American POW's.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Northlander
My god, you are childish. Its doesnt matter if you are or are not capable of changing the region. It is about none of us knowing if you are and therefore alot of people are against it. The other point is that it is not your business even if you are capable and because of that others are against it.

Childish? All I did was bring to light your confession. Remember this:

Originally posted by Northlander
I cant really see how it would work and what the plan is.

Originally posted by Northlander
You guys are positive to the war with the same knowledge. Seems to me you just want war regardless of logic. You cant know if it all make you more secure. Nevertheless you think the war is great. You cant know the amount of dead iraqis in the end, still you think they benefit from a war. In the end we might end up with total chaos in the region. A load of dead americans and iraqis. An ever increase of terrorist attacks on USA and elsewhere and a whole lot of countries going to war regardless of UN all over the place.

You're right, we don't know the final outcome by daring to change the current regime., but we do know what will happen if we don't. I'd much rather they had taken the same chance on deposing Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the many other dictators who have massacred their people. Finally, leadership has taken center stage.

Originally posted by Northlander
About your POWs. Dont give me that "they are innocent" BS. If someone drags you down to the conscription center and forces you to sign up, resist. If someone ties you up and send you on a very long journey to a place where other folks live in the desert. Please resist. Its really simple. If you dont like being in war and if it is no fun being killed or tortured in the desert. Dont go there. Its you choice.

FYI, The US uses an all volunteer force. We do not draft, conscript, or coerce our troops into service. You're right again (twice in one post, I'm so proud of you!) What is criminal is that Iraq demands the protection of the Geneva Convention while refusing to comply with it themselves. The trials should be interesting, if there are any of the criminals left alive to stand trial.

Originally posted by Northlander
After seeing the dead children after the US bomb on the market in Baghdad a few days ago, I really hope the pilot gets downed. Im sure he will not regret what he has done until the iraqis gets their hands on him. I absolutely wish him a living hell.

In case you haven't noticed, hd that been a US bomb they would have been picking pieces out of a very large hole in the ground. The more likely case is that this is the product of Iraqi AAA falling back to earth.

[Mediocrates]

An 81mm mortar has a 50% kill radius of 150 meters for example. A 150mm high explosive tank round would have an even larger kill radius. I recall an Israeli pizzeria being levelled with only a few pounds of Semtex. For comparison's sake, of course.

I blew 400 lb tree stumps out of the ground using less than a dozen feet of detcord.

[JustPat]

Oh for the good ole days when TNT was available at the local hardware store.

[Northlander]

I know they are volunteers Justpat. Thats the point.

What could also be said about the geneva convention is that USA first breaks it by filming prisoners on guantanamo and also in Iraq and then complains when the iraqis does the same. This US administration has zero credability when it comes to international laws and conventions.

Its pathetic to first see an invasion and then hear the invaders crying about the enemy not following rules. Did the vietnamese or the afghans defend their independence by holding hands and singing songs?

[elke]

I believe the Coalition commanders because they have to notify the families. As they do so, there are people watching, both the "unimbedded reporters", with views a la Peter Arnette, and "regular Joes" as well. The Coalition commanders have also established a much better credibility, you might agree, than the Iraqi regime that believes it "won" the first Gulf war.

As far as the Geneva Convention goes: just as in any laws, some are more important than others. Showing prisoners on TV is one thing, executing, torturing, and dismembering them is a completely different story. Yesterday, IRC has had a chance to visit the Iraqi POWs in Coalition's hands. Whatever their report, this is in stark contrast with the "negotiations" they are having in attempting to visit the American POW's in Iraqi hands. It's technically no more difficult for the Iraqis to organize such visits than it is for the Coalition, so why the delay?

[JustPat]

Originally posted by elke
I believe the Coalition commanders because they have to notify the families. As they do so, there are people watching, both the "unimbedded reporters", with views a la Peter Arnette, and "regular Joes" as well. The Coalition commanders have also established a much better credibility, you might agree, than the Iraqi regime that believes it "won" the first Gulf war.

As I watch the war coverage I am amazed at what is broadcast. With people like Geraldo Rivera imbedded, I am certain that the level of integrity of the reports by the Coalition Central Command and the Pentagon is held to a higher standard of integrity. This is like nothing in my lifetime. These journalists are not only actually there, they come under the same fire as the troops they cover. I see both Coalition journalists and those of the Arab press imbedded. It would be difficult, from my own experience, to have these reporters along and be able to lie to the world. Al Jazeera's reporters are no longer imbedded with their unit. Against the advice of the commanders they decided to get more personal, bad decision. They were "detained" by the Iraqis and held for ten days. Only after being liberated by Coalition troops were they able to go home. Not only were they detained, but according to they testimony they were held in locations that were bombing targets, one suspects that they were being used as human shields. Do you think there will be any pro-Coalition coverage in al Jazeera as a result? Doubtful.

Originally posted by elke
As far as the Geneva Convention goes: just as in any laws, some are more important than others. Showing prisoners on TV is one thing, executing, torturing, and dismembering them is a completely different story. Yesterday, IRC has had a chance to visit the Iraqi POWs in Coalition's hands. Whatever their report, this is in stark contrast with the "negotiations" they are having in attempting to visit the American POW's in Iraqi hands. It's technically no more difficult for the Iraqis to organize such visits than it is for the Coalition, so why the delay?

To cite the specifics:

Art 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

Full text: http://www.icrc.org

Unfortunately, some of the language is ambiguous and thus what is considered an "outrage to personal dignity" in one culture may not be in another. The lawyers will never be out of work.

AS to the visits, with such a large TO, it is likely difficult at this point to get the ICRC to locations where POWs are being held and guarantee their safety. Once these POWs are consolidated to a detainment facility the process should accelerate.

[localbrew]

Originally posted by Communication
I think he meant that we are getting ourselves involved in a battle that we can't master. None of these soldiers have seen the type of battles that they will encounter in Baghdad. It's going to get very ugly and the world is counting the number of civilian casualties. It might turn into another Jenin, only on a much larger scale.

Anyway, I think that's what he meant.

At the end of this war the whole world will see that more Iraqi civilians were killed by Iraqi’s than by coalition collateral damage. That is the bottom line in the big picture.

Great news! US Special Ops rescued a POW today. PFC Jessica Lynch, 19 years old.

[Alfred]

Being a former military man....


I used to chuckle at the Swedes who would condem the US for moving to the "lethal and inhumane" 5.56 military bullet.

This was especially funny as everyone knew that the Swede 7.62 round was much more deadly than the US version.....as it had a thin metal jacket and tended to twist and turn within the body of the person who was shot. The US and Brit version tended to go right through the body without doing the "inhumane" thing.

The German 7.62 round was almost as deadly as the Swedish round.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Alfred
Being a former military man....


I used to chuckle at the Swedes who would condem the US for moving to the "lethal and inhumane" 5.56 military bullet.

This was especially funny as everyone knew that the Swede 7.62 round was much more deadly than the US version.....as it had a thin metal jacket and tended to twist and turn within the body of the person who was shot. The US and Brit version tended to go right through the body without doing the "inhumane" thing.

The German 7.62 round was almost as deadly as the Swedish round.

I have used the Swedes 7.62 and let me tell you it is a killer. You can put one in a groundhog at 200 yards and it will literally scramble the guts and never come out.

[mimil]

Originally posted by JustPat
I have used the Swedes 7.62 and let me tell you it is a killer. You can put one in a groundhog at 200 yards and it will literally scramble the guts and never come out.

The ratio of the time elapsed since I last heard about the US using such weapons over the time elapsed since I last heard the Swedish using such weapon has to be close to a million.

[Northlander]

True Mimil. And Im very happy about that too. Im sure the americans here however will use that as some kine of arguement too.

Since I have killed neither groundhogs nor farmers with either 7.62 or 5.56 caliber Im sure I have zero credability when it comes to war in general.

Today the standard assaultrifle in the Swedish Army has 5.56 cal ammo not 7.62 just to get it right.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Northlander
True Mimil. And Im very happy about that too. Im sure the americans here however will use that as some kine of arguement too.

Since I have killed neither groundhogs nor farmers with either 7.62 or 5.56 caliber Im sure I have zero credability when it comes to war in general.

Today the standard assaultrifle in the Swedish Army has 5.56 cal ammo not 7.62 just to get it right.

And the US uses a .223, as long as it does the job, who cares. Be it a .308, 30-06, 6.5-55, or .303, guns used in military operations were designed to kill people in the most efficient way possible. This is war gentlemen, not high tea.

[Northlander]

To that I agree.

Since we wont agree on anything political lets keep it on military for a while. Regardless of opinions we all want to know whats going on I guess.

Does anyone have any idea where the iraqi airforce are? I mean we havent seen any reports from the allies on numbers of destroyed iraqi aircrafts and prior to the war started iraq were supposed to have some planes. They did enter the no-fly zones from time to time and no planes were shot down under those encounters. So where are they?

Also where are the SAMs? They have barely used it since the war started and they sure have them. Now they seem to just use AA guns but no SAMs over Baghdad.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Northlander
Does anyone have any idea where the iraqi airforce are? I mean we havent seen any reports from the allies on numbers of destroyed iraqi aircrafts and prior to the war started iraq were supposed to have some planes. They did enter the no-fly zones from time to time and no planes were shot down under those encounters. So where are they?

I hear they have been grounded with a severe case of lead poisoning.

Originally posted by Northlander
Also where are the SAMs? They have barely used it since the war started and they sure have them. Now they seem to just use AA guns but no SAMs over Baghdad.

SAMs have been used extensively and almost exclusively over Bagdad. Due to Coalition target identification the Iraqis have been shy about turning on their fire control radar, a must for the SAMs they possess.

I am not sure but what Saddam isn't playing the sly fox and luring the Coalition into a trap in Bagdad. We shall see what happens when things get desperate.

[Northlander]

Im not so sure over the aircraft thing though. Numbers vary but according to different analysts prior to the war the iraqi number of planes should be around 50 - 100 fully operational aircrafts.

The attack didnt come as a surprise to them to say the least so I doubt they did let the few planes they have stand fueled on the runways of their airports waiting to be destroyed.

Wooden planes as decoys as in Yugoslavia is more probable.
Im still not convinced they have lost all their planes in ground attacks. Doesnt make sense.

My guess is that they can still do something with them if used in surprise.

Same goes for the SAMs. They are supposed to have plenty of sites even according to the US military. Probably much much better hidden this time than during the gulfwar. Same as in Yugoslavia again. The serbs were quite good in hiding their stuff. I agree the iraqis are careful about using them but still what I have heard the usage over Baghdad doesnt stand in proportion to what it could be.

SAMs are far more effective obviously than regular AA fire against your planes and is it possible that they are indeed trying to lure the US airforce into beliving that the sky is clear.

Its easy to imagine that a vertible wall of surface to air missiles against one particular US airstrike together with at least a few fighters would be far more effective than risking losing them one after the other.

Im not sure what AA capability the marine units have up at the front. Patriots etc? You should know I guess?
They have decent planes and they should be able to do some damage against US infantry if they enter the stage now. One hit blow probably since they will be attacked and tracked constantly and instantly when they are revealed but nevertheless. Could be a nasty surprise.