uh oh.. what else did we find

[kleinma]

CNN - BREAKING NEWS
U.S. officer says American troops find thousands of boxes of unknown white powder, nerve gas antidote, and chemical warfare documents at complex south of Baghdad, according to The Associated Press.

[Xanith]

It’s only a matter of time before the world sees what US intelligence has known all along. Saddam has been hiding his chemical and nuclear programs under the noses of the UN and the rest of the world.

X

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Xanith
It’s only a matter of time before the world sees what US intelligence has known all along. Saddam has been hiding his chemical and nuclear programs under the noses of the UN and the rest of the world.

Well it was mighty nice of the US intelligence to keep that intelligence to themselves and allow a war to be started, instead of giving the info to the inspectors and averting this war.

[kleinma]

Originally posted by plenderj
Well it was mighty nice of the US intelligence to keep that intelligence to themselves and allow a war to be started, instead of giving the info to the inspectors and averting this war.

lol it is always out fault...

he didn't say they were keeping intelligence to themselves.. he said they knew all along that saddam had these things... which our govt has been saying since this whole thing started

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
Well it was mighty nice of the US intelligence to keep that intelligence to themselves and allow a war to be started, instead of giving the info to the inspectors and averting this war.
The problem was Saddam was in control of the country and could move things at will before inspectors could find them. Therefore such intelligence was worthless to inspectors. We knew he had the WMD's and that he was moving them around. Iraq is a big country with a lot of hiding places. Simply to vast for a handful of inspectors to play hide and seek.

X

[Memnoch1207]

The building where these boxes (about 3,000 of them) were found had been inspected by the UN inspectors on more then one occasion (the last time it was inspected was Feb. 18th), they never found anything, but low and behold, now that the UN inspectors aren't there, they find this...Just more proof that saddams regime is/was moving it's weapons from place to place to prevent the UN inspectors from finding them.

[plenderj]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
The building where these boxes (about 3,000 of them) were found had been inspected by the UN inspectors on more then one occasion (the last time it was inspected was Feb. 18th), they never found anything, but low and behold, now that the UN inspectors aren't there, they find this...Just more proof that saddams regime is/was moving it's weapons from place to place to prevent the UN inspectors from finding them.

Assuming of course they are actually weapons.

[plenderj]

To quote : http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1086309,00.html

A senior US official familiar with early testing proceedures said the white powder was believed to be explosives.

[kleinma]

Originally posted by plenderj
To quote : http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1086309,00.html

A senior US official familiar with early testing proceedures said the white powder was believed to be explosives.

if we found a stock pile of nukes with saddams fingerprints on them i bet you would say they were planted by us :rolleyes:

[plenderj]

Originally posted by kleinma
if we found a stock pile of nukes with saddams fingerprints on them i bet you would say they were planted by us

Yeah I probably would.
Especially seeing as he has no nuclear capabilities ;)

[Xanith]

Originally posted by plenderj
Yeah I probably would.
Especially seeing as he has no nuclear capabilities ;)
Actually that’s not true. Some "experts" say that he had enough material to actually produce a few bombs. Thanks largely in part to the French and their sale of nuclear technology and reactor to Saddam.

X

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by plenderj
Yeah I probably would.
Especially seeing as he has no nuclear capabilities ;)

Your in idiot.... there is a thing called "money", and some countries might, just maybe, be willing to swap a nuke, or parts of it in exchance for this "money" :rolleyes:

[Shaggy Hiker]

At this point, it still isn't clear if the powder was weapons of mass destruction material. Experts say "Explosives"? So what, even I might have some explosive powder around if I looked. If this powder turns out to be conventional weaponry, we shouldn't re-classify it just to be right.

[chenko]

"Weapons of mass destruction" - propaganda word. TNT can be a "WMD" if you really want it to be :rolleyes:


Anyways, I would really like to see what Chemicals and Nuclear weapons the US are hiding, and I wouldnt belive you if you said they didnt.

We need much more countries to be in this really, as much as im against the war, I dont like the fact that one country is driving this, and that it can easily be corrupted. The British troops are doing paf all tbh, they are not being put to there best uses, seeing as they are a better force.

[Memnoch1207]

The British troops are doing paf all tbh, they are not being put to there best uses, seeing as they are a better force.

That depends on the warfare...The British do an excellent job at urban warfare, no doubt about it....But in an all out war...The US would win hands down...Better technology.

[Pc_Madness]

What was up with those 200 boxes of dead bodies they found? Definately something wrong there....

[honeybee]

Originally posted by kleinma
if we found a stock pile of nukes with saddams fingerprints on them i bet you would say they were planted by us :rolleyes:

That is a very strong possibility, actually :rolleyes:

So far, whatever "interesting sites" your marines have found, have turned out to be quite different than chemical weapons manufacturing facilities. Therefore I don't think your claim of Iraq possessing WMDs can stand at all once the war is over.

Also the Iraqi resistance has been so pathetic, it actually goes to prove that the Iraqi regime was no imminent threat at all. Why, no Iraqi warplanes have even been sighted, forget about being used.

All this picture leads to only one conclusion: Under the guise of finding the WMDs, the US has managed to take over another soverign country, and will establish its representative government there: Colonization in modern times.

.

[honeybee]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2919631.stm
Ms Rice said Iraq was unique, and it was natural that those who had sacrificed blood and life would play a leading role in the aftermath.


Clearly Mr. Bush doesn't want anyone else to share the loot :)

.

[Pc_Madness]

Originally posted by honeybee
Why, no Iraqi warplanes have even been sighted, forget about being used.


Haha. You do realise, that because of the no fly zones over the country for a long time, the Iraqi's have been unable to train pilots for their fighters, and I doubt anyone would want to go against an American fighter anyway. ;)

And thats assuming of course that they actually have any working aircraft ;)

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Pc_Madness
Haha. You do realise, that because of the no fly zones over the country for a long time, the Iraqi's have been unable to train pilots for their fighters, and I doubt anyone would want to go against an American fighter anyway. ;)

And thats assuming of course that they actually have any working aircraft ;)

Are you actually backing up the claim that there's not much of a chance Iraq could have used WMDs over a range?? :D

.

[Pc_Madness]

*coughsplurt*SCUD*coughsplurt* :rolleyes:

[chenko]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
That depends on the warfare...The British do an excellent job at urban warfare, no doubt about it....But in an all out war...The US would win hands down...Better technology.

Yea right. And they still fire and kill friendly troops.

Better technology, maybe, doesnt make them a better force, specially when they cant even use that "tecnology" to hit the correct target or the correct side.

[hellswraith]

Better technology, maybe, doesnt make them a better force, specially when they cant even use that "tecnology" to hit the correct target or the correct side.
That is just ignorant. 95-99% of our stuff hits on target. You only hear about the 5% in the news though, and you think that is what it is about.

And yes, your right, having better technology doesn't make a better force, it is being able to effectively use that technology that makes it a better force. They train day in and day out with the better technology so they are at ease with it in the battle field. It does give them the advantage whether you admit it or not.

[hellswraith]

Yea right. And they still fire and kill friendly troops.
Friendly fire will ALWAYS happen. To much is happening in war for it to not. Plus, sometimes technology fails, and even worse, humans always are the weakest link because of emotions. EVERY side has friendly fire incedents. I don't care who they are.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by chenko2
Yea right. And they still fire and kill friendly troops.

Better technology, maybe, doesnt make them a better force, specially when they cant even use that "tecnology" to hit the correct target or the correct side.
Dont be ignorant. Friendly fire incidents have been happening since the first caveman learned to throw a rock and they will continue to happen. Why is this you ask? Because we are all human. Human's design the weapons and humans use them. Humans are imperfect beings and prone to mistakes therefore friendly fire incidents will ALWAYS happen. Had coverage of WWII been like it is today you would probably be shocked by just how many friendly fire incidents there were on all sides.

X

[chenko]

Originally posted by hellswraith
That is just ignorant. 95-99% of our stuff hits on target. You only hear about the 5% in the news though, and you think that is what it is about.

And yes, your right, having better technology doesn't make a better force, it is being able to effectively use that technology that makes it a better force. They train day in and day out with the better technology so they are at ease with it in the battle field. It does give them the advantage whether you admit it or not.

Well considering the amount of ordinace which is being fired, that 1 to 5% is _alot_ of accidents. Also, attacking a tank without IDing it? twice, specailly as it is a different tank from that of which the Iraqi army uses. Attacking a frienly group when the air strike had the coordinates of the ground positions that that same group called to be bombed. Also, going back to the first gulf war, more British troops were killed by US troops than by the enemy.

Use it effectivly? how did a patriot missile fire automatically instead of using IFF? It sure doesnt change on its own.

Yes, I might be pretty ignorant, but its small in comparision.

Xanith, True, but the shear amount is what you have to look at. As some troops said "We dont know what to be more worried about, Iraqi troops infront of us, or US troops behind" "We've been trained in all types of combat, except avoiding being shot by friendly troops"


Originally posted by Pc_Madness
*coughsplurt*SCUD*coughsplurt* :rolleyes:

SCUDs are not really "weapons of mass destruction". They are allowed SCUDs (though they did have a problem with some having a too long of range)

[hellswraith]

Well considering the amount of ordinace which is being fired, that 1 to 5% is _alot_ of accidents.
It is actually a lot lower than that. I just gave you some pretty lax numbers because I didn't want to figure it out. Here is a break down to actually get the real numbers for you:

Based on this site: http://vialardi.org/IRAQ/iraq_by_numbers.html

Iraqi deaths (not a hard number) around 500 civilians.
Collition forces 107 dead (not all are from friendly fire, but we will use them all in our figures to help your side).

Total of about 607 dead that shouldn't have been killed from bombing.

14,750+ bombs dropped (actually a hell of a lot more because that figure only counts precision guided ones, but again, we will use figures to help your argument out).

We are going to need another figure that I couldn't find, and that is how many deaths per stray bomb. Lets give a conservitive estimate of 3 deaths per stray bomb. That means 200 bombs were strays.

That is a 1.4% error rate by those numbers. Like I said though, there have been a lot of conventional bombs dropped to add to the 14,750 number. Probably around 5,000+ more. Also, not all those deaths are from our bombs, so the amount of deaths from those can also be safely reduced. That means we are getting less than 1% innocent deaths from our bombs.

You won't find ANY war with that accuracy in the history of time. You at least have to appreciate that.


Also, attacking a tank without IDing it? twice, specailly as it is a different tank from that of which the Iraqi army uses.
This statement comes to what I said ealier in one of my posts. Human error. It happens. Deaths happen in a lot of jobs because a co-worker was being careless. My father was almost killed where he worked because a crane operator wasn't watching what he was doing, although there are strict proceedures when running the crane to prevent such accidents. (He was lucky, but could have easily been killed if he hadn't turned around in time.)

Also, going back to the first gulf war, more British troops were killed by US troops than by the enemy.
Of course, because of the accuracy of the weapons the US uses, they will hit the targets aimed at. Human error again for shooting them at them, but that was explained above. The Iraqis, if they had as accurate of weapons as the US, would have killed more because they were intentionally shooting at the british troops.

Use it effectivly? how did a patriot missile fire automatically instead of using IFF? It sure doesnt change on its own.
Do you know that the British plane didn't have his IFF off or if it was malfunctioning? Patriot missiles don't fire automatically. They have to be initiated by a ground person. Human error? Maybe. Also, was it a US manned Patriot missle battery or Kuati? I don't know all the facts of this one, but it probably comes down to human error again.

The reason I called your statement ignorant is because it was obviously slanted to state one side of the story. If it was a logical one that included facts that presented your argument, I wouldn't have called it so.

[BodwadUK]

They are allowed SCUDs (though they did have a problem with some having a too long of range)

No their not!!!! Scud are extremely dangerous and can also carry a nuclear or bio weapon hence the sudden checking of the first missiles fired into Kuwait.


Scuds are banned from Iraq!!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Maven]

Originally posted by plenderj
Well it was mighty nice of the US intelligence to keep that intelligence to themselves and allow a war to be started, instead of giving the info to the inspectors and averting this war.

We provded lots of intel....

[Maven]

Originally posted by chenko2
"Weapons of mass destruction" - propaganda word. TNT can be a "WMD" if you really want it to be :rolleyes:


Anyways, I would really like to see what Chemicals and Nuclear weapons the US are hiding, and I wouldnt belive you if you said they didnt.

We need much more countries to be in this really, as much as im against the war, I dont like the fact that one country is driving this, and that it can easily be corrupted. The British troops are doing paf all tbh, they are not being put to there best uses, seeing as they are a better force.

First off scientist consider them to be weapons of mass desturction. Most people with sense would consider a weapon that can kill in the millions to be a WMD.

We have had checmial, biological, and nuclear weapons. Ereyone knows we have them, its no secret.

[Maven]

Originally posted by chenko2
Yea right. And they still fire and kill friendly troops.

Better technology, maybe, doesnt make them a better force, specially when they cant even use that "tecnology" to hit the correct target or the correct side.

Our stuff is more acurate then anyone elses and is constantly being improved.

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by chenko2
"We've been trained in all types of combat, except avoiding being shot by friendly troops"


He just summed up the entire problem in one sentance. Obviously more training is needed to learn how to avoid getting shot by your own troops.

[MasterBlaster]

ERm

http://www.msnbc.com/news/895392.asp

[chenko]

MasterBlaster, That is STUPID. sorry, but it is. Why should a country train not to be fired upon by friendly forces when they are trained *not* too shoot friendly forces. Me thinks they need to make it harder for troops in the U.S. Army, sitting at base stations with microwaves, dounout(sp) machines and TVs isnt my idea of what the army does.


Originally posted by BodwadUK
No their not!!!! Scud are extremely dangerous and can also carry a nuclear or bio weapon hence the sudden checking of the first missiles fired into Kuwait.


Scuds are banned from Iraq!!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ok, they are allowed SCUDS with a range of less than 77miles (if im correct, its near that thou)

Do you really think that someone would fire a SCUD with a nuclear war head (thou, there hasnt been any nuclear war heads fired on a scud missole) so close to the firing point? pretty stupid really. They *are* allow SCUDs as long as they fire under the allotted range.


Maven, Yes I know, why not disarm first before you tell other countries to disarm?

"Our stuff is more acurate then anyone elses and is constantly being improved."

Really? a patriot missile hitting a friendly target? and airstike on the same people that called it? a tomahawk missing Iraq completely, more than once... very very accurate :/

"We provded lots of intel...."
I dont call models of a suspected lorry that can carry the stuff "intel"... I laughed when I saw there proof, this "smoking gun"


hellswraith, Well if you want to complain about it, then at least look up some info and get what you are saying a little more correct for the sake of the argument.

"You won't find ANY war with that accuracy in the history of time. You at least have to appreciate that."

I never said there would be no mistakes. Im saying that alot more come form the US than most other countries, and its not the first time, i have already mentioned the first gulf. I dont call killing more British than the enemy did a "fact of war" I call it insanity.

" Do you know that the British plane didn't have his IFF off or if it was malfunctioning? Patriot missiles don't fire automatically. They have to be initiated by a ground person. Human error? Maybe. Also, was it a US manned Patriot missle battery or Kuati? I don't know all the facts of this one, but it probably comes down to human error again."

No reports marked that IFF was off or malfunctioning on the Jet, Possible thou, but do you know the difference between a jet and a missile? Yes, they can fire automatically upon threats using IFF or without it. human error? yup, thats my main point.


"The reason I called your statement ignorant is because it was obviously slanted to state one side of the story. If it was a logical one that included facts that presented your argument, I wouldn't have called it so."

Well you didnt state any facts, you just called me ignorant first with nothing to back it up, in turn, I call you ignorant for that previous comment.

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by chenko2
MasterBlaster, That is STUPID. sorry, but it is. Why should a country train not to be fired upon by friendly forces when they are trained *not* too shoot friendly forces. Me thinks they need to make it harder for troops in the U.S. Army, sitting at base stations with microwaves, dounout(sp) machines and TVs isnt my idea of what the army does.

First off, show some manners *******. Second, When you get some combat experience you can give me your expert opinion and call me stupid. Ground forces most definatly should get more training to avoid getting hit by friendly fire. Do you know why the ground forces were hit? Didn't think so. Do you know if the ground forces misread the hot zones for the bombing runs? Do you know if they were miscommunicated coordinates called in by ground forces? It is eaiser for a ground unit to Identify itself and keep accurate recods of their location than it is for a guy at 10,000 feet going 600 mph to identify them by site.

[hellswraith]

I stated facts, and where I didn't know them, I clearly stated that I didn't. Here, look at my post again:
It is actually a lot lower than that. I just gave you some pretty lax numbers because I didn't want to figure it out. Here is a break down to actually get the real numbers for you:

Based on this site: http://vialardi.org/IRAQ/iraq_by_numbers.html

Iraqi deaths (not a hard number) around 500 civilians.
Collition forces 107 dead (not all are from friendly fire, but we will use them all in our figures to help your side).

Total of about 607 dead that shouldn't have been killed from bombing.

14,750+ bombs dropped (actually a hell of a lot more because that figure only counts precision guided ones, but again, we will use figures to help your argument out).

We are going to need another figure that I couldn't find, and that is how many deaths per stray bomb. Lets give a conservitive estimate of 3 deaths per stray bomb. That means 200 bombs were strays.

That is a 1.4% error rate by those numbers. Like I said though, there have been a lot of conventional bombs dropped to add to the 14,750 number. Probably around 5,000+ more. Also, not all those deaths are from our bombs, so the amount of deaths from those can also be safely reduced. That means we are getting less than 1% innocent deaths from our bombs.

You won't find ANY war with that accuracy in the history of time. You at least have to appreciate that.
Those are facts, and again, where I couldn't find a hard number, I gave the benifit of the doubt to your side.

Im saying that alot more come form the US than most other countries, and its not the first time, i have already mentioned the first gulf.
You are right, it is going to come from the US more than any other countries. This is basic statistics. The US has a lot more troops and equipment over there than any other country. Of course that would indicate that the US will have more friendly fire incidents than other countries.

You also failed to mentioned that the British shot one of their own tanks:
On March 25, a British tank misidentified another British tank, firing a shell that killed two soldiers and seriously injured two others inside.
The US isn't the only ones that do this, but because of the larger number of US forces, statistics will dictate that the US will have more friendly fire incidents.

[chenko]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
First off, show some manners *******. Second, When you get some combat experience you can give me your expert opinion and call me stupid. Ground forces most definatly should get more training to avoid getting hit by friendly fire. Do you know why the ground forces were hit? Didn't think so. Do you know if the ground forces misread the hot zones for the bombing runs? Do you know if they were miscommunicated coordinates called in by ground forces? It is eaiser for a ground unit to Identify itself and keep accurate recods of their location than it is for a guy at 10,000 feet going 600 mph to identify them by site.

I said sorry when I said it, as it was not offence to you, just your oppionion, I think your comment deserves more than just a fire back.

No, that is what I dont understand... when a pilot is given coordinates, this is programmed in, and they only have to fire within a required range, and it will sort the target itself, large margin of error, so it shouldnt happen.... but it did? so that showed that the pilot was way off out of the margin. Also, the pilots should aquire a target and find out what it is first, specially as that A4 (i think thats it) did two runs on a tank, and he wasnt at 10k ft when he did it. Also, if you get a request for an airstrike on tank positions near the people who called it, aint you going to expect your own troops to be near by? so, do you just bomb the first thing you see? specially as its not on the coordinates that you were given?
That guy at 10k ft needs to fly by coordinates because they will get into positions where they HAVE to fly by there equipment readouts (this wasnt the case at the time, specially at that height) and they have far better equipment for getting there postitons.

Bombing runs on open desert? Ummm right mate. and the airsticke was airstrike was called, so it wasnt previously planned.

[hellswraith]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
First off, show some manners *******. Second, When you get some combat experience you can give me your expert opinion and call me stupid. Ground forces most definatly should get more training to avoid getting hit by friendly fire. Do you know why the ground forces were hit? Didn't think so. Do you know if the ground forces misread the hot zones for the bombing runs? Do you know if they were miscommunicated coordinates called in by ground forces? It is eaiser for a ground unit to Identify itself and keep accurate recods of their location than it is for a guy at 10,000 feet going 600 mph to identify them by site.

Exactly. Also, based on my knowledge of the targeting systems, the pilot just punches in some numbers to mark grid cordinates that the ground crew gives them. Sure, there is a chance that the ground gives the wrong cordinates, or the pilot punches them in wrong, **** happens. I believe the pilot has to repeat back though after punching the numbers in, so it takes a lot to screw it up. Once the pilot has the numbers in, it dives down to a predetermined level and when the computer indicates, pushes a button. The bomb does everything else.

[chenko]

"You are right, it is going to come from the US more than any other countries. This is basic statistics. The US has a lot more troops and equipment over there than any other country. Of course that would indicate that the US will have more friendly fire incidents than other countries."

Im not talking amounts, im talking ratios. So it doesnt matter how many there are.




"You also failed to mentioned that the British shot one of their own tanks:"

To be honest with you, I thought that was US-US because of what I was told, and I never looked into it more. Hence why I never mentioned it in any statements. I will look into it later, and form my oppionions on it.


"The US isn't the only ones that do this, but because of the larger number of US forces, statistics will dictate that the US will have more friendly fire incidents."

As the first statment

[MasterBlaster]

I wasn't refering to bombing runs in poen desert. I was refering to bombing runs hitting allied convoys on the supply lines which are constantly being scanned for enemy convoys and should be considered "Hot". Obviously there are communication errors occuring between aircraft and ground forces. To solve the problem you have to determine where the breakdown is occuring and why the breakdown is occuring. This will require training for the air and ground forces. Allied convoys traveling through zones with Jets looking for targets of opportunity should make damn sure certain that the airforce knows exactly where they are and where they are going. Errant bombs killing friendlys will never be solves, **** happens. Also, You'd be suprised how Easy it is to call in a fooked up grid coordinate when someone is slinging lead at you. Equate that to me shooting at you with a machine gun and making you tell some one multiplication tabels over the phone at the same time.

[hellswraith]

Also, if you get a request for an airstrike on tank positions near the people who called it, aint you going to expect your own troops to be near by? so, do you just bomb the first thing you see? specially as its not on the coordinates that you were given?
No, he doesn't, he bombs the coordinates that the troops gave him. If troops are calling for an air strike, it means they are under some heavy fire. The aircraft doesn't have time to fly by a couple times to make sure the coordinates are right. He HAS to trust the troops on the ground to give the correct coordinates. They have to be smart enough to give the pilots the correct coordinates.

To be fair, look at how many close air support missions have been successful. This one incident isn't the norm, it is the exception.

[chenko]

Originally posted by hellswraith
Exactly. Also, based on my knowledge of the targeting systems, the pilot just punches in some numbers to mark grid cordinates that the ground crew gives them. Sure, there is a chance that the ground gives the wrong cordinates, or the pilot punches them in wrong, **** happens. I believe the pilot has to repeat back though after punching the numbers in, so it takes a lot to screw it up. Once the pilot has the numbers in, it dives down to a predetermined level and when the computer indicates, pushes a button. The bomb does everything else.

Another point agian, it takes "alot" to screw up.

And what are the chances of the ground troops giving there own coordinates?

s*** happens? Would you think that if your brother? father? sister? was killed ?



Originally posted by MasterBlaster
I wasn't refering to bombing runs in poen desert. I was refering to bombing runs hitting allied convoys on the supply lines which are constantly being scanned for enemy convoys and should be considered "Hot". Obviously there are communication errors occuring between aircraft and ground forces. To solve the problem you have to determine where the breakdown is occuring and why the breakdown is occuring. This will require training for the air and ground forces. Allied convoys traveling through zones with Jets looking for targets of opportunity should make damn sure certain that the airforce knows exactly where they are and where they are going. Errant bombs killing friendlys will never be solves, **** happens. Also, You'd be suprised how Easy it is to call in a fooked up grid coordinate when someone is slinging lead at you.

I never referenced to that, again I know know everything about that, and tbh, i totaly missed that, another mistake to add to my list, and I think a convy is easy to spot, 1) direction (small, but it helps), 2) the tanks, lorries, etc are much different to the Iraqis, 3) the jets are allerted to the positions of the convy, its really hard to see something which is large, and not check it out before bombing it specially when it looks like a convy which is what you are defending.

again, "s*** happens" would you think it was just "s***" if it was a relative of yours that was killed? And if you dont care that much, why do you care enough about these Iraqi Civies getting "slaugtered" enough to start a war? or isnt about that ?

[hellswraith]

http://www.datelinealabama.com/article/2003/04/03/4288_war_art.php3

Here you go, here is one article that I quoted from.

Im not talking amounts, im talking ratios. So it doesnt matter how many there are.
I have no idea what you mean? I am talking ratios too. The ratio of US to British forces is pretty big. That means the ratio of friendly fire comes more from the US than from the British. Could you clarify what you mean a little more?

[chenko]

Originally posted by hellswraith
No, he doesn't, he bombs the coordinates that the troops gave him. If troops are calling for an air strike, it means they are under some heavy fire. The aircraft doesn't have time to fly by a couple times to make sure the coordinates are right. He HAS to trust the troops on the ground to give the correct coordinates. They have to be smart enough to give the pilots the correct coordinates.

To be fair, look at how many close air support missions have been successful. This one incident isn't the norm, it is the exception.


Ok, you are mixing up two inccidents, the A4 with its two fly-bys on the tank (which he fired BOTH times) and the airstike that was called. when the airstike is called, you trust the coords, but nothing has suggested that they were wrong as of yet, and if they was, that would easily be known, and its hard to make a mistake if they are in correctly. the A4 on the tank.. that wasnt a planned target, you dont just attack a dot you see, you check to find out who it is, and whos tank it is, its not like a tank can fire a jet out of the sky easily.

[chenko]

Originally posted by hellswraith
http://www.datelinealabama.com/article/2003/04/03/4288_war_art.php3

Here you go, here is one article that I quoted from.


I have no idea what you mean? I am talking ratios too. The ratio of US to British forces is pretty big. That means the ratio of friendly fire comes more from the US than from the British. Could you clarify what you mean a little more?

When i say that US troops have made more mistakes, they have made more in ratio compared to other countries, no matter what the size.

[hellswraith]

Just for the record, I don't want anyone to die...US, British or even Iraqi forces.

So to say what if it was my father, I do understand your point.

What I am saying though is war is never beautiful. If it was, everyone would do it. When at war, we HAVE TO EXPECT things like this to happen. Whether we like it or not, human error will happen. Mechnical falure will happen. This is a fact.

[hellswraith]

Originally posted by chenko2
Ok, you are mixing up two inccidents, the A4 with its two fly-bys on the tank (which he fired BOTH times) and the airstike that was called. when the airstike is called, you trust the coords, but nothing has suggested that they were wrong as of yet, and if they was, that would easily be known, and its hard to make a mistake if they are in correctly. the A4 on the tank.. that wasnt a planned target, you dont just attack a dot you see, you check to find out who it is, and whos tank it is, its not like a tank can fire a jet out of the sky easily.

True, I was talking about the air strike.

I know from listening to radio traffic that the pilots report back to say they found a tank along with the coordinates. Command reports back to the pilot that there is no friendlies in the area and go ahead and shoot. Yes, there is a lot there for human error to happen. If that tank strayed off course, it could easily happen.

Also, a tank can fire a jet out of the sky if it gets close enough, that is another reason that the A4 couldn't get too close to it without firing. The reason it can is because the ground crew can aim small arms at the plane and bring it down. One bullet can bring down a jet, and it isn't as hard as you think.

[chenko]

Originally posted by hellswraith
Just for the record, I don't want anyone to die...US, British or even Iraqi forces.


You are the first American to include Iraqi forces, and I commend you for it. Sadly that case it not shown for the majority, and its completely the other way around.

Originally posted by hellswraith

So to say what if it was my father, I do understand your point.

What I am saying though is war is never beautiful. If it was, everyone would do it. When at war, we HAVE TO EXPECT things like this to happen. Whether we like it or not, human error will happen. Mechnical falure will happen. This is a fact.

Yup, my point is that it needs to be reduced even more, and the mistakes are far too many.

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by chenko2
I never referenced to that, again I know know everything about that, and tbh, i totaly missed that, another mistake to add to my list, and I think a convy is easy to spot, 1) direction (small, but it helps), 2) the tanks, lorries, etc are much different to the Iraqis, 3) the jets are allerted to the positions of the convy, its really hard to see something which is large, and not check it out before bombing it specially when it looks like a convy which is what you are defending.

It was a Kurdish Military convoy who did not properly Identify themselvs. if the Jet had known in the first place It was allied then this crap wouldn't have happened. I'm not arguing with you about the fact that the Jet should have double checked. He should have. Would that have changed anything? I don't know, I wasnt there and have no Idea what the situation was. All I'm saying is that training just the USAF not to shoot friendlys obviously dosnt work, but if done in conjunction with training ground forces to avoid getting hit there is a great possibility that the friendly fire rate will go down. If you can't understand that then I don't know what else to tell you.


again, "s*** happens" would you think it was just "s***" if it was a relative of yours that was killed? And if you dont care that much, why do you care enough about these Iraqi Civies getting "slaugtered" enough to start a war? or isnt about that ?
Yes I would and yes I have and of course I have grieved over it and hate to here when it happens, but with the current system it is an unavoidable occurance. BTW I was refering to errant/ malfunctioning bombs, not someone simply shooting at the wrong target when I said sheit happens.

You haven't read too many of my posts have you? I am far from bashfull about my stance on this war. I do not give a sheit if Iraqi civillans live or die, I couldn't give a sheit about oil, I do however care about Iraq selling chem/bio weapons to terrorists for use against the US and it's allies. I don't care how many Iraqi soldiers men women and children need to be killed to stop that from happening.

[hellswraith]

When i say that US troops have made more mistakes, they have made more in ratio compared to other countries, no matter what the size.
To not use size of forces for perspective, your argument is twisting the truth to represent itself.

Simple fact, yes, the US has more friendly fire incidences. Another simple fact, the US has way more forces fighting than other countries.

[hellswraith]

Yup, my point is that it needs to be reduced even more, and the mistakes are far too many.
Sure, it would be cool to get them to zero, but that is unrealistic. The only way to have zero friendly fire is to have zero war. That can't happen either, not now anyway.

[chenko]

Originally posted by MasterBlaster


You haven't read too many of my posts have you? I am far from bashfull about my stance on this war. I do not give a sheit if Iraqi civillans live or die, I couldn't give a sheit about oil, I do however care about Iraq selling chem/bio weapons to terrorists for use against the US and it's allies. I don't care how many Iraqi soldiers men women and children need to be killed to stop that from happening.

If you do not care about it, I do not care about your posts, you have been put in the the rare location, my ignore list.


Link (http://www.vbforums.com/member2.php?s=&action=addlist&userlist=ignore&userid=32370)

[MasterBlaster]

Gee wiz I'm really broken up about that :rolleyes:

[MasterBlaster]

PS, to everyone else who hasn't ignored me. I apologize if I do not want to wake up to a cloud of poison gas floating in my front yard. Something about being covered in puss filled blisters convulsing in a pile of my own piess and sheit makes me disregard being Politically Correct.

[hellswraith]

Might as well put me on it too then, cause I feel pretty much the same. I don't want chemicals like that around me and the family. I believe that we need to have this war to ensure that doesn't happen. I am not so hard though on the innocent people as he is, but still feel the same about the chem and bio weapons.

[Maven]

Originally posted by chenko2
MasterBlaster, That is STUPID. sorry, but it is. Why should a country train not to be fired upon by friendly forces when they are trained *not* too shoot friendly forces. Me thinks they need to make it harder for troops in the U.S. Army, sitting at base stations with microwaves, dounout(sp) machines and TVs isnt my idea of what the army does.




Ok, they are allowed SCUDS with a range of less than 77miles (if im correct, its near that thou)

Do you really think that someone would fire a SCUD with a nuclear war head (thou, there hasnt been any nuclear war heads fired on a scud missole) so close to the firing point? pretty stupid really. They *are* allow SCUDs as long as they fire under the allotted range.


Maven, Yes I know, why not disarm first before you tell other countries to disarm?

"Our stuff is more acurate then anyone elses and is constantly being improved."

Really? a patriot missile hitting a friendly target? and airstike on the same people that called it? a tomahawk missing Iraq completely, more than once... very very accurate :/

"We provded lots of intel...."
I dont call models of a suspected lorry that can carry the stuff "intel"... I laughed when I saw there proof, this "smoking gun"


hellswraith, Well if you want to complain about it, then at least look up some info and get what you are saying a little more correct for the sake of the argument.

"You won't find ANY war with that accuracy in the history of time. You at least have to appreciate that."

I never said there would be no mistakes. Im saying that alot more come form the US than most other countries, and its not the first time, i have already mentioned the first gulf. I dont call killing more British than the enemy did a "fact of war" I call it insanity.

" Do you know that the British plane didn't have his IFF off or if it was malfunctioning? Patriot missiles don't fire automatically. They have to be initiated by a ground person. Human error? Maybe. Also, was it a US manned Patriot missle battery or Kuati? I don't know all the facts of this one, but it probably comes down to human error again."

No reports marked that IFF was off or malfunctioning on the Jet, Possible thou, but do you know the difference between a jet and a missile? Yes, they can fire automatically upon threats using IFF or without it. human error? yup, thats my main point.


"The reason I called your statement ignorant is because it was obviously slanted to state one side of the story. If it was a logical one that included facts that presented your argument, I wouldn't have called it so."

Well you didnt state any facts, you just called me ignorant first with nothing to back it up, in turn, I call you ignorant for that previous comment.

They are not allowed sucds at all, sucd missles are ballistic. Thier allowed short range missles.

why don't we all just thorw our guns in the ocean so the world will be peaceful. Because we know the bad ones woudln't.

Oh ok, show me any other country who has more acurate weapons since you like knocking on ours. Perhaps you can build the perfect missle eh?

[nishantp]

Originally posted by chenko2
If you do not care about it, I do not care about your posts, you have been put in the the rare location, my ignore list.


Link (http://www.vbforums.com/member2.php?s=&action=addlist&userlist=ignore&userid=32370) I don't see the point, now he gets to say whatever he wants behind your back. Ignoring things doesnt make them go away.

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by nishantp
I don't see the point, now he gets to say whatever he wants behind your back. Ignoring things doesnt make them go away.

I've never said anything that I wouldn't have the cojones to say to someones face. I don't plan on talking sheit behind any ones back. If someone is intollerant enough to ignore someone who disagrees with them then fine. I won't loose any sleep over it.

[nishantp]

I wasn't talking to you, but hey...


I'm glad you're strong in your opinion...personally I find the civilian deaths part distastful.

[MasterBlaster]

As do I, but if I have a choice between my family ending up dead or someone elses family ending up dead (either directly or indirectly) then I don't consider the first scenario even remotly close to an acceptable option. Our troops are doing every thing they can to avoid harming Iraqi civilians and due to recent events I applaud them. As long as the Iraqi people support the Allies removing the Baath party from power then I believe we are handeling the situation correctly.

PS: If you can find anything about a war that is not "distastefull" please clue me in.

[nishantp]

Heh.


What do you think about the Iraqi "Information Minister".

Apparently the Iraqi forces killed most of the infidel invaders, and are about to finish them off any time
:D This guy is great.

[MasterBlaster]

Yea, Iraqi soldiers killed all of the US soldiers shown on TV at the baghdad airport. Of course, according to him it was found that the Video tape was filmed in hollywood and if they were there they would have killed them. :D Sad part is people there still believe that crap.:rolleyes:

[nishantp]

Some people, but I think people are starting to wake up.

That stunt they pulled where they rolled 60 tanks and Bradleys in and out of the city must have woke some people up.

[hellswraith]

They won't believe it for too long though, they will soon realize that they are being lied to. To me, the Information Minister is actually doing the regeme bad by saying this. This means the Iraqi people will actually be able to easily say to themselves that they have been lying to us, and that will actually help our cause more. I hope he keeps doing it, it will just make it better for us.

I was waiting for a bomb to take him out when I was watching that last night live. That would have been sooooo sweet. I know, there were others around him, but those guys are feeding the crap to the masses, so they deserve to go with him.

[nishantp]

There are quite a few western reporters there to ya know.

It would be funny if he was doing one of his live interviews and an Abrams rolls by in the backround. Lol.

[hellswraith]

Ya, that would have been funny. It is amazing to me how he does it with a straight face.

[BodwadUK]

He needs to dress as a clown and dance around a bit :D :D :D


He might be more convincing :D :D :D

[alex_read]

Yup, my point is that it needs to be reduced even more, and the mistakes are far too many.
It could, and SHOULD have been 0 had those @$%#! Blair & Bush not gone into this pointless war in the first place.

As to the Uh-Oh what else did we find point, whether saddam had or has WMD is irrelevant as Bush will smuggle, plant & photo a load of WMD anyway if they're not found so he can try to rally people & justfy his cause, there's no way this war's gonna end without them saying they didn't find any!

God I despise these f*****g governments.

[BodwadUK]

You didnt vote labour then??? :D :D :D :D

[BodwadUK]

Some people forget that people are starving to death in Iraq every day. Before anyone says it is just because of sanctions i can say the only reason many get to eat is because of the oil for food program that was set up. Saddam uses all money for himself and does not invest in his country hence the starvation. Look at his palaces he is the worst example of a bad leader that i can think of.

Yes people are dying in war but how many will be saved from starvation when money starts flowing back into their economy again and not into Saddams filthy hands!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[alex_read]

Good old Charles Kennedy mate - I went for the underdogs the Lib Dems as they offered more for me.

Blair's had some good idea's when he first started out, but now his head's shoved so far up Bushe's ass, that he's become part of bush, mitosis or whatever it's called - they've become like one person & Blair's stopped completely any thinking he did for himself before!

[Shaggy Hiker]

As far as waking up to a cloud of poison gas, you don't know my co-worker. Boy is it rough working at a field station some times.

For those who are after the terrorists, keep in mind that Sept. 11 was the worst terrorist attack, but the second worst was committed by a blond haired, blue eyed, gulf war veteran. Furthermore, the Tokyo subway attack used Sarin gas, which didn't come from some dictators regime, it was cooked in Japan.

We can't end terrorist threats by getting rid of any group of people. The unfortunate truth is that our own people cause more terrorist attacks than foreign nationals do. If you look at the last ten years of crimes appearing to be terrorism, I would site the Atlanta Olympic bombing, the snipers, Oklahoma City, and WTC I and II. Only the last two were foreign influence. If you add in some plane bombings, it could get a little larger, but I can't think of any US plane terrorist bombings recently.

To summarize this scattered post: The terrorists are us as well as them. To attack a foreign country and kill their people in the belief that it will decrease terrorism, is to ignore the fact that most attacks are domestic by domestics.

[MasterBlaster]

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
As far as waking up to a cloud of poison gas, you don't know my co-worker. Boy is it rough working at a field station some times.
For those who are after the terrorists, keep in mind that Sept. 11 was the worst terrorist attack, but the second worst was committed by a blond haired, blue eyed, gulf war veteran. Furthermore, the Tokyo subway attack used Sarin gas, which didn't come from some dictators regime, it was cooked in Japan.

Yea, I know. I'm not talking abour sarin gas or ricin or any of the other home brewed coctails. It was confirmed that Saddam had VX Gas and Anthrax by weapons inspectors before saddam threw them out the first time. Where the hell is this stuff. It is either A. destroyed B. Hidden in a hole somewhere C. Sold to someone else. Saddam had 12 years to proove "A" and failed. That only leaves 2 other alternatives.

We can't end terrorist threats by getting rid of any group of people. The unfortunate truth is that our own people cause more terrorist attacks than foreign nationals do. If you look at the last ten years of crimes appearing to be terrorism, I would site the Atlanta Olympic bombing, the snipers, Oklahoma City, and WTC I and II. Only the last two were foreign influence. If you add in some plane bombings, it could get a little larger, but I can't think of any US plane terrorist bombings recently.

Agreed, there is no way to rid the world of terrorists. However, if bombing the crap out of Iraq reduces the odds of terrorists making it to the US/Europe with VX or Anthrax I say go for it.

To summarize this scattered post: The terrorists are us as well as them. To attack a foreign country and kill their people in the belief that it will decrease terrorism, is to ignore the fact that most attacks are domestic by domestics.
Our government Is responsible enough not to hand out chem/bio weapons to domestic terrorists AFAIK.

[Shaggy Hiker]

My point about the Tokyo bombing was that Sarin can probably be manufactured at home (not my home, thanks, but in this country). As for Anthrax, I left it off the list, along with the unibomber. We had our little anthrax attack, and we still don't know who did it. I would bet it was domestic, but I also thought that the snipers would turn out to be a pair of bubbas.

I, personally, feel that bombing the crap out of Iraq makes terrorism more likely, not less. Domestic terrorism won't change one way or another due to this, and I don't see how this will reduce the likelihood of terrorists using chemical weapons. VX might be reduced, but readily manufactured chemicals will not be reduced. Terrorist attacks on civilian populations would be just as effective with lesser chemicals than VX, since the damage will be done before anybody reacts.

[run_GMoney]

Originally posted by alex_read
It could, and SHOULD have been 0 had those @$%#! Blair & Bush not gone into this pointless war in the first place.

As to the Uh-Oh what else did we find point, whether saddam had or has WMD is irrelevant as Bush will smuggle, plant & photo a load of WMD anyway if they're not found so he can try to rally people & justfy his cause, there's no way this war's gonna end without them saying they didn't find any!

God I despise these f*****g governments.
:rolleyes: Of course we'll be planting evidence. Isn't that always the case?:rolleyes:
No amount of evidence will ever be enough for people like you. And even when it's presented or found, it was either planted or fabricated by our government. You despice these ****ing governments? I hear Antactica is nice this time of year. Their government should suit you just fine.

[hellswraith]

I feel that if you don't like your government, move or do something about it.

I know in the US, we vote for who is in our government. If we don't like said representitive, we vote to change them out. If that isn't how it is in the country your at, maybe you need to try to fix that, or move to another country that expresses your views. I can't stand people whinning about their government, but yet don't do anything about it. It is in your hands to change the government, or change the place you live. If you stay and don't to anything about it, well..... it must not be too bad!

[nishantp]

Originally posted by hellswraith
I feel that if you don't like your government, move or do something about it.

I know in the US, we vote for who is in our government. If we don't like said representitive, we vote to change them out. If that isn't how it is in the country your at, maybe you need to try to fix that, or move to another country that expresses your views. I can't stand people whinning about their government, but yet don't do anything about it. It is in your hands to change the government, or change the place you live. If you stay and don't to anything about it, well..... it must not be too bad! Please note: In the US and other free contries, you can change things in govt without your life being threatened.

[BodwadUK]

Saddam could sell Nukes to terrorists that is what they fear!!! You cant build one of them (Thats reliable at least) in your house.

Saddam is a threat because he promotes terrorism, true killing him wont get rid of it but it will reduce the amount of fanatics brought up and will also reduce the terrorists supply of weapons.

Imagine if they set off a nuke in Paris, London, New York etc etc etc!!!!!:( :( :( :(