|
Post by Topcontender on Mar 24, 2003 18:39:18 GMT -5
LOL i might not support the guy, but "shit happens" is always good for a laugh and an explanation.
US forces are fighting the Medina, Nebakanezer and another group south of Baghdad. The 3rd infiltry, British forces and 1 mech div are coming north to fight these guys. The idea is to pound them from outside that city and take them apart before they run for baghdad. Plus the tank group from H1 and H2 are coming over are sweeping around the back to box these 3 groups in. I take it we won't advance unless we get a ton of them. And the way things are sounding we are pounding the piss out of them.
Also "The Sun" UK, is reporting that Iraq is pleaing to Russia for a doctor/ hospital to take a patient. The guy is suffering from abdominal injuries and will die if not treated. Sounds like Saddam!!
|
|
|
Post by justan on Mar 24, 2003 20:09:43 GMT -5
Henrik, The missiles that landed in Iran- didn't the Iranians report that they had made a mistake and that they were infact Iraqi missiles not coalition missiles? I'm fairly sure I didn't dream up that report??? Indeed you are correct they were Iraqi. Whether they were launched by design into Iran I have not read anything about that.
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Mar 24, 2003 21:15:45 GMT -5
Iran is pissed because we are flying over thier country for our attacks.
PLus Iran is not to happy with Saddam either.
|
|
|
Post by CFF on Mar 25, 2003 0:03:31 GMT -5
It's not a surprise that countries will "help" Iraq where they can, but with the reports over the past 36 hours that companies in Mother Russia are (and have been) providing Saddam et al with technical goodies (including Tank Busting RPG's, Night Vision Equipment, and GPS jamming equipment), is it any wonder the USA/British are just a tad upset?? Regular munitions are one thing, but let's face it, the only use for GPS jamming gear is to make bombs intended for military targets .... land more frequently on non-military targets. Somehow ... that doesn't seem quite right ..... or ... does it ? Thoughts? CFF
|
|
|
Post by pabs on Mar 25, 2003 2:18:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Mar 25, 2003 2:20:59 GMT -5
Regular munitions are one thing, but let's face it, the only use for GPS jamming gear is to make bombs intended for military targets .... land more frequently on non-military targets. Somehow ... that doesn't seem quite right ..... or ... does it ? Thoughts? CFF No that does not seem right, and I can very well understand that the US are upset with the Russians at this point. Still, can't the GPS jamming gear make bombs intended for any target land simply more frequently away from the target. I would think the normal intentions would be self defence, and not a means to inflict damage on non-military targets.
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Mar 25, 2003 9:59:02 GMT -5
Dont worry the GPA jammers are already taken out. The General said it is no big deal and that they didnt work We even used a GPS guided bomb to take one out
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Mar 25, 2003 11:08:02 GMT -5
No that does not seem right, and I can very well understand that the US are upset with the Russians at this point. Still, can't the GPS jamming gear make bombs intended for any target land simply more frequently away from the target. I would think the normal intentions would be self defence, and not a means to inflict damage on non-military targets. Yeah, because Saddam gives a fuck about his non military targets.
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Mar 25, 2003 11:28:15 GMT -5
da Silva,
The way CFF put it in his post, it seemed as if the purpose of the GPS jamming devices was to ensure that bombs fell on non-military targets i.e. hit civilians so as to make the US look bad.
As despicable and crazy as Saddam is, I would still think that the primary goal would be to protect military targets, and not to ensure civilians get hit. Obviously Saddam would also see the benefit he could gain from some bombs accidentally falling on civilians as well.
Then again, perhaps I read CFF's post wrongly.
Either way, as per TC, the devices don't help them. The targets are still being hit as planned.
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Mar 25, 2003 11:32:34 GMT -5
Hen, My point was that Saddam has never given a damn about his civilian population in the past why would he start now? Of course that IS if they have/had the ability to change the course of a missile. I can't wait for Saddam to be gone and this to be all over, but I suspect that Baghdad will be very ugly.
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Mar 25, 2003 11:35:58 GMT -5
Here's a short quote from a Reuters report of today:
This to me is an example of how the US at present are actually losing some credibility in the media, and probably amongst certain parts of the Western population. Up until the attacks started, we heard Rumsfeld and company say several times that the war would be quick "it could be over in 6 days, or it could be over in 6 weeks" etc. Granted, they often mentioned longer periods up to 6 months, but the problem is that people on hear what they want. As such, by saying first 6 days, far too many people got the impression that it really would be over in 6 days.
Now that that time frame is over, and they are running in to some trouble (which is normal), people are beginning to question how the US is actually going about this, and how long it will really take. The anti-war crowd will soon begin to increase in numbers as more soldiers are reported dead. People will be faced with the reality of war, and not some fictional depiction as was brought to them before.
Obviously making the whole thing seem easy provided them with the home support they needed to get things started. Now we will see where this will lead....
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Mar 25, 2003 11:50:01 GMT -5
Here's a short quote from a Reuters report of today: This to me is an example of how the US at present are actually losing some credibility in the media, and probably amongst certain parts of the Western population. Up until the attacks started, we heard Rumsfeld and company say several times that the war would be quick "it could be over in 6 days, or it could be over in 6 weeks" etc. Granted, they often mentioned longer periods up to 6 months, but the problem is that people on hear what they want. As such, by saying first 6 days, far too many people got the impression that it really would be over in 6 days. Now that that time frame is over, and they are running in to some trouble (which is normal), people are beginning to question how the US is actually going about this, and how long it will really take. The anti-war crowd will soon begin to increase in numbers as more soldiers are reported dead. People will be faced with the reality of war, and not some fictional depiction as was brought to them before. Obviously making the whole thing seem easy provided them with the home support they needed to get things started. Now we will see where this will lead.... I disagree..........surprise. LOL. I think if the initial strikes had taken out the Iraqi government then this might have already been over. The US have been very cautious and have even said it may take six months. They have never said it would be easy. You even say yourself people hear what they want, is that the media's fault or the Coalition forces fault, I think it is obvious that it is the media's fault.
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Mar 25, 2003 11:54:57 GMT -5
da Silva,
What I'm saying is the US is losing credibility in the media.
If his is the fault of the media or the government is a different question. Fact is the media has portrayed it as being easy, and I believe the government let this be as it served their purpose at first.
I think also in general that several of the representatives of the US government are simply very bad when it comes to public display. We have seen over and over disagreement being presented, we have seen statements being made, only to be corrected later by somebody else a bit later as they realized how it was being perceived etc. I think it is fair to say that they are not particularly skilled in making the best of the media.
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Mar 25, 2003 12:03:04 GMT -5
Over and over? Examples?
Personally I think the reps have done very well at keeping the civilian population informed as to whats going on. The expectation of the media means nothing to me anyway since it is ratings driven.
It is intersesting though to see the spins the different networks put on stories. The CBC for example are putting a very anti war spin onto their stories where CNN are doing the opposite. I suppose the truth lies somewhere inbetween.
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Mar 25, 2003 12:11:54 GMT -5
The main text of a British officer address to his men before going into Iraq:
We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country,"
"We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.
"There are some (of them) who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those (of them) who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
"As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.
"Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there.
"You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.
"You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.
"Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.
"If there are casualties of war then remember that 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."
"It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.
"We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow.
"The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.
"There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.
"He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity."
"It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly.
"I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.
"If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
"The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please."
"If you harm the regiment or its history by over enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.
"You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation."
Warning that the troops were very likely to face chemical or biological weapons, he said: "It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack."
His closing words were resolute: "As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there. Our business now is north."
Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Collins 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Guards
Incredibly poetic and poignant
|
|