**OFFICIAL WAR THREAD** 7th Calvary fights off Iraqi attack; Bush seeks 75 billion for war

[CPA]

Originally posted by: BurntCpu
wtf, republican guards dressing and mingling with civilians then attacking or soldiers from witihin the crowd.
My solution Tear gas the whole fvcking lot, tie up up and interview with interpreter and find out who is who.
Apologize to the real civilians give em some MRE and water and send them on their merry way. No hard feelings

Good idea, but unfortunately tear gas is a banned weapon thanks to a 1997 treaty signed by Clinton.

 

[PG]

Where do they get these reporters?

reporter: when is the massive aid going to get to the people

ari: we need to clear the mines out of the ports so that we can get the ships into port.

reporter: YOU'RE GOING TO CLEAR THE MINES BEFORE GETTING AID TO THE PEOPLE.

ari: if we don't clear the mines then the ships will be sunk. if the ships are sunk no one is going to get aid.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Stark
More on the bunkers from 60 minutes:

With U.S. intelligence on Iraq coming from electronic eavesdropping and satellite photography, Saddam decided to go underground, building elaborate bunker and tunnel complexes. A German firm designed and later built a 20,000-square-foot bunker under one of Saddam?s palaces, at a cost of $90 million. It has luxurious bedrooms for Saddam, his family, and dozens of bodyguards and staff. It?s stocked with enough food and water to last a year. Giant shock absorbers and redundant air filtration systems are designed to withstand multiple bomb blasts and missile strikes.

Michael Vickers, a consultant to the Pentagon who spent 10 years in the Army?s special forces and later became a C.I.A. operative, says there are "some very, very hardened, deep underground facilities that have 20 or more feet, maybe 100 feet in some cases, of dirt, and then 6 to 20 feet of reinforced concrete, and then prefabricated steel."

In some cases, Vickers says, the bunkers are 300 feet or so deep, and "almost impervious to anything but nuclear attack."

Worse, some of these bunkers may be connected by tunnels, allowing Saddam to move from underground facility to underground facility.

"One of the things that makes these underground structures difficult-is the labyrinth network of them," Vickers says. They have blast doors in between, too, so "even if you penetrate down into one compartment, say, and destroy that, then the steel doors may contain the effects of a blast. If you're on the other side you're a quarter mile away, you're perfectly safe."

The U.S. identified more than two dozen of these bunkers 12 years ago. There may be more now, and they may be located under schools, hospitals, even mosques - targets that the U.S. is not likely to bomb.

And, if and when U.S. forces finally take Baghdad, they won?t necessarily find maps and blueprints of the bunkers and tunnels, or even the engineers that designed them.

"When Saddam realizes you?re an engineer and you know too much about where he could hide, he?s going to have you killed," says Ibrahim al-Marashi.

CBS news

HHHMMMM French business deals, Russian arms, and German construction $$$$, wonder why they opposed????

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: da loser

also anyone actually know what the geneva convention shows on televising pows? seems cnn shows them, of course not in the way that iraqi tv does, but one of the defense is well cnn shows them as well, heard that on lebanese cable channel. i heard rumsfeld say it's illegal to show pows in a humiliating way, not sure what the definition is.

I wouldn't think it would be illegal for the home country of the POWs to show that footage as it's not humiliating them. Showing it in the hostile country is, however, a form of humiliation and is against the Geneva Convention.

And the video of the coalition forces taking in POWs is in the battlefield, not in a room staged for propaganda.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Stark
More on the bunkers from 60 minutes:

With U.S. intelligence on Iraq coming from electronic eavesdropping and satellite photography, Saddam decided to go underground, building elaborate bunker and tunnel complexes. A German firm designed and later built a 20,000-square-foot bunker under one of Saddam?s palaces, at a cost of $90 million. It has luxurious bedrooms for Saddam, his family, and dozens of bodyguards and staff. It?s stocked with enough food and water to last a year. Giant shock absorbers and redundant air filtration systems are designed to withstand multiple bomb blasts and missile strikes.

Michael Vickers, a consultant to the Pentagon who spent 10 years in the Army?s special forces and later became a C.I.A. operative, says there are "some very, very hardened, deep underground facilities that have 20 or more feet, maybe 100 feet in some cases, of dirt, and then 6 to 20 feet of reinforced concrete, and then prefabricated steel."

In some cases, Vickers says, the bunkers are 300 feet or so deep, and "almost impervious to anything but nuclear attack."

Worse, some of these bunkers may be connected by tunnels, allowing Saddam to move from underground facility to underground facility.

"One of the things that makes these underground structures difficult-is the labyrinth network of them," Vickers says. They have blast doors in between, too, so "even if you penetrate down into one compartment, say, and destroy that, then the steel doors may contain the effects of a blast. If you're on the other side you're a quarter mile away, you're perfectly safe."

The U.S. identified more than two dozen of these bunkers 12 years ago. There may be more now, and they may be located under schools, hospitals, even mosques - targets that the U.S. is not likely to bomb.

And, if and when U.S. forces finally take Baghdad, they won?t necessarily find maps and blueprints of the bunkers and tunnels, or even the engineers that designed them.

"When Saddam realizes you?re an engineer and you know too much about where he could hide, he?s going to have you killed," says Ibrahim al-Marashi.

CBS news

HHHMMMM French business deals, Russian arms, and German construction $$$$, wonder why they opposed????

Were those bunkers not built pre 91?

Andy

 

[LH]

It is acceptable if the media stumbles across them on the battlefeild. It is not acceptable to have it staged.
Tear gas is banned, unless chemical weapons are used on us. If Iraq uses chemical weapons, then we are also allowed to(according the news). The only chemical weapon we would use is tear gas, we have it over there just incase.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: da loser

also anyone actually know what the geneva convention shows on televising pows? seems cnn shows them, of course not in the way that iraqi tv does, but one of the defense is well cnn shows them as well, heard that on lebanese cable channel. i heard rumsfeld say it's illegal to show pows in a humiliating way, not sure what the definition is.

I wouldn't think it would be illegal for the home country of the POWs to show that footage as it's not humiliating them. Showing it in the hostile country is, however, a form of humiliation and is against the Geneva Convention.

And the video of the coalition forces taking in POWs is in the battlefield, not in a room staged for propaganda.

The violation is created because this was also shown on a State run tv channel, not private like cnn, anyone that saw the two can see the difference. Cnn made every effort to not show anything that would make identification of individuals possible, while the Iraqi's made every effort to show faces, even playing with the bodies to make sure (2 more no-nos).

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Stark
More on the bunkers from 60 minutes:

With U.S. intelligence on Iraq coming from electronic eavesdropping and satellite photography, Saddam decided to go underground, building elaborate bunker and tunnel complexes. A German firm designed and later built a 20,000-square-foot bunker under one of Saddam?s palaces, at a cost of $90 million. It has luxurious bedrooms for Saddam, his family, and dozens of bodyguards and staff. It?s stocked with enough food and water to last a year. Giant shock absorbers and redundant air filtration systems are designed to withstand multiple bomb blasts and missile strikes.

Michael Vickers, a consultant to the Pentagon who spent 10 years in the Army?s special forces and later became a C.I.A. operative, says there are "some very, very hardened, deep underground facilities that have 20 or more feet, maybe 100 feet in some cases, of dirt, and then 6 to 20 feet of reinforced concrete, and then prefabricated steel."

In some cases, Vickers says, the bunkers are 300 feet or so deep, and "almost impervious to anything but nuclear attack."

Worse, some of these bunkers may be connected by tunnels, allowing Saddam to move from underground facility to underground facility.

"One of the things that makes these underground structures difficult-is the labyrinth network of them," Vickers says. They have blast doors in between, too, so "even if you penetrate down into one compartment, say, and destroy that, then the steel doors may contain the effects of a blast. If you're on the other side you're a quarter mile away, you're perfectly safe."

The U.S. identified more than two dozen of these bunkers 12 years ago. There may be more now, and they may be located under schools, hospitals, even mosques - targets that the U.S. is not likely to bomb.

And, if and when U.S. forces finally take Baghdad, they won?t necessarily find maps and blueprints of the bunkers and tunnels, or even the engineers that designed them.

"When Saddam realizes you?re an engineer and you know too much about where he could hide, he?s going to have you killed," says Ibrahim al-Marashi.

CBS news

HHHMMMM French business deals, Russian arms, and German construction $$$$, wonder why they opposed????

Were those bunkers not built pre 91?

Andy

The bunkers may have been....

 

[MoobyTheGoldenCalf]

UN Security Council Sets Emergency Debate on Iraq

The debate was set for Wednesday at 3 p.m. and council diplomats said all 191 U.N. members would be invited to speak rather than just the council's 15 member-nations.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf
UN Security Council Sets Emergency Debate on Iraq

The debate was set for Wednesday at 3 p.m. and council diplomats said all 191 U.N. members would be invited to speak rather than just the council's 15 member-nations.

<--- Predicting a lot of talk with no action.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf
UN Security Council Sets Emergency Debate on Iraq

The debate was set for Wednesday at 3 p.m. and council diplomats said all 191 U.N. members would be invited to speak rather than just the council's 15 member-nations.

Oh yeah, more talking.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf
UN Security Council Sets Emergency Debate on Iraq

The debate was set for Wednesday at 3 p.m. and council diplomats said all 191 U.N. members would be invited to speak rather than just the council's 15 member-nations.

Oh yeah, more talking.

Yeah - what opinion do the other 191 members/countries have that anyone would want to listen to? Its only like the entire planet.

(meeting sarcasm head on )

Andy

 

[Alistar7]

seems a bit late for more debate, they have had 12 years to present their position and raise any immediate concerns....

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
seems a bit late for more debate, they have had 12 years to present their position and raise any immediate concerns....

I guess its an emergency debate on the current situation. Difficult to have that before it happens!

Andy

 

[msulazy]

This may have already been mentioned in the 2795+ posts before this, but does it bother anyone else that well over 50% of our guys out there are in GREEN F*ING CAMO? Hasn't someone told these poor guys that there's no trees out there? Are we that underbudgeted that we can't afford sand fatigues for these guys? They stand out like a frat guy in vegas in every news shot and picture I've seen.

 

[MoobyTheGoldenCalf]

FYI - MSNBC has confirmed the uprising in Basra

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
seems a bit late for more debate, they have had 12 years to present their position and raise any immediate concerns....

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Alistar7
seems a bit late for more debate, they have had 12 years to present their position and raise any immediate concerns....

I guess its an emergency debate on the current situation. Difficult to have that before it happens!

Andy

The current situation is under control, they were given every opportunity to participate.
We don't need the distraction right now, we are engaged in war.

 

[MoobyTheGoldenCalf]

Originally posted by: msulazy
This may have already been mentioned in the 2795+ posts before this, but does it bother anyone else that well over 50% of our guys out there are in GREEN F*ING CAMO? Hasn't someone told these poor guys that there's no trees out there? Are we that underbudgeted that we can't afford sand fatigues for these guys? They stand out like a frat guy in vegas in every news shot and picture I've seen.

A majority of the land around the tigris and euphrates rivers is fertile grassy farmland. Green camo is very appropriate there. Just check out the pic of where the Apache went down. It's grass up to your knees....

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf
UN Security Council Sets Emergency Debate on Iraq

The debate was set for Wednesday at 3 p.m. and council diplomats said all 191 U.N. members would be invited to speak rather than just the council's 15 member-nations.

Oh yeah, more talking.

Yeah - what opinion do the other 191 members/countries have that anyone would want to listen to? Its only like the entire planet.

(meeting sarcasm head on )

Andy

Andy, do you honestly think anything, anything more than their self-glorification, will come out of this? Honestly, please.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Alistar7
seems a bit late for more debate, they have had 12 years to present their position and raise any immediate concerns....

I guess its an emergency debate on the current situation. Difficult to have that before it happens!

Andy

What will probably happen is, they will try to determine who wants to help us with troops and more support. They will then want a piece of the pie in the rebuilding effort, if we decide they're allowed.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf
UN Security Council Sets Emergency Debate on Iraq

The debate was set for Wednesday at 3 p.m. and council diplomats said all 191 U.N. members would be invited to speak rather than just the council's 15 member-nations.

Oh yeah, more talking.

Yeah - what opinion do the other 191 members/countries have that anyone would want to listen to? Its only like the entire planet.

(meeting sarcasm head on )

Andy

Andy, do you honestly think anything, anything more than their self-glorification, will come out of this? Honestly, please.

Such cnyicism, you doubt the intentions and integrity of the UN? LMAO They are still trying to inject themselves into this situation when they have already been shown their importance. More than likely they all want to make sure they get a piece of the rebuilding pie, sorry, but I feel the coalition forces have every right to control the rebuilding process. Your opposition was noted, your lack of support as well, your wish to remain at arms length was granted and it will stay that way.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf
UN Security Council Sets Emergency Debate on Iraq

The debate was set for Wednesday at 3 p.m. and council diplomats said all 191 U.N. members would be invited to speak rather than just the council's 15 member-nations.

It's probably about how to supply aid to the Iraqi civilians. If it's an emergency debate, I can't see them talking about something as complex as the rebuilding of Iraq.

 

[Fencer128]

Andy, do you honestly think anything, anything more than their self-glorification, will come out of this? Honestly, please.[/quote]

If there was no discussion or debate within the international community as a whole - in the way it will happen at the UN - then IMHO there would be a lot of very annoyed regimes out there who not only thought they had no say but who also think that they're not allowed to have any say.

If you mean by "self-glorification" each country realising its own importance in the world by participating in these monumental events, then - yes -I agree.

I'm very serious about international forums - especially the UN (as you must know).

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Such cnyicism, you doubt the intentions and integrity of the UN? LMAO They are still trying to inject themselves into this situation when they have already been shown their importance. More than likely they all want to make sure they get a piece of the rebuilding pie, sorry, but I feel the coalition forces have every right to control the rebuilding process. Your opposition was noted, your lack of support as well, your wish to remain at arms length was granted and it will stay that way.

Like the country belongs to the US - not even I believe that. Its not "your pie" - its the Iraqi's.

Andy