but when you look at the double standards the UN uses and what it turns a blind eye to, you can't help but to think the whole circus is being run by marxists of some variant or another.

vulture

March 22nd, 2003, 01:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I'm not into conspiracy theories, but when you look at the double standards the UN uses and what it turns a blind eye to, you can't help but to think the whole circus is being run by marxists of some variant or another.
<hr /></blockquote>You're right about the UN turning a blind eye, to be more precise, turning a blind eye on the countless UN violations by Israël.
Since the UK and the US are so bizzy now enforcing world peace by attacking countries that violate UN resolutions, that means you're going to attack Israël somewhere this year, because god forbid they voilate more UN resolutions! :rolleyes:

Oh right. The circus is being run by marxists. May I bring it to your attention that the only country who has been "running" the UN was the US, not only by more than one hundred vetos ( god, the french must be real punks, they tried to veto! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> :rolleyes: )
but also by buying the vote of poor countries.

And for gods sake we're out of the cold war. You're only making yourself ridiculous when constantly accusing "treehuggers", "communists" and "marxists".
It shows how intolerant the "Free" people of the US really are against other opinions.

(I'm not from the US, though, am I ? :rolleyes: )

[ March 25, 2003, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Bitter ]

knowledgehungry

March 22nd, 2003, 08:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> It shows how intolerant the "Free" people of the US really are against other opinions.
<hr /></blockquote>Who said that tolerance was a good thing? To bring up Hitler(again) we were quite tolerant with him as he acted upon his opinion that Germany was meant to rule the world. Tolerating other opinions doesnt mean you dont argue about them. YOU obviously dont tolerate pro war sentiment <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .

Spudkilla

March 22nd, 2003, 10:06 PM

Well, I just finished talking with an anti-war hippy. I will sum it up for you in a series of quotes.

"bombs will hit babies"

"why should US govern their country? FUCKING IMPERIALISM"

I then asked him if he liked Hussein, and he said he didn't. I explained that Hussein killed his own people with gas, and many more, and should be gotten rid of. He said

"because the united states has no right to"

And then I told him some more stuff and argued my point which got about to him saying

"THEY HAVE NOT ATTACKED US DIRECTLY. this is violating the UN charter. this war is illegal"

"why can't they have nukes? but we can>? what kind of shit is that?"

It went on for a little while, and I told him that UN decided he couldnt have weapons of mass destruction back in 1991, and then I said he could possibly use them on his own people again.

"uh, so? so? bush can kill us? this is bush continuing what daddy started. so fucking gay."

And he said I was brainwashed :rolleyes: That about sums up what some protesters think, the ones that don't think the war is about oil. :rolleyes:

[ March 22, 2003, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Spudkilla ]

March 23rd, 2003, 06:22 AM

I'm all for getting rid of Saddam and his cronies, but I'd like to know why the US didn't act sooner? Why wait 12 years? I have an inate distrust of anyone in authority, so when they come out with 'for humanitarian reasons', I tend to suspect they have ulterior motives.

As has been pointed out, North Korea is a major threat to world/regional stability, so why aren't we doing anything about them? Perhaps because they will fight back, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan...

Flake2m

March 23rd, 2003, 08:16 AM

I am Pro war.
This "war on Iraq" will liberate the Iraqi people and prehaps lower oil prices. But it wont do many more things.

1. This is a demonstration that UN is not working. The US is trying to do the right thing in a way because Iraq is violating several resolutions and has been for many years. The US simply went to the UN to try to seek a more peaceful solution.

2. The US has promised to rebuild Iraq after the war. This will run into Billions of dollars. The US has to rebuild The oil infrastructure too because that is detoriating aswell. This will take years. Even If Iraq was cranking out 2x the Oil it still wont have much of an impact in reducing the cost of rebuilding.

3. Russia, France and Germany are going to have very red faces if Iraq does use WMD's on attacking coalition forces. George Dubya, Tony Blair and John Howard will also be saying "we told you so".

Spudkilla

March 23rd, 2003, 12:27 PM

Well, what some of predicted happened. An RAF airplane was shot down, but not by the enemy, by the Americans. I guess it is going to happen again. In the Gulf War, 24 Brits were killed, 9 by friendly fire from the Americans <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Ezekiel Kane

March 23rd, 2003, 01:32 PM

I am vehemently pro-war, I just think the world leaders are going to war for the wrong reasons. They can pretend oil's not an issue, but let's face it, Bush is from Texas (as am I) - he's in this war for black gold and to get back at the man who tried to kill his daddy. Our government is a greedy one, concerned primarily with the economical status of our nation.

Furthermore, without war, we're missing an essential pillar of the Malthusian doctrine, and the last thing I want is more people in the world. We've got enough of them already, and the vast majority have proved themselves to be nothing more than mindless sheep on a long walk to the slaughterhouse.

Arkangel

March 23rd, 2003, 03:37 PM

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/02/military_fact_files/v3_special_forces/html/default.stm" target="_blank">This</a> is amusing - it's like something from Quake

frogfot

March 23rd, 2003, 04:00 PM

From that adress above:
"Iraq's elite soldiers are no match for even ordinary soldiers in the American and British forces" cough :)

Many of Iraq's soldiers have been in war all their live and even if i got a "personal kit and food", this wouldnt help me in combat against iraquis... i compare them to chechens.. This war will not lead to anything, even if US takes the control over oil, there will be alot of "friendly citizens" that will make sabotages on oil plants/pipelines.

zaibatsu

March 23rd, 2003, 04:28 PM

I'm anti-war, for a number of reasons.

A) I don't like being lied to. If Bush/Blair (what's the difference?) had said this is about oil/land, I wouldn't have minded.

B) I don't believe he is a threat to world security

C) I don't believe we should try and govern the world.

D) WMD are necessary tools for the defence of a country. The British tested nerve agents on volunteers around the 40s, and the US has done the same.

Anthony

March 23rd, 2003, 08:18 PM

"I have an inate distrust of anyone in authority, so when they come out with 'for humanitarian reasons', I tend to suspect they have ulterior motives"

I couldn't agree more, likewise with your other points, zaibatsu.

Everything I've seen in this conflict so far has supported my opinion about the US forces - that many are gung-ho and unprofessional.

I expected "friendly fire" incidents, but not quite this soon or dramatic. Have the US even shot down *any* enemy planes yet? If not, those patriot missile stations are a pure liability...

On the news earlier, I saw a report of a skirmish between advancing US troops and a few Iraqis holed up in a building on the edge of a town. The Iraqis seemed to have small arms and exhanged fire with the US troops, although no one was apprently hit. Then the US breaks out the machine guns, then the mortars. After taking pot-shots for a couple of hours, out comes a Javelin missile launcher, which misses the enemy building completely... Second shot goes through the front door of the building the US troops jump up shouting and cheering, then the tanks roll in, then they call in an air-strike, WTF?!.

The conduct just seems so unprofessional. The troops seem excitable and emotional - a liability to themselves and other coalition forces.

Reminds me of news reports from the first Air-missions in Afghanistan. The difference in condut between US airforce and RAF pilots was stark. Interviewing the pilots on return from a sucessful mission, the RAF pilots were well-spoken, calm and gave a plain, descriptive report. The US pilots tended to bounce around exclaiming loudly things like "we nailed those son's-a-bitches!".

Call the Brits pompous and boring if you like, but I know who I'd rather trust my life to.

Similarly, after the bombing raid on Baghdad, US intelligence was briefing the press with rumours that Saddam was dead. UK intelligence dismissed the reports and labelled such rumours as dangerous to western credibility. The BBC war correspondant stated he took the reports with "a sackful of salt". I very rarely praise the BBC, but it's nice to see them being more rational and sensible than the likes of CNN.

Spudkilla, that hippy is as bad as any war mongerer - there are idiots on both sides. Neither have rational arguements or even good reasoning as to why they hold the opinons they do. They both just rehash the same tired, typical arguments.

"the british troops have taken control of the biggest oil reserve"

Excellent! At least someone has the right idea, let's hope it doesn't get handed over to the yanks or the Iraq puppet government they'll install!

"The US has promised to rebuild Iraq after the war"

Such things are easily promised, I'd rather reserve judgement till later, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say.

"Even If Iraq was cranking out 2x the Oil it still wont have much of an impact in reducing the cost of rebuilding"

Considering the size of it's reserves, Iraq might be able to pump orders of magnitude more oil than it currently does, obviously this would be very profitable. Many expensive things only have long term returns, it's not like the US lacks capital...

Any one hear about the US flag raised in ceremony at a captured Iraqi airport and then later ordered to be taken down? What a farce...

knowledgehungry

March 23rd, 2003, 08:24 PM

The Iraqis dont have any planes to shoot down :D .

zaibatsu

March 23rd, 2003, 09:10 PM

A patriot missile shot down one of the highly dangerous SCUDs that did the large amount of damage to Kuwait.

I don't think any Brits have been killed due to enemy fire, all due to friendly fire (apart from the two chopper pile up).

Ghostcustom 24

March 23rd, 2003, 11:20 PM

I must agree with some of your statements Anthony but, all of the footage of the U.S. aviators I have seen have been very professional, describing their mission and what it feels like to have been shot at by enemy anti-aircraft fire.

Also, I have not heard any of the "we nailed those son's-a-bitches!" comments on the news interviews yet. And I wish to see where you have received your information about the U.S. troops against the Iraqi's in the building (as I cannot believe it).

If you can give me your sources I will review them and maybe come to some new conclusions...

Anthony

March 24th, 2003, 05:51 AM

Like I said, the difference in pilots I saw was in news reports during the Afghanistan conflict shortly after sept 11th.

Concerning the skirmish in Iraq, it was footage (the reporters were with the US troops at the time) on a news program (channel 4 I think), which I find least biased. I've searched their website but can't find a transcript <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

Arkangel

March 24th, 2003, 06:12 AM

I spent a number of years as an Air Defence Officer using the Rapier SHORAD system, so technical and procedural IFF procedures are something I'm well versed with. I also spent last night having a drink with 2 RAF Harrier Pilots (long story). Naturally this was a topic we discussed a lot, and we still can't really understand how it could have happened OTHER than a fuck up by the patriot crew. Maybe we'll find out, but both of these guys have flown missions in the Gulf and Kosovo, and they know what they are talking about. One of the obvious things seems to be that the patriot people know the Iraqis haven't launched any aircraft towards the Kuwait, only ballistic missiles, so what the fuck are they doing firing at an aircraft?

And to agree with you on the Pilots Anthony, (may have mentioned this before) I was in a cab on the way to Omaha airport last year, and chatting to the driver, discovered that he'd been in the US Marine aviation. HE lectured me for the rest of the trip on how professional the brit pilots were compared to their own, of whom he was hypercritical. He called them cowboys, and said that even if they didn't crash the jets and die, they regularly flew them through G-stress limits because they either didn't understand what they were all about, or didn't give a fuck.

And that footage of those guys hollering when the missile hit the building - what the FUCK was that all about? :rolleyes: It's the op's JOB to hit stuff. In the british army, the main whooping would have been when he missed, and it would have been the sound of the op screaming as the RSM kicked him in the balls.

Anthony

March 24th, 2003, 08:10 AM

I've been doing a bit of reading on various fora since there's quite a few ex-servicemen of various ranks from both sides giving opinions about these friendly fire incidents.

It'd be wrong to say that Americans are just stupid - obviously they're not.

The main difference in attitudes seems to come from two things: motives and training. USMC basic training is apprently only 8 weeks, our medics get 12.

Also, recruitment methods seem to be largely to blame. This was backed up by a documentary on US military presence in high schools I saw the other night. It seems that US kids only see two ways to college - mummy and daddy pay it, or you get a scholership (why they don't pay for it themselves like everyone here does, I don't know).

To get a sports scholership you have to be a good athlete, to get one from a company you need exceptional acedemic abilities. But the US military seems to have a lot of spare cash...

That and joining the army as being seen as respectable and fun thing to do. With heavy emphasis based on the financial rewards.

So you get people signing up just for money, outside education or to impress their friends or show their parents that they're not total losers.

Recruitment in schools is much different over here. I remember the "recruitment" the RAF did at my school. It was a half hour video with pamphlets that you could pick up on the way out if you wanted. The main emphasis was being a cog in the machine and training, plus furthering yourself/life skills. There was absolutely no pressure, just shown as a possibly career choice.

The recruitment on the documentary was very different. The emphasis was on neat toys, the recruiter actually told the kids to go home and tell their parents they want to be in the army and they would be absolutely safe. Told the kids how he went to 'Nam and didn't get a scratch, but his friend in the hood got shot through both knees. It was propaganda loaded and very pushy.

I find it hard to believe that they get school kids/leavers phone numbers and repeatedly phone them until they give in and sign up!

Just seems different here, the majority of people I've met who are ex-forces joined because they wanted to be in the army, nothing else.

I'd like to know, is recruitment in the US give the opinion that almost anyone can join and has the right stuff? I'd assume so if nerdy types are joining just for scholerships :) I don't want to assume if it's incorrect though.

Just want to see if it's different to over here, where the emphasis is that you need to be the elite few. For example, all the Royal Commando advertisements carry the slogan "99.9% need not apply".

There's certainly no condition for state funding of schools that they *have* to allow military recruiters onto the premises.

zaibatsu

March 24th, 2003, 12:13 PM

I do have to confirm what Anthony said about the footage, I saw it also, possibly on ITV. One thing that suprised me is they don't seem to keep that low - they run around crouched (not crawling) and sometimes just stop. I always thought they'd be keeping as low as possible.

Arkangel

March 24th, 2003, 02:41 PM

It really depends how much and how direct the fire is coming toward you. Prior to the Falklands, the British forces used to do fire and manouver attacks by "pepperpotting" (don't ask my why it was called that). On effective enemy fire you'd follow this procedure: dash (zigzagging), down (hit the deck), crawl (away from where you went down, so they enemy couldn't just fire there and hit you), observe (for the enemy), sights (set your sights) fire (and direct your section's fire onto the enemy) and start to attack by crawling away from the position you fired from, getting up and running 10 yards, hitting the deck and going through the whole procedure again.

AFTER the Falklands, all new recruits were taught that fire and manouver happens by crawling - no getting up, you just crawl all the way to the enemy. Fuck me it was hard enough when you could actually run. Live fire and manouver exercises were the most physically demanding thing that I've ever done, and if you can save some effort by running low, then you might want to do it, it all depends on the circumstances.

Laser hit detectors are a great way of showing troops how vulnerable they are to incoming fire, people crawl a lot more after a few sessions with that.

Skean Dhu

March 24th, 2003, 05:29 PM

regarding recruitment over here, atleast at my school it seems pretty casual, hey get a couple recruiters to set up a little booth with pamphlets, pictures of trainees doing all the fun stuff(ie helicopter rapelling, sneaking around in the woods) and then they just stnad there for like 3hrs during the lunch periods. however the thing that pisses me off is that the Government is blackmailing any/all PUBLIC schools that get funding no matter how much/little (which is all of them) to give out a full roster of all students over 18. but the private schools don't have to give out anything of the sort because their parents have the $$ to pay for it.

chemwarrior

March 24th, 2003, 10:19 PM

Skean, the same thing happens at my school. Only at my school, they will pull you out of class if they know anything about you history- such as your dad being in the military, etc. Its really quite pathetic, and I believe it is illegal as well.

Just curious but, what state are you in?

10fingers

March 24th, 2003, 11:56 PM

I just heard something interesting, according to some reporter who has a source in the Syrian government, the Iranians told this source that they would not allow the US and Britain to occupy Iraq. This could be bad. If I was the coalition forces in southern Iraq I think I would be keeping a close watch on my right flank.
If Iran does get into it I'm heading down to the recruiting office, I wouldn't want to miss out on the opportunity to kill Iranians and Iraqis at the same time. The only thing that worries me is getting killed by "friendly fire" in basic training. :D
One big problem I see with this country is that we are not well prepared to take heavy casualties. The politicians are very afraid of this because the think it might undermine support for the war. This is one reason we'll send in a million dollar cruise missile to take out an Iraqi latrine if they suspect anyones in there.
The Marines took around ten KIAs in one day and the news media is already asking questions as to whether our plan is working. We were taking 100 to 200 hundred KIAs a week in Vietnam for years. Before the war all they did was talk about it like they couldn't wait for it to start so they would have something to suck people to the tube and now they are trying to sow doubt as to whether the whole thing was a good idea. The wars only been going on for five days and asking why it isn't over yet. The media is totally fucking nuts!

cutefix

March 25th, 2003, 03:24 AM

Iran is apprehensive of the ongoing military operation because once Iraq is liberated from dictatorship the opposition and moderate politicians will use that against the conservative rulers that it is possible for democracy to exist in this areas.
They know about the rising discontent in that Shiite ruled populace and the Ayatollah is very much afraid of losing their power due to the onslaught of democratically minded citizens who are tired of the existing government.

This country (can be said to be) ruled by the media and people are sensitive to casualties but there is no such thing as perfect war.Somebody will die in both sides no matter how well trained are the soldiers.
One thing that aggravate the situation is the treachery of this ragheads that they pretend to be surrendering or just plain civilians but well armed and combat ready. :mad:
They know that they cannot win in face to face combat with a superior enemy and they have to use deception to fight back.This will result that the coalition forces may violate the rules of not harming civilians if they cannot separate anymore the combatant from the innocent bystander. :(
The media in itself is much to blame ,if they are patriotic enough they should learn to understand the policies of war and must be willing to submit to limited censorship in their information they forward to the masses.
Most of the populace are not as callous as them regarding violence.
Unfortunately survival of their career is their priority .I am more pleased even if these media people are equally targeted by the enemies and end most of them in body bags.
These people are worthless anyway as they are not helping their government win the war but to bring more apprehension to the populace. :mad:

Bitter

March 25th, 2003, 10:33 AM

"And for gods sake we're out of the cold war. You're only making yourself ridiculous when constantly accusing "treehuggers", "communists" and "marxists"."

"Why the left loves Saddam :

Has anyone noticed an indifference in the precincts of the far Left to the fatalities of 9/11 and the horrors of Saddam Hussein?
Right after the 9/11 attack, German composer Karlheinz Stockhausen called it "the greatest work of art for the whole cosmos."

Eric Foner, an ornament of Columbia University's Marxist firmament, trivialized it by announcing himself unsure "which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House."

Norman Mailer called the suicide hijackers "brilliant."

More recently, it appears that none of the millions of antiwar demonstrators have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured and murdered by his regime. Instead, they vent fury against the American president and British prime minister.

Why is the Left nonchalant about the outrages committed by al Qaeda and Baghdad?

Lee Harris, an Atlanta writer, offers an explanation in a recent issue of the Hoover Institution's journal, Policy Review. He does so by stepping way back and recalling Karl Marx's central thesis about the demise of capitalism resulting from an inevitable sequence of events:

*Business profits decline in the industrial countries;
*Bosses squeeze their workers;
*Workers become impoverished;
*Workers rebel against their bosses, and
*Workers establish a socialist order.

Everything here hangs on workers growing poorer over time - which, of course, did not happen. In fact, Western workers became richer (and increasingly un-revolutionary). By the roaring 1950s, most of the Left realized that Marx got it wrong. [von Mises got it right.]

But rather than give up on cherished expectations of socialist revolution, Harris notes, Marxists tweaked their theory. Abandoning the workers of advanced industrial countries, they looked instead to the entire populations of poor countries to carry out the revolution. Class analysis went out the window, replaced by geography.

This new approach, known as "dependencia theory," holds that the First World (and the United States above all) profits by forcefully exploiting the Third Word. The Left theorizes that the United States oppresses poor countries; thus Noam Chomsky's formulation that America is a "leading terrorist state."

For vindication of this claim, Marxists impatiently await the Third World's rising up against the West. Sadly for them, the only true revolution since the 1950s was Iran's in 1978-79. It ended with militant Islam in power and the Left in hiding.

Then came 9/11, which Marxists interpreted as the Third World (finally!) striking back at its American oppressor. In the Left's imagination, Harris explains, this attack was nothing less than "world-historical in its significance: the dawn of a new revolutionary era."

Only a pedant would point out that the suicide hijackers hardly represented the wretched of the earth; and that their objectives had nothing at all to do with socialism and everything to do with - no, not again! - militant Islam.

So desperate is the Left for some sign of true socialism, it overlooks such pesky details. Instead, it warily admires al Qaeda, the Taliban and militant Islam in general for doing battle with the United States. The Left tries to overlook militant Islam's slightly un-socialist practices - such as its imposing religious law, excluding women from the workplace, banning the payment of interest, encouraging private property and persecuting atheists.

This admiring spirit explains the Left's nonchalant response to 9/11. Sure, it rued the loss of life, but not too much. Dario Fo, the Italian Marxist who won the 1997 Nobel Prize for literature, explains: "The great [Wall Street] speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty, so what is 20,000 dead in New York?"

The same goes for Saddam Hussein, whose gruesome qualities matter less to the Left than the fact of his confronting and defying the United States. In its view, anyone who does that can't be too bad - never mind that he brutalizes his subjects and invades his neighbors. The Left takes to the streets to assure his survival, indifferent both to the fate of Iraqis and even to their own safety, clutching instead at the hope that this monster will somehow bring socialism closer.

In sum: 9/11 and the prospect of war against Saddam Hussein have exposed the Left's political self-delusion, intellectual bankruptcy and moral turpitude."

Al Nobel

March 25th, 2003, 12:35 PM

Not only the extreme left justified the 9/11 attack.In Germany the overwhelming majority of the extreme right parties and organisations supported this attack.They are strigtly against the war in Iraq and every form of american imperialism (I dont like our neonazis,but their attitude towards Amerika is really OK).
It would be interesting to know what the rest of european right-wing extremists think about the 9/11 attacks and the US foreign policy in general.Most of them are of sure against the US support for Israel.I´d like to know if this hate on Amerika of the extrem right is a specificly german phenomenon.

[ March 25, 2003, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: Al Nobel ]

vulture

March 25th, 2003, 03:34 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />More recently, it appears that none of the millions of antiwar demonstrators have a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured and murdered by his regime. Instead, they vent fury against the American president and British prime minister.
<hr /></blockquote>That is the most flagrant lie, apart from this war not being about oil, I have ever heard. Ofcourse, CNN, Foxnews and the other assorted propaganda channels pick out the weird cases between the antiwar protestors. Every single person that I know that is against the war is also against Saddam Hussein.

This is logical, because most people are against the war because innocent people will be killed and also Saddam kills innocent people.
There's nothing bad about getting rid of Saddam, but that is not the real purpose of this war!

Besides, the whole article you copy pasted there does not change the fact that generalizing all antiwar protestors as being plain fucknuts is a sign of ignorance and intolerance.

Knowledgehungry, I do tolerate prowar people, as I don't insult them but rather bring arguments forward. I am however intolerant versus people who rush into a debate without listening to/reading previous arguments and start spouting recycled propaganda or insulting people.

Tuatara

March 25th, 2003, 05:47 PM

Reluctantly I'll enter this debate - it seems to be getting rather emotive (kind of like arguing about religion).

My personal feeling is that while Hussein needs to be removed, I just wish the coalition had waited a bit longer to garner full UN support before invading. We've waited twelve years - whats another few months?

We've had some quite good documentaries on NZ television - interviews with real Iraqi people, both here in NZ and in Iraq itself. The one that struck me the most was the question put to a Kurdish father in northern Iraq, whose young son had been shot by Hussein's soldiers while herding goats. The question was "Most people in the West are against the war because of the risk to Iraqi civilians, what do you think?" (not an exact quote, but you get the idea) His reply "If half of us die to get rid of the Hussein regime, it will be worth it".

I don't like war - I heartily wish we could settle these things without blowing everything up - but that old guy's comment really hit me.

vulture

March 25th, 2003, 05:57 PM

I don't think he really meant it literally. After all, if you've already lost a son, would you like to lose what's left of your family? Add to that that comments of the Iraqi people are always very in favor or very against. I guess it's their way of expressing emotions, as you see in alot of arab countries.

Tuatara

March 25th, 2003, 06:13 PM

I don't think he meant it literally either, but it says something about his feelings on the matter of 'collateral damage' which most anti-war Westerners get so upset about. I got the distinct impression the Kurds have had a very rough time since the last gulf war.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Add to that that comments of the Iraqi people are always very in favor or very against <hr /></blockquote>Funny, if you look back through the thread you'll find the same seems to be true amongst the forum too. Hence my opening comment likening this debate to arguing about religion - you can argue till the cows come home but you'll never change anyone's opinion.

Bitter

March 25th, 2003, 06:35 PM

"That is the most flagrant lie, apart from this war not being about oil, I have ever heard."

Oh really ? Where were the peace protesters against Saddam's actions during the first Gulf war, then ? No where to be seen. Same when the Russians invaded Afghanistan.

"Besides, the whole article you copy pasted there does not change the fact that generalizing all antiwar protestors as being plain fucknuts is a sign of ignorance and intolerance."

How is it intolerant ? Intolerant of what ?

Not all of the anti-war protesters are communists, but all of the communists are anti-war protesters. They don't want a war, but they want to get rid of Saddam, how ?

Just how do you get rid of a dictator, if not by force ? I'd like to hear an answer to this.

shooter3

March 25th, 2003, 06:55 PM

'In sum; 911 and the prospect for war with Saddam Hussan exposed the lefts political self delusion, intellectual bankruptcy and moral turpitude".

Bitter; Good post. However I would add at the end of that "AGAIN!".

Btw, Talking about socialism IS talking about "religion". The religion of Atheists(not all some are libertarians).

Vulture, tuatara is right. I've talked to "holicaust" survivors and most of them are still pissed that we didn't bomb the death camps. It would have slowed the slaughter.

[ March 25, 2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: shooter3 ]

10fingers

March 25th, 2003, 10:57 PM

Good posts Bitter and Cutefix, I agree with you.
I just heard that a British tank accidentally fired at one of it's own tanks and killed two soldiers. I guess "friendly fire" can happen to the Brits too. I must say though that the Brits are doing a hell of a job around Basra. I think they've only had two combat fatalities in some fierce fighting. Way to go Brits!
Everyone knows war is not a good thing, but you sometimes have no other choice. It would be great if the peace and love type people could get rid of tyrants like Hitler, Saddam, Stalin, Milosevic, Kim Il Jong but as yet I've never seen such a thing happen.
Has anyone noticed that it's the countries that are ruled by non representative governments that seem to cause most of the trouble in the world, and where the populations have poor quality of life?
This is where the UN has failed miserably. If this were a civilized world governed my law and morality these types of governments should not be allowed.
The UN did nothing about what happened in Kosovo, that was NATO, they did nothing about Afghanistan. They don't seem to be doing much about the nuclear threat North Korea poses. What good is the UN?
Where were all these "peaceloving" anti-war people when some of these atrocities were going on? I don't remember seeing any of them protesting what Saddam was doing to his own people, I didn't see them when Milosevic was slaughtering the Muslims in Kosovo.
Saddams tyranny and ruthlessness have killed more people in one year than will probably die in this entire war. He has spent billions on his own palaces and building his military while his people starve. The Iraqis have suffered under sanctions, but this is Saddams fault, all he had to do is what he agreed to do after he was defeated in the first Gulf War and the sanctions would have been lifted. His ambition and ruthlessness are the cause of Iraqs suffering.
I just saw an Iraqi government official saying how they will abide by the Geneva convention regarding POWs. What a joke! Every single POW during the first Gulf War was brutally beaten and tortured, an American woman was raped.
It was China that gave nuclear technology to North Korea, the Russians are helping Iran build a nuclear reactor right now, they are also selling GPS jamming technology and anti-tank weapons to the Iraqis.
If the "peaceloving" protesters really want to do some good then they should be protesting what is quietly happening in the oppressed countries of the world everyday. It seems that protesting whenever the US does something is more socially popular at the moment.

Anthony

March 26th, 2003, 10:38 AM

"I just heard that a British tank accidentally fired at one of it's own tanks and killed two soldiers"

It's American propaganda I tell you! :D Seriously, you do have a point - shit happens to all sides, but when the yanks are responsible, you have someone to blame! :(

I agree, the UN needs a kick up the arse. But countries going vigilante are just making a mockery of the UN and not really helping...

Vulture was right, the thing about all anti-war protestors being left wing commie's is nbot only a flagerant lie, but beyong belief. I am opposed to this war, but fuck me if I'm a commie or a leftie!

Bitter

March 26th, 2003, 10:57 AM

Calm down, Anthony, I said :

"Not all of the anti-war protesters are communists, but all of the communists are anti-war protesters."

I'm not calling ALL anti-war protesters communists. I just think that there are alot of communists that are using this anti-war movement as a platform for promoting their own agendas.

There's a crazy quilt of different reasons for and against war, some legitimate, some far from legitimate. It's a matter of weighing up the pros and cons.

vulture

March 26th, 2003, 12:30 PM

As I already mentioned in another thread, Saddam must be taken away by the means of force ofcourse. However, if this was the REAL MOTIVE there is no reason why the US should occupy Iraq for eight years.

If you're really after Saddam you get as much intel on him as you can and then you assasinate him and his close friends using the Delta force or whatever other fancy CIA or military division you guys have for that purpose. But ofcourse, if the largest intelligence agency of the world keeps collecting the fuckups, then you can't base any op on their intel.

Also, the US is proposing the "democratic" opposition of Iraq as a new government. Do you know what the people of Iraq think about that? There are some individuals with a highly suspicous past in Iraq in that opposition and the oil companies have been kissing their asses all the time.

In fact this comes down to replacing one puppet dictator with several puppet leaders, it may look democratic, but it isn't.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Has anyone noticed that it's the countries that are ruled by non representative governments that seem to cause most of the trouble in the world, and where the populations have poor quality of life?
This is where the UN has failed miserably. <hr /></blockquote>Ehm, excuse me. Who installed Hussein and kept him there? Who helped all the dictatorial regimes in South America?

The UN is a system that works if everybody cooperates and is prepared to put some water in the wine. First bypassing it and then telling the rest of the world is a hypocritical way of scapegoating the UN if you ask me.

I know what you're going to say now. You're going to say that immediate action against Iraq was necessary and other countries opposed because of bussiness interests.
Okay let's turn this thing around then.
There are alot of countries which think Israel should be punished too for violating UN resolutions and that it is an equal threat to world peace.
Ofcourse the US won't allow this. It just ehm can't be ehrm because we've ehm....Well, all the jews have been slaughtered in WWII! :rolleyes:

[ March 26, 2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: vulture ]

Al Nobel

March 26th, 2003, 05:03 PM

"Has anyone noticed that it's the countries that are ruled by non representative governments that seem to cause most of the trouble in the world, and where the populations have poor quality of life?
This is where the UN has failed miserably."

There are many examples in history where dictatorships have improved the quality of life,the economic situation...
For example:The Roman emire (500 years of stability and order),the Chinese Empire (almost 3000 successfull years),...
Dictatorships in general are much more dynamic then a democracy can ever be.They can solve problems much faster and better.In less than three years Hitler defeated the unemployment and poverty in Germany.If he hadn´t had this stupid racistic attitude he would have been the most successfull and most important politician in german history.Even Saddam modernized his country and vitaly improved the quality of life in Iraq.
Most of you will say now:But democracys have individual freedom,human rights...Then I can only aswer take a look at worlds biggest democracy Amerika and its legislation at the moment (patriot act...).
What belongs to the foreign policy ,dictatorships are not more agressive than democratic countries.China only defended against external threat for 3000 years,the Roman Empire did the same since 161 A.D..Most middle east countries are dictatorships and they don´t attack each other (they have attacked Israel in the past,but they don´t attack their other neighbours)not even the Taliban tried to attack their neigbour countries.The only aggressive power in the middle east was Iraq and that´s only one of more then ten non-democratic countries in the middle east.And not to forget the only real democracy in the middle east Israel can not be described as peace-loving.
Just take a look at the last 10 years.During this period of time all bigger wars were led by democracys and most of this wars were against international right.

Tuatara

March 26th, 2003, 07:05 PM

I think any system of goverance can be made to work - you just need the right people at the top. You need altruistic people who are not blinded by their own self-importance, not drunk on power, with moral values they apply consistantly in their governance and in their own lives. People who are working for the common good. I'm not a God-squad but that one line from the bible "Do unto others .." seems a pretty good ethos to live by.

knowledgehungry

March 26th, 2003, 11:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I think any system of goverance can be made to work - you just need the right people at the top. You need altruistic people who are not blinded by their own self-importance, not drunk on power, with moral values they apply consistantly in their governance and in their own lives. People who are working for the common good. <hr /></blockquote>Of course, the problem is that there are no people like that who have the ability to rise to power, you need to be power hungry to obtain power.

Tuatara

March 27th, 2003, 01:12 AM

And that is the essense of the problem!

Arkangel

March 28th, 2003, 12:57 PM

US General William Wallace:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against <hr /></blockquote>Fills you with confidence doesn't it. So who the fuck WAS he wargaming with?????

I reckon it was this lot:

<img src="http://www.boomspeed.com/arkangel/tubbyfuckers.jpg" alt=" - " />

And this caught my eye today, an interesting comment from Kenneth Adelman, Donald Rumsfeld's "mentor"

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> We're waging the war against terrorism for the same reason we waged all of our just wars — to preserve our freedoms. Americans must remain free to purchase the safest cars, and those they considered the most fun to drive <hr /></blockquote>

[ March 28, 2003, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Arkangel ]

Al Nobel

March 28th, 2003, 02:08 PM

I always thought Rumsfeld`s mentor would be the devil :D .

What belongs to the war Amerikans seem to be a little bit surprised about the strong Iraqi resistance.Most of Saddam´s soldiers fight rather courageously and they seem not be willing to surrender.
If 90% of the Iraqi people are against Saddam then 100% are against an american occupation.
Apart from this the Iraqi guerillia warfare seems to be a successfull response to the US hightech war.

[ March 28, 2003, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Al Nobel ]

Tuatara

March 28th, 2003, 08:38 PM

That reminds me of a comment a friend of mine once made. Apparently the grenades the Americans had in Vietnam were too powerful - they couldn't throw them far enough because of the jungle!

Once again, having the biggest toys doesn't necessarily make you king of the playground.

Anthony

April 2nd, 2003, 03:25 PM

Saw a newscrew doing an "interview" in the field with a US marine. He was standing on a tank, shouting about his adventures at the top of his voice and waving his arms about madly. He also made a wide variety of interesting impressions of gunfire, explosions etc.

He was like a hyper kid playing paintball, it honestly did seem that he was playing a game...

Mind you, he jumped down sharpish when someone took a pot shot at him :D

This is pretty obscene:

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2907701.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2907701.stm</a>

Although I thought this was just:

"The slogans also called for UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W Bush to be sent to the international criminal court in The Hague"

Although vandalising a WW2 memorial is out of order. The French can think what they like of Bush/Blair/Iraq, but those servicemen saved their country in ~1945.

I also see the A-10 "Brit-killers" are out in force again.

Will those guilty of killing allied troops even be court marshalled? I doubt it - it seems Americans answer to no one :rolleyes:

megalomania

April 3rd, 2003, 01:15 AM

I saw that kid in the tank giving his interview as well. He was probably just some 19 year old having the time of his life. One of the senior military commentators was making fun of him afterwards considering he was making himself about as big a target as one can get. Targeting 101 first lesson says always shoot the guy when he sticks his head out of a tank.

Arkangel

April 4th, 2003, 05:34 AM

Can anyone tell me if this is true? Supposedly it happened on CNN on March the 24th. All the brits should enjoy it :D

Three American experts including a former 2-star general from delta force, 1 ex SAS and the network's anchor.

Footage of Iraqis giving themselves up.

Anchor: We have no verification as of yet if they are British or American troops taking these POW's

Yank 1 : Only Americans wear boots like that, they're American

Yank 2 : I agree, and they appear to have American camouflage jackets.

Yank 3 : (Delta force bloke): I'm not so sure, there's not enough up-close detail to tell 100%, we'd need some close images to tell make of boots and jackets and maybe the shape of their kevlar headgear.

Ex SAS man: Call yourselves experts? Since when did US forces use an SA80 as a standard issue rifle? Their DPM's can be bought as can boots so you're chasing rainbows if you want to identify them from their clothes.

Anchor: I think you're right.

Ex SAS man: Course I'm bloody right. Any one with half a brain and basic military training worth their salt should be able to identify a British soldier by his rifle. Not to mention the fact they're covering all points properly, not shouting "woo yeah" randomly, and haven't raised a flag in direct contravention with orders.

At this point one of the yanks walks off stage tearing his mic off, and the anchor says "I think we can safely say the soldiers on your screen are British. Now for these messages".

darkdontay

April 4th, 2003, 06:14 AM

Would be nice to see a clip of that.

Is anyone here taping these things, more over able to uplaod them.
I find things like these very entertaining....

So how are the bets coming for hwo long the blasted thing will last?
Anywho america keeps sending over more and more young youth that have not enough training or experince and them palce them behind such expenive and complex machines seems redundant. I have a friend that jopined the reserves for the cash and cause well he is lazy and now his ss left three days ago for iraq, I think it is funny. I know the guy realy well he is just a couple months older then me and a close friend and I can say for certain he is the last person you want "watching your back". I have met alot of th people in his group and they are mostly rejects...

We need real soldiers or we are screwed.

10fingers

April 4th, 2003, 09:42 AM

Can't say I saw the news clip you are referring to Arkangel. Are you sure it wasn't Benny Hill or Monty Python you were watching? :D

Anthony

April 4th, 2003, 01:16 PM

This is apprently Monty Python:

"Letter to the Observer (U.K.)
from Monty Python's Terry Jones
Sunday January 26, 2003
The Observer

I'm really excited by George Bush's latest reason for bombing Iraq: he's running out of patience. And so am I!
For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what.
I've been round to his place a few times to see what he's up to, but he's got everything well hidden. That's how devious he is.
As for Mr Patel, don't ask me how I know, I just know - from very good
sources - that he is, in reality, a Mass Murderer. I have leafleted the street telling them that if we don't act first, he'll pick us off one by one.
Some of my neighbours say, if I've got proof, why don't I go to the police? But that's simply ridiculous.
The police will say that they need evidence of a crime with which to charge my neighbours. They'll come up with endless red tape and quibbling about the rights and wrongs of a pre-emptive strike and all the while Mr Johnson will be finalising his plans to do terrible things to me, while Mr Patel will be secretly murdering people.
Since I'm the only one in the street with a decent range of automatic
firearms, I reckon it's up to me to keep the peace. But until recently
that's been a little difficult.
Now, however, George W. Bush has made it clear that all I need to do is run out of patience, and then I can wade in and do whatever I want! And let's face it, Mr Bush's carefully thought-out policy towards Iraq is the only way to bring about international peace and security.
The one *certain* way to stop Muslim fundamentalist suicide bombers
targeting the US or the UK is to bomb a few Muslim countries that have never threatened us. That's why I want to blow up Mr Johnson's garage and kill his wife and children. Strike first!
That'll teach him a lesson. Then he'll leave us in peace and stop peering at me in that totally unacceptable way.
Mr Bush makes it clear that all he needs to know before bombing Iraq is that Saddam is a really nasty man and that he has weapons of mass destruction - even if no one can find them. I'm certain I've just as much justification for killing Mr Johnson's wife and children as Mr Bush has for bombing Iraq.
Mr Bush's long-term aim is to make the world a safer place by eliminating 'rogue states' and 'terrorism'. It's such a clever long-term aim because how can you ever know when you've achieved it? How will Mr Bush know when he's wiped out all terrorists? When every single terrorist is dead?
But then a terrorist is only a terrorist once he's committed an act of
terror. What about would-be terrorists? These are the ones you really want to eliminate, since most of the known terrorists - being suicide bombers - have already eliminated themselves.
Perhaps Mr Bush needs to wipe out everyone who could possibly be a future terrorist? Maybe he can't be sure he's achieved his objective until every Muslim fundamentalist is dead? But then some moderate Muslims might convert to fundamentalism. Maybe the only really safe thing to do would be for Mr Bush to eliminate all Muslims?
It's the same in my street. Mr Johnson and Mr Patel are just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of other people in the street who I don't like and who - quite frankly - look at me in odd ways. No one will be really safe until I've wiped them all out. My wife says I might be going too far but I tell her I'm simply using the same logic as the President of the United States.
That shuts her up.
Like Mr Bush, I've run out of patience, and if that's a good enough reason for the President, it's good enough for me.
I'm going to give the whole street two weeks - no, 10 days - to come out in the open and hand over all aliens and interplanetary hijackers, galactic outlaws and interstellar terrorist masterminds, and if they don't hand them over nicely and say 'Thank you', I'm going to bomb the entire street to kingdom come.
It's just as sane as what George W. Bush is proposing - and, in contrast to what he's intending, my policy will destroy only one street"

About the A10's (BBC article: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2901515.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2901515.stm)</a>

Good bits in bold:

Three wounded UK soldiers have described how they survived an attack by a US A-10 Thunderbolt anti-tank aircraft that killed one of their troop and destroyed two armoured vehicles.
One of the survivors criticised the US pilot for showing "no regard for human life" and accused him of being "a cowboy" who had "gone out on a jolly".

The US A-10 aircraft circled and came around for a second attack
Another survivor said he stumbled out of the burning wreckage of his light tank and waved frantically to the American pilot to try to halt his second attack.

The so-called friendly fire incident, 40 kilometres (24.8 miles) north of Basra, left one soldier missing, presumed dead, and another in intensive care on RFA Argus, the UK forces' hospital ship in the Gulf.

Another soldier who had been in one of the two destroyed Scimitar light reconnaissance tanks, manned by the Household Cavalry, escaped without injury.

Nursing shrapnel wounds and burns, the three injured soldiers, Lieutenant Alex MacEwen, 25, Lance Corporal of Horse Steven Gerrard, 33, and Trooper Chris Finney, 18, spoke of their bewilderment and anger.

They said the US pilot apparently failed to recognise that their tanks were a British make, with special coalition identification aids and even a large Union flag on another machine in the five-vehicle convoy.

Advanced technology

Lance Corporal Gerrard said: "All this kit has been provided by the Americans. They've said if you put this kit on you won't get shot.

"We can identify a friendly vehicle from 1,500 metres [4,921 ft].

"You've got an A-10 with advanced technology and he can't use a thermal sight to identify whether a tank is a friend or foe. It's ridiculous.

I felt I was going to burn to death. I just shouted 'reverse, reverse, reverse'

Lance Corporal of Horse Steven Gerrard
"Combat is what I've been trained for. I can command my vehicle. I can keep it from being attacked.

"What I have not been trained to do is look over my shoulder to see whether an American is shooting at me."

The two Scimitars, followed by two armoured engineers' vehicles and another Scimitar light tank, set out on a "recce" of a road north west of Ad Dayr, north of Basra in southern Iraq, on Friday.

After coming under fire from Iraqi artillery, they were instructed to investigate a shanty town.

Troop leader Lieutenant MacEwen, 25, with special plastic bags now tied around his hands to treat his burns, described how the convoy tensed as villagers waving white flags approached from behind a large bank on the marshland by the Shatt al-Arab river.

"You could see the white flags above the bank but you didn't know whether they had any intention of surrendering or ambushing us," he said.

White light

Lance Corporal Gerrard said he suddenly heard the distinctive, relentless roar of an A-10's anti-tank gunfire.

"I will never forget that noise as long as I live. It is a noise I never want to hear again," he said.

"There was no gap between the bullets. I heard it and I froze. The next thing I knew the turret was erupting with white light everywhere, heat and smoke.

"I felt I was going to burn to death. I just shouted 'reverse, reverse, reverse'.

"My gunner was screaming 'get out, get out'. How I got out of that hole I don't know. Then I saw the A-10 coming again and I just ran."

Lying on his hospital bed, he said the A-10 circled and made a return attack run.

"On the back of one of the engineers' vehicles there was a Union Jack," he said.

"For him to fire his weapons I believe he had to look through his magnified optics. How he could not see that Union Jack I don't know."

Tempting fate

The front two Scimitars, packed with hundreds of rounds of ammunition, grenades, rifle rounds and flammable diesel fuel tanks, exploded into flames.

One of the soldiers' colleagues, Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, did not escape the explosion.

The British Scimitars have distinctive markings
Lance Corporal Gerrard also criticised the pilot for shooting when there were civilians so close to the tanks.

"There was a boy of about 12-years-old. He was no more than 20 metres [65.6 ft] away when the Yank opened up. There were all these civilians around.

"He [the pilot] had absolutely no regard for human life. I believe he was a cowboy. He'd just gone out on a jolly."

He added: "I'm curious about what's going to happen to the pilot.

"He's killed one of my friends and he's killed him on the second run."

Trooper Finney, who was hit in the leg when the A-10 made its second attack, said all the British soldiers and their families joked about "friendly fire".

He said: "I got a letter off my dad the day before the attack and it said 'Be careful, come home soon and watch out for those damn Yanks'.

"Looks like he tempted fate a bit there."

--------------

I find it hard to think of another army that tolerates such incompetent stupidity, let alone a first world one. What's really going to cheese off the families of the victims of incidents is that those responsible will likely go unpunished.

In WW1 Brit soldiers were put against a wall and shot simply for tanding their ground when charged but a force of angry Germans 10 times their size. I remember one poignant story of a man who was in a trench that was over run by the enemy. His rifle jammed and the enemy was closing in on him, so he lodged his rifle across the trench at waist height and ran for his life like any sane man. Upon reaching safety he was court marshalled for cowardice and shot. Last I heard, the MoD were still refusing to apologise to his family.

Maybe a little extreme, but you need discipline in an army! None of this "it's ok to cry" crap.

An interesting TV program that I'd like to see would be to take the elite special forces of a few countries and put them through the training for the other country's SF and see how they do.

EDIT: I just keep coming across this stuff:

"Divided by a common language - speeches prior to the war"

"If you are ferocious in battle, remember to be magnanimous in victory. We go to liberate, not to conquer. We are entering Iraq to free a people, and the only flag that will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Don't treat them as refugees, for they are in their own country. If there are casualties of war, then remember, when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day. Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves. You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest, for your deeds will follow you down history. Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birth of Abraham. Tread lightly there."

The US speech - Vice Admiral Timothy Keating:

"When the president says 'Go', look out - it's hammer time" (followed by We Will Rock You at high volume)."

(Fixed link ~MrC)

[ April 05, 2003, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Mr Cool ]

Al Nobel

April 4th, 2003, 06:13 PM

Monty Python is genial :) .

zaibatsu

April 5th, 2003, 07:32 AM

Just a small point, why do the Americans on TV always talk in metaphors? They're always saying something like "When they saw what they were up against, they didn't want to play anymore..."

Mr Cool

April 5th, 2003, 12:13 PM

It helps the poor Yanks to understand, Zaibatsu.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />"When the president says 'Go', look out - it's hammer time" (followed by We Will Rock You at high volume).<hr /></blockquote>I didn't hear about that 1st hand, when I was told about it I thought - I hoped - that it was a joke. Obviously not :( :mad: :( .

I didn't see that clip you're talking about either Arkangel, but someone told me something like that, so maybe it did happend.

[ April 05, 2003, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Mr Cool ]

Anthony

April 8th, 2003, 03:05 PM

I heard a saying the other day: "You know the world is fucked up when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black man, America is accusing France of arrogance, and Germany doesn't want to go to war!"

:)

vulture

April 8th, 2003, 03:42 PM

As we're nearin the end of the war, the bullshit about rescueing the people of iraq has been uncovered in the most shameful manner.

A sum up:

- Washington promised medical aid and food supplies to the Iraqi population. The reality: people in Basra are still starving and still don't have any acces to clean drinking water. Before coalition forces took the city, they had sufficient food, water and electricity.

- The "precision" bombardments: The town of Nasiriya has been totally obliterated by US bombardments. There was no distinction between civil or military targets. More than 300 civilians were killed and hundreds of wounded are awaiting a painful dead in hospitals without the promised supplies.

- Bagdad: Cluster bombs mutilated several tens of people and killed approx 30. Not to mention the cruise missiles and rockets fired from aircraft that went astray.
I also have sincere doubts about the attack on Saddam. He wouldn't be that stupid to go dining in an unprotected restaurant. I guess the bombing was just a fuck up which hit a civilian target and the military is trying to cover it up by saying it was an attack on Saddam.
And again, in the hospitals of Baghdad hundreds of civilians are awaiting a painful death because there are no medical supplies and the doctors can't move through the city because they were being fired at!

- Press control was redefined today by the US military when they killed 3 journalist and bombed the buildings of Abu Dhabi and Al jazeera.
A tank fired a round at the 15th floor of the palestine hotel, of which everyone knows that journalists are staying there, killing 2 reuters journalist and severely wounding 2 others. The military claims the tank was being fired upon from the hotel lobby, although all independent journalists in the hotel deny that.

knowledgehungry

April 8th, 2003, 05:20 PM

The people of Basra do not have food yet due to iraqi military resistance, not because the US doesnt want too. 300 civilians still doesnt add up to the amount of people that saddam has killed. When the number of civilians killed by the US and the UK equal the number killed by saddam let me know.

Anthony

April 8th, 2003, 07:34 PM

Well the number of US or UK civies killed thus far by the coalition was greater than the number killed by Saddam before the conflict started, as soon as it hit one...

I see we've also lost another war corespondant, from the beeb this time IIRC.

I wonder if the US media is showing footage of civies dying in Iraqi hospital with comments about lack of doctors/beds/supplies? They have here, just wondering if the US audiences get to see this side.

The description of the hospitals - more patients than beds, long waits to see too few doctors, made me exclaim "just like the NHS!"

Has Baghdad been secured yet? Bush promised a cake-walk!

Seriously, if such a kerfufel is made conquering little old Iraq, the US is going to need to hone it's imperialistic skills quite considerably :)

megalomania

April 9th, 2003, 11:55 AM

Just as I was ready to break out my old Gulf War trading cards from the last war it looks like this war is over. All too soon it would seem as the yellow ribbons have only just started going up across my town. The t-shirts have yet to hit the shelves, and the Saddam toilet paper is still in the drawing room. Oh what will become of the languishing American economy if the merchandising rights to this war are for naught?

For some reason Gulf War card #1 (President Bush) has remained a fixture in my lab for the past 12 years now. I have the entire collection, really. Purchased at great expense for reasons that elude me now I was led to believe they would be collector’s items someday. Maybe I should have tried to sell the lot on Ebay. They are in pristine condition; I may even have an unopened package with the set. It is strange that after a decade the weapons and players are exactly the same. Card #1 is almost the same president, we still have #53 scuds, #21 A-10s, and some #40 Patriot missiles. Only Stormen Norman is missing this time around (and no scud stud either).

1991 was the first time I ever watched CNN. I, like most of my high school contemporaries, didn’t watch such networks since we had Beavis and Butthead. Of course back then MTV showed its other programming as a rare treat, choosing to air these things called “music videos” during regular hours. Back then we didn’t have MSNBC (Windows 3.0 didn’t make that much money), FOX news, Headline news, or anything else. CNN was it and we loved it.

Today I doubt our troops even had enough time to find a cache of Saddam’s gold from a map lodged in some enemy’s ass. It is nice to see the American flag being flown for the first time in Baghdad without it being on fire :) Now we can really get to work installing a puppet regime, arming them, training them, and eventually letting them go about their own way… where they will promptly revert to their old ways and we start Gulf War III. America seems to have a track record of setting up dictators who eventually grow weary of the American leash. Usually we let them go about the same time they have some crisis (floods in the north, plague to the south, fires to the east, invaders to the west; well good luck with that… your on your own). This tends to build a little bit of resentment, just a little.

Now comes the many years of cleanup. All those cities that were ravaged by chemical weapons, the thousands of troops who were contaminated, and the anthrax and smallpox that rained down from the sky. Oh, wait a minute, a voice behind me is saying that never happened. How can this be? Are there not billions of liters of nerve gas packed into millions of shells and rockets? Are there not hundreds of chemical factories buried under the desert sands? There was a scare a few days ago when troops stormed into a laboratory and found the proof they were looking for: In this lab of evil were such tools of terrorists and madmen as test tubes and beakers! Filled with *gasp* chemicals! Everyone here knows if you have a test tube you must be some sort of terrorist madman hell bent on global domination. By god what country sold them these illegal scientific instruments? It was France wasn’t it? Damn it France!

Thank god we spent billions of dollars and sacrificed thousands of lives to rid the world of a handful of test tubes in the hands of terrorists. Now we can go back to our regular lives of rooting out the test tubes in our own country. Let our great government never rest until the smoldering bodies of all would be scientists with test tubes lie dead, crushed under the jackboots of democracy!

knowledgehungry

April 9th, 2003, 07:30 PM

As the people of Iraq are no longer under the power of Saddam there seems to be a good deal of pro-american sentiment. Whether i see that sentiment only because im watching US tv or because that is the way most iraqis feel i do not know. If people from other countries would let me know how the people from Iraq are shown on their tv(welcoming the US/UK or hostile to it) I would appreciate it. From the american view it appears that the Iraqis are overjoyed at the downfall of saddam.

EDIT: Anthony are you sure about the US/UK inflicting more casualties than saddam? Numbers would be appreciated backing your statement, im not saying your wrong but as i have no numbers to compare i cant say your right either. Yes the US has been showing the footage of the lack of supplies in hospitals, the US blames the continuing fighting on the inability to get supplies in, I know, I know you are all going to say that if the US hadnt started this war then they wouldnt have to wait for the fighting to cease before aid could be supplied.

[ April 09, 2003, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: knowledgehungry ]

Anthony

April 10th, 2003, 03:46 PM

They're showing a lot of cheering "thank you for saving our pathetic hides" types on the TV here, too.

I'm not sure whether more coalition troops were lost to accidents/friendly fire than to the enemy, although it wouldn't surprise me.

What I really meant was the deaths caused by saddam's regime before the military action was started. I.e. the everyday threat he posed to our fellow citizens.

We were told that this action was a humanitarian campaign to help the Iraqis. So why wasn't preperation made to supple aid during the fighting, as anyone would expect when it would be needed most?

North Korea seems like a much harder target. Assuming they do actually have a million man army, and they won't just surrender. America may well bite off a lot more than it can chew if it gets excited after this victory and storms in.

And they just couldn't resist pulling that shit with the flag again, could they :rolleyes:

"We're here to liberate you! Now grovel before our mighty banner, peasants!".

knowledgehungry

April 10th, 2003, 11:50 PM

I'm sorry you misunderstand me, i was talking about the casualties inflicted by saddam upon his OWN people, not those he inflicted upon us. I was comparing iraqi deaths caused by the us/uk and those caused by Saddam himself.

DaRkDwArF

April 11th, 2003, 03:31 AM

The worst part about North Korea is all the suspected secret ties between other influencable South East Asian nations. I mean Indonesia would jump at a chance to fuck the co-allition/western world over so would alot of other nations. And they have the man power to play the offence as well as the defence, things could get really really nasty if anything was to happen