The Complete Military History of France

[Talas]

Whoops. The quotes arent displayed. How yo you guys use quotes?:blush:

 

[AlphaWolf]

What are you suggesting? That the Iraqis only attack at night? Come on, they certainly would try to find the best tactic suited for them. And then they go, attack the US forces and all they do is injure? Sorry, far too unrealistic, this is no Star Wars yet. (I know the Star Wars Project was something different. I just find the things happening right just as unrealistic)

Well, in case you didn't notice, most of the fighting does occur at night. To top it off, the US forces use high grade kevlar vests and kevlar helmets. Iraqis have to be lucky in order for their shots to even count for shit. Basicaly that means that unless the iraqis hit our soldiers in the face, the most their shots can do is injure them at best.

I dont know what the US Media says about this, but the Media IS disputing these numbers, at least here in Europe. Look at whats happening to Al Jazeera, they are being hacked down by Cybersoldiers. And those "embedded correspondents", what do they do exactly? They may not say where they are, they always have one soldier watching what they say. Sorry, but this stinks of propaganda to me.

Yes, Iraqi propaganda. What hasn't al jazeera lied about so far? In fact, did you see the last "live" broadcast from saddam? So much for live, al jazeera edited the thing 67 times. Even an idiot can clearly see these edits, because they did such a terrible job at it. Not only that, but he made a mention of the success of his 51st infantry division, who surrendered at the start of the war....so much for success... Al Jazeera also denies that there has been an all out revolt in the city of basrah, yet the news reporters in both europe and the US have seen the iraqi army fire mortar rounds into their own city (onto their own civilians) where, mind you, there are no coalition members.

I am pretty sure they are capable of doing that. Thank god there still are reasons that keep them back.

So, why would we need propaganda then?

So? The report said they shot down only 2 of the rockets. What about the rest? They fire the rockets at a camp and NOTHING gets hit? No one injured?

Read what I said about the frog rockets. Often times those frog rockets don't even come near the coalition camps, so they don't even bother to fire a patriot missile at them. Why waste the money to prevent a clod of dirt from blowing up somewhere? Hell, if the wind changes by even one mile per hour while the rocket is in flight, its going to miss by a long shot. You need to understand that these rockets are by no means accurate at all, they are made from an inferior technology first of all, second of all, they weren't even meant as ground rockets, they were surface to air missiles converted to ground rockets.

So? I dont think the Iraqis just fired them because it was fun or because they wanted to look good defending themselves.

Wait a second here, you were sitting there attacking what you saw as american propaganda, and now you are SUPPORTING iraqi propaganda? You just want saddam to maintain control over iraq no matter what don't you?

 

[Hacktarux]

i think nobody can know what is happening exactly, it's like all war, you can only understand it totally when it's finished and you can have a global view... i don't think they are lying about how much death there are but i can't be sure... Also, i know not everything is happening as expected, sure it doesn't mean the coallition will lose but i think they will be more difficulties than they though... And i believe the war will last during years. Military operations will be finished fast but granted the irakis basically hates americans, i'm affraid that the situation will be very complex (possible terrorism ??). Let's hope it won't be worse than the saddam era.

This morning i've seen an injured american soldier who's back in US, he was hoping to be able to take his revenge before the end of the war. Dunno why but it disgusted me... Irakis are doing what they can to put out the aggressor.... Even if US don't think they are an aggressor, for irakis they are... I can't believe how people can expect to destroy a country without any reaction from the enemy.

One last thing, before the war started, i was totally against this war coz i was thinking there was other solutions to try to destroy weapons but now that it's started there's no possible come back, people should stop saying the war has to stop, it's no longer a valid solution... If they want to do something, they should get ready to help irakis as soon as it'll be possible...

 

[AlphaWolf]

I think its going to be halfway like what it was in kuwait. Kuwait was glad we got saddam out of their country. I think it would probably be a 50/50 deal in iraq. Hell, just look at this:

 

[Clements]

Whoops. The quotes arent displayed. How yo you guys use quotes?:blush:

(QUOTE)Your text(/QUOTE)

But use square brackets instead.

 

[2fast4u]

Irony: Pacifists have a habit of violently protesting war, whereas those who are pro war passively support it.

irony: warmongers have the habbit of reffering to christian and democratic values when tolerating war. :satisfied

 

[vampireuk]

Alpha there has not been a all out uprising, just some small ones that have been crushed straight away.

 

[Talas]

Just testing the quotes. One sec.

<quote> think nobody can know what </quote>

 

[Talas]

Ah, I think now I know how it works.

years. Military operations

 

[Talas]

All right then, this time with correct quotes:

Well, in case you didn't notice, most of the fighting does occur at night. To top it off, the US forces use high grade kevlar vests and kevlar helmets. Iraqis have to be lucky in order for their shots to even count for shit. Basicaly that means that unless the iraqis hit our soldiers in the face, the most their shots can do is injure them at best.

I do know all that, however I also did tell you that the Iraqis surely arent that dumb to attack at night. Of course they have Kevlar, but Kevlar doesnt protect you against bigger projectile ammo, which the Iraqis also have.

Yes, Iraqi propaganda. What hasn't al jazeera lied about so far? In fact, did you see the last "live" broadcast from saddam? So much for live, al jazeera edited the thing 67 times.

Dont know about that one, but the question is why the US has the right to tell their broadcasting stations what to air and what not. Usually one calls that censoring. Democracy? I dont think so. So whats the point? They use propaganda, so we may do it too? Oh great, they kill civilians, so we may do it too. This is a fatal logic non?

So, why would we need propaganda then?

Look what happenend during Vietnam when some of the truth (The dead soldiers coming back to America) came out. Bang, you have your answer.

Read what I said about the frog rockets. Often times those frog rockets don't even come near the coalition camps, so they don't even bother to fire a patriot missile at them. Why waste the money to prevent a clod of dirt from blowing up somewhere? Hell, if the wind changes by even one mile per hour while the rocket is in flight, its going to miss by a long shot. You need to understand that these rockets are by no means accurate at all, they are made from an inferior technology first of all, second of all, they weren't even meant as ground rockets, they were surface to air missiles converted to ground rockets.

One question. If the Iraqi military is soooo inferior, why did anyone want to disarm them anyway? Seems to me as if they didnt pose a threat to anyone, when I read your posts.

Wait a second here, you were sitting there attacking what you saw as american propaganda, and now you are SUPPORTING iraqi propaganda? You just want saddam to maintain control over iraq no matter what don't you?

Nope, surely not, and I dont really see what I wrote that makes you think that. I want Saddam gone, but I want it to be done by the rules. And if we all, the world community stick to the rules, than not only Saddam would stand trial before the ICC but also Clinton (for what he commanded during the Kosovo conflict) and also Bush. They are also responsible for the deaths of innocent lives and they have to stand up to it. I know, this is idealistic, but the whole idea of democracy is.

And concerning allied propaganda: Look now at a lot of the reports made during the Afghanistan and Kosovo conflicts. The Racak massacre, an UCK setup. Alot of the allied bombardments, wanted destruction of civilian buildings. Tolerating a massacre on taliban warriors by the north alliance. What kind of democracy is this, that wants to defend values when they are among the first sacrifices?

 

[vampireuk]

Well today while in town I used my "god given freedom" to sign the not in my name petition :satisfied

 

[AlphaWolf]

I do know all that, however I also did tell you that the Iraqis surely arent that dumb to attack at night. Of course they have Kevlar, but Kevlar doesnt protect you against bigger projectile ammo, which the Iraqis also have.

Not even 50 caliber can penetrate the kevlar they use. There are only three things the iraqis have that can actualy do any damage. 1) artillery 2) armor (tanks) 3) rockets. Their artillery is highly ineffective, iraq has only been able to hit our coalition members effectively once with their artillery, and that was when they faked a surrender (theres another war crime for you).

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6178661%5E1702,00.html

Their tanks won't even make it within range of our ground troops, even if they did, infantry has a HUGE advantage over armored units, in fact enough so that armor units retreat when they come in contact with enemy infantry. Their rockets, well, I already told you why they don't work.

Although the BBC does lie, I believe the casualty reports are fairly accurate.

Dont know about that one, but the question is why the US has the right to tell their broadcasting stations what to air and what not. Usually one calls that censoring. Democracy? I dont think so. So whats the point? They use propaganda, so we may do it too? Oh great, they kill civilians, so we may do it too. This is a fatal logic non?

Simple, the iraq government under saddam (assuming that he is still alive), was giving direct orders to their citizens to pick up arms and fight. They did it several times for several days before we ever even thought about touching it. According to the geneva conventions, we had full permission to take it out after the first time they did it, let alone all of those other times. Not only that, but heres an even BIGGER violation of the geneva accords:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354495010.html

Case closed on that one.

Look what happenend during Vietnam when some of the truth (The dead soldiers coming back to America) came out. Bang, you have your answer.

You don't even know what your talking about here. The "dead soldiers" were coming back for at least 4 years before the general opinion of the public was against the war. This war hasn't even been a week, and everybody and their dog knows that we have dead soldiers already (albeit very very few), yet 70% still support it.

One question. If the Iraqi military is soooo inferior, why did anyone want to disarm them anyway? Seems to me as if they didnt pose a threat to anyone, when I read your posts.

What they don't pose a threat to is our military. Saddam has threatened to use chemical weapons against us. You should note that chemical weapons will do absolutely nothing to our coalition members, but they are extremely devastating to civilian populations. Hence the term "weapon of mass destruction".

Nope, surely not, and I dont really see what I wrote that makes you think that.

You said they should be able to look good defending themselves. Think about that for a minute.

I want Saddam gone, but I want it to be done by the rules. And if we all, the world community stick to the rules, than not only Saddam would stand trial before the ICC but also Clinton (for what he commanded during the Kosovo conflict) and also Bush. They are also responsible for the deaths of innocent lives and they have to stand up to it. I know, this is idealistic, but the whole idea of democracy is.

Go read the rules of your beloved ICC. Not even saddam has to be tried under it. The ICC is pointless, thats why the US didn't join it. The ICC can demand to try bush or clinton all they want too, just like your favorite iraqi information minister is saying for them to do (btw, I hope you know that he lies his ass off). Know what they can do though? They can just tell the ICC to fuck off, and according to the ICCs own rules, it will do just that, because not us, nor iraq, has any treaties with the ICC.

And concerning allied propaganda: Look now at a lot of the reports made during the Afghanistan and Kosovo conflicts. The Racak massacre, an UCK setup. Alot of the allied bombardments, wanted destruction of civilian buildings.

I don't know anything about this, so I will conceed here, but...

Tolerating a massacre on taliban warriors by the north alliance. What kind of democracy is this, that wants to defend values when they are among the first sacrifices?

Ok, "taliban warriors" like to kill 4000 people in world trade centers. Why shouldn't we tolerate this? And think about what the word "warrior" implies. Its definitely not synonamous with "civilian".

irony: warmongers have the habbit of reffering to christian

No...

and democratic values when tolerating war. :satisfied

Yes...and?

Need I remind you that democratic values lead to the revolutionary war, democratic values lead to civil war which ended slavery, democratic values got us involved in the war to stop fascism. The list goes on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/29/e...00&en=b2571f49df0e2981&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

So much for being peaceful. This is how I always hear about most of them acting. In example, a riot control officer had acid thrown at his face in oregon. Ok somebody here told me that the riot control officers always start it, I have never seen this as being the case even one time. What kind of a nonviolent person are you if you bring acid to a war protest anyways? You have got to be kidding me here. This doesn't seem to happen in pro war marches, does it?

:satisfied

Originally posted by vampireuk
Alpha there has not been a all out uprising, just some small ones that have been crushed straight away.

Only the ones in baghdad were "crushed strait away". But this isn't sufficient reason to assist them?

http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/33160.htm

 

[vampireuk]

So much for being peaceful. This is how I always hear about most of them acting. In example, a riot control officer had acid thrown at his face in oregon. Ok somebody here told me that the riot control officers always start it, I have never seen this as being the case even one time. What kind of a nonviolent person are you if you bring acid to a war protest anyways? You have got to be kidding me here. This doesn't seem to happen in pro war marches, does it?

And once again you take the actions of a small minority and use them to judge everyone else.

Not even 50 caliber can penetrate the kevlar they use.

Ahuh so not one of the killed men in combat was hit in the chest or stomach then? I'm fairly sure that if you were to wear that kevlar and stood in front of me while I had a barret .50 aimed at your chest you would not be getting back up

Although the BBC does lie,

I'm sorry I will just provide the actual truth here, to quote the article title....

BBC boss admits 'daily' mistakes in Iraq

just thought I would clear that up for everyone Also your media is not perfect either Alpha

Ok, "taliban warriors" like to kill 4000 people in world trade centers

al-Qaeda I think

As for this article, I saw a report on the bbc from soldiers who were actually there who said the uprisings were quashed quickly.

The BBC is a fine news source, they are very profesional and try to remain unbiased throughout, unlike the NYpost

FIENDS FIRE ON REFUGEE HORDE

 

[2fast4u]

Yes...and?

Need I remind you that democratic values lead to the revolutionary war, democratic values lead to civil war which ended slavery, democratic values got us involved in the war to stop fascism. The list goes on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/29/e...&partner=GOOGLE

So much for being peaceful. This is how I always hear about most of them acting. In example, a riot control officer had acid thrown at his face in oregon. Ok somebody here told me that the riot control officers always start it, I have never seen this as being the case even one time. What kind of a nonviolent person are you if you bring acid to a war protest anyways? You have got to be kidding me here. This doesn't seem to happen in pro war marches, does it?

despite your nice history this war isnt comparable to any of this. this war has different intentions and different nature than any of what you pointed out.

bout the other thing .. you realize that this is a 1% minority among protestors? you sure like stereotyping them all after one prime example but it simply isnt true.

btw, there _are_ pro war rallies?

 

[AlphaWolf]

And once again you take the actions of a small minority and use them to judge everyone else.

Minority?! Then why does it happen all the damn time? Why do we always need riot control officers in peace marches?

Ahuh so not one of the killed men in combat was hit in the chest or stomach then? I'm fairly sure that if you were to wear that kevlar and stood in front of me while I had a barret .50 aimed at your chest you would not be getting back up

The most that would happen is I would probably get the wind knocked out of me and end up with a possible broken rib, depending on how close the impact is. If you ever read the news, you would recall an incident in california about four years ago where two bank robbers put exactly this kind of kevlar all over their bodies, then just casualy walked out of the bank with the money. There were snipers with the most high powered rifles that you can get firing at them. Know what happened when they were shot? They would lose their balance for a split second, then just keep on walking and firing. To top that, I have heard first hand accounts of soldiers in the battlefield who were hit with 50 caliber rounds, which did not perforate the vest.

I'm sorry I will just provide the actual truth here, to quote the article title.... just thought I would clear that up for everyone Also your media is not perfect either Alpha

Actualy theres an even funnier story behind that one. The reason the BBC boss even spoke at all, is because somebody under him was complaining about how most of the shit they were telling everybody was outright intentional misleading BS (aka lies). So the BBC boss covered it up by saying "oh they are just little mistakes".

Originally posted by 2fast4u
despite your nice history this war isnt comparable to any of this. this war has different intentions and different nature than any of what you pointed out.

None of us can say what the "true" the intentions are until the war is over, we can only speculate for now.

bout the other thing .. you realize that this is a 1% minority among protestors? you sure like stereotyping them all after one prime example but it simply isnt true.

Where did you get your 1% figures from?

 

[2fast4u]

None of us can say what the "true" the intentions are until the war is over, we can only speculate for now.

if that is so in your opinion we are best off not to talk about this anymore. i have quite a few hunches tho

Where did you get your 1% figures from?

i took the liberty of estimating if you dont mind. believe me, i go to a lot of peace rallies and if something happens its a few who cause it, often times its actually the cops who aggravate the situation.

 

[vampireuk]

So thats why I know a whole bunch of americans who love the BBC coverage, oh and they are also in support of the war. So there goes your peacenik hippie response

Minority?! Then why does it happen all the damn time? Why do we always need riot control officers in peace marches?

Because some people are complete morons, and its not just peace marches. There are people who start trouble everywhere.

 

[vampireuk]

Of course I read the news Alpha, thats why I post news links *ponders* nah its just not worth it. Although that story was never covered over here by any british media. However I recall seeing it on some random tv shows, a couple of bank robbers with AK-47s? They had several layers of kevlar on and were been shot at with 9mm handguns, the police then went into a gun store and borrowed some rifles. Which went through the kevlar, that or this is another incident. But that incident still shows that several layers of kevlar protection still doesnt fair too well against rifle rounds

 

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by AlphaWolf [/b]The most that would happen is I would probably get the wind knocked out of me and end up with a possible broken rib, depending on how close the impact is.[/b]

Son, have you ever fired a gun in your life? We use .50 cals to take out vehicles and armor. Even 9mm rounds cause heavy bruising and broken ribs when they strike kevlar body armor. The .50 cal round can shoot through hardened steel, concrete walls, and you expect to get back up with, at the most, a broken rib??!?! You'll be lucky if you are still in one peice so then you can have an open casket burial.

If you ever read the news, you would recall an incident in california about four years ago where two bank robbers put exactly this kind of kevlar all over their bodies then just casualy walked out of the bank with the money.

They layered the armor and it was anything but casual

There were snipers with the most high powered rifles that you can get firing at them.

ummm... 7.62x60 calibur is hardly the most high powered

Know what happened when they were shot? They would lose their balance for a split second, then just keep on walking and firing.

They fell, were slowed down, and eventually one committed suicide, while the other was shot and bled to death after being struck by 5.56 and 9mm rounds. Not invincible

To top that, I have heard first hand accounts of soldiers in the battlefield who were hit with 50 caliber rounds, which did not perforate the vest.

Really? where? I've never heard such things, I suggest you stop getting all your "military evidence" from movies, comic books, cartoons. Please refrain from making ignorant kiddie claims:getlost:

 

[AlphaWolf]

Son, have you ever fired a gun in your life? We use .50 cals to take out vehicles and armor. Even 9mm rounds cause heavy bruising and broken ribs when they strike kevlar body armor. The .50 cal round can shoot through hardened steel, concrete walls, and you expect to get back up with, at the most, a broken rib??!?! You'll be lucky if you are still in one peice so then you can have an open casket burial.

We use 50 cals to take out smaller equipment and *light* armor. I know, because I was trained to use a 50 cal, we mounted them om hmmwv's. Although they are illegal to use on personell, it does happen occasionaly. I don't have time to find it right now, but I remember when I was being trained with it, I was told that these do not perforate all kevlar.

ummm... 7.62x60 calibur is hardly the most high powered

I'll have to look, but from what I heard, they were hitting em with heavier shit than that.

They fell, were slowed down, and eventually one committed suicide, while the other was shot and bled to death after being struck by 5.56 and 9mm rounds. Not invincible

Ok these guys were just casualy walking around for a very long time. Nobody is even sure of what they were intending to do, it didn't quite look like they were trying to get away, rather they were trying to look like badasses or who knows what. The guy who bled to death was shot in the feet from under a car. The guy who comitted suicide, well, he just comitted suicide.

Really? where? I've never heard such things, I suggest you stop getting all your "military evidence" from movies, comic books, cartoons. Please refrain from making ignorant kiddie claims:getlost:

I get what I know from my combat training.

BTW, you are way overestimating the 50 cal. I remember we had one trainee who got hit in the leg with one, they were actualy able to save his leg.