Is it now confirmed that the French and German governments have been supplying Iraq with illegal weapons?
Andy
Is it now confirmed that the French and German governments have been supplying Iraq with illegal weapons?
Andy
Unfortunately we still have to bomb the tanks, even if busloads of civilians are there. We can't just leave that column alone and let it shoot at our troops and take heavy losses while it is guarded by buses of civilians, we have to eliminate those tanks. We can try our best to avoid hitting those buses but it's inevitable that some will be hit.
And who knows if they're really civilians and not just soldiers dressed in civilian clothes? In that case, they'll shoot at us, and once we kill them the surviving soldiers will take the AK-47's out of the dead's hands and show the world "Look, America killed innocent civilians"
And who knows if they're really civilians and not just soldiers dressed in civilian clothes? In that case, they'll shoot at us, and once we kill them the surviving soldiers will take the AK-47's out of the dead's hands and show the world "Look, America killed innocent civilians"
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
War becomes a little more complicated when morality becomes an issue. I guess backing off and taking out the tanks at a later stage can't even be an option to consider?
Andy
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
I know they're an ally and an example of a democratic Islamic country, but, damn this pisses me off. As far as I understand it, we haven't even used those overflight rights which won't help get the 4th division into the battle any sooner anyway.
I read about the convoy on MSN.com and heard it on the radio as I was pulling into the parking garage. I don't even know how large a Marine force is.
maybe we we should just wait until Saddam kills anyone that wants to leave or surrender or will not fight.
Already reports of civilians forced to march into the line of fire during battle to increase the casualty count...
Already reports of civilians forced to march into the line of fire during battle to increase the casualty count...
And when were all those French, German, Russian waepons sold? was it pre '91? don't see much mention of that in the article. By that standard you could argue the most dangerous weapons the US may have to go up against are the ones they aided in manufacture through their own sales - the WMD.
Andy
War becomes a little more complicated when morality becomes an issue. I guess backing off and taking out the tanks at a later stage can't even be an option to consider?
Andy[/quote]
No it cannot.
Because if we show them that their tactic was effective, you can be sure that their future assaults will also be accompanied by buses full of civilians. If you knew that your enemy wouldn't attack you as long as buses of civilians were around, wouldn't you begin to use that tactic all the time?
Story on column...
Marshallj
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Mar 2003
3 for 3............keep it coming noob
Marshallj
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Mar 2003
3 for 3............keep it coming noob
No it cannot.
Because if we show them that their tactic was effective, you can be sure that their future assaults will also be accompanied by buses full of civilians. If you knew that your enemy wouldn't attack you as long as buses of civilians were around, wouldn't you begin to use that tactic all the time?[/quote]
destroy everything. help whatever survives
Quit flame baiting. If you want to argue, go to the other discussion. Lots of us here are trying to get more timely news than we can get off regular sites and you trolls make it more difficult.
Andy the russians arrested the businessman who sold them the GPS equipment, the russian anti-tank weapons they are using are also post 91, the french mirage deals were well publicized and occured during the last 12 years, not before. Still waiting to hear about the germa nman supposedly arrested yesterday, beginning to think the radio reporter mispoke and meant the Russian..
That's not flame-bait that was entirely relevant. I do try and get things over to the other thread - I have problems only when replying to some of the incorrect and often misleading remarks that are made in this one. I don't start these sidelines - I only end up argueing them.
Please - take this to the other thread by all means.
Andy
MoobyTheGoldenCalf
Golden Member
- Jul 26, 2001
- 1,146
- 0
- 76
Report Says Slain U.S. Soldiers Tried to Surrender
Wed March 26, 2003 10:51 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One report reaching the U.S. military said that some of the 12 soldiers whose supply convoy was ambushed near Nassiriya in southern Iraq on Sunday were killed by their captors although they tried to surrender, a U.S. defense official said on Wednesday.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the report received from the field said that the U.S. soldiers "weren't given the opportunity to surrender. They attempted to surrender." Some of the U.S. soldiers instead were killed by the Iraqi forces, the official said.
The official did not characterize the nature or reliability of the intelligence information on which this report was based. The official also did not indicate where the surrendering soldiers were slain.
Another defense official said the U.S. military had received "mixed reports" about the incident.
U.S. officials have said an Army supply convoy apparently made a wrong turn during a battle near Nassiriya, and members of an Army maintenance unit were ambushed by Iraqi "irregular forces." U.S. officials say 12 soldiers were missing.
Five U.S. soldiers being held as prisoners were shown being interrogated on Iraqi television. The dead bodies of several others also were shown on Iraqi television. Some of the bodies appeared to have bullet wounds to the forehead, suggestive of possible execution, and were shown sprawled on the floor of a room in puddles of blood.
Wed March 26, 2003 10:51 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One report reaching the U.S. military said that some of the 12 soldiers whose supply convoy was ambushed near Nassiriya in southern Iraq on Sunday were killed by their captors although they tried to surrender, a U.S. defense official said on Wednesday.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the report received from the field said that the U.S. soldiers "weren't given the opportunity to surrender. They attempted to surrender." Some of the U.S. soldiers instead were killed by the Iraqi forces, the official said.
The official did not characterize the nature or reliability of the intelligence information on which this report was based. The official also did not indicate where the surrendering soldiers were slain.
Another defense official said the U.S. military had received "mixed reports" about the incident.
U.S. officials have said an Army supply convoy apparently made a wrong turn during a battle near Nassiriya, and members of an Army maintenance unit were ambushed by Iraqi "irregular forces." U.S. officials say 12 soldiers were missing.
Five U.S. soldiers being held as prisoners were shown being interrogated on Iraqi television. The dead bodies of several others also were shown on Iraqi television. Some of the bodies appeared to have bullet wounds to the forehead, suggestive of possible execution, and were shown sprawled on the floor of a room in puddles of blood.
When an enemy intentionally puts civilians in the line of fire, it's a no-win situation. The outcome will always be bad.
Obviously caving in when your enemy does this is not an option. When you see the police respond to a call where someone has taken a hostage, do you see them giving in to the hostage taker? Of course not. Because it isn't a rational option. You have to think of the example your response sets. If you give in to them, you can be sure that they will increasingly use this tactic. You cannot let that become an effective tactic. What would stop them from always pairing their fighters with civilians? Hell, if that were the case they could even put civilians in the back seats of their jets and finally get to use them....
The side that intentionally uses civilians as a shield is responsible for their well being.
SP33Demon
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2001
- 27,928
- 142
- 106
I have to agree. This is war, not some bank robbery where there is room for negotiation. Like Marshallj said, how do we know that they aren't soldiers dressed up as civilians? Iraq is desperate, not rational. The time for rationality/negotiation left when Saddam did not agree to the coalition's ultimatum.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
Also, when you've seen them take your mom or cousin as a human shield, maybe, just maybe, when they come for you you should, oh I don't know, put up a struggle. Golly, you could even arm yourself and band together and aid the force trying to liberate you instead of allowing yourself to be used one last time to assist a murderous regime.
The side that intentionally uses civilians as a shield is responsible for their well being
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 for 4 for the new guy...... you have displayed more intelligence than many senior members here, who is that maksed man????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 for 4 for the new guy......
you have displayed more intelligence than many senior members here, who is that maksed man????"Also, when you've seen them take your mom or cousin as a human shield, maybe, just maybe, when they come for you you should, oh I don't know, put up a struggle. Golly, you could even arm yourself and band together and aid the force trying to liberate you instead of allowing yourself to be used one last time to assist a murderous regime."
Basra.....
Basra.....
MoobyTheGoldenCalf
Golden Member
- Jul 26, 2001
- 1,146
- 0
- 76
More troops moving in....
U.S. 4th Infantry Division Heading for Gulf
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is flying its high-tech 4th Infantry Division and other units totaling more than 30,000 troops to the Gulf to join the invasion of Iraq the military said on Wednesday.
Troops from the division, based at Fort Hood, Texas, and considered one of the most modern fighting forces in the military, will begin flying to the Gulf region in coming days to join its heavy armor and equipment, a spokesman at Fort Hood told Reuters.
The division, with a total of 16,000 troops at Fort Hood and Fort Carson, Colorado, has been awaiting deployment for more than two months. It was originally scheduled to go to Turkey to open a northern front against Baghdad, but Ankara refused to grant transition basing rights for American forces.
U.S. 4th Infantry Division Heading for Gulf
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is flying its high-tech 4th Infantry Division and other units totaling more than 30,000 troops to the Gulf to join the invasion of Iraq the military said on Wednesday.
Troops from the division, based at Fort Hood, Texas, and considered one of the most modern fighting forces in the military, will begin flying to the Gulf region in coming days to join its heavy armor and equipment, a spokesman at Fort Hood told Reuters.
The division, with a total of 16,000 troops at Fort Hood and Fort Carson, Colorado, has been awaiting deployment for more than two months. It was originally scheduled to go to Turkey to open a northern front against Baghdad, but Ankara refused to grant transition basing rights for American forces.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter