Hey Hey USA, how many journalists did you kill today?

[KrazyHorse]

I wasn't trying to get him restrcted. Honestly...

[MichaeltheGreat]

No, he was the one trying.

[Rogan Josh]

Rogan - a good part of it may be attributable to schedule and fatigue. A lot of these people are working 18-20 hours a day, and having to make split-second choices in combat situations. Same with the vehicle accidents.

I can certainly understand the fatigue argument. I certainly can't work 18-20 hours a day without making mistakes.

But that then brings up another question: is it really necessary? I can see the point of blitzkrieg during the first attack and for strategic objectives (e.g. to secure the oil-fields and strategic bridges etc.), but at this stage in the war, is it really needed? I would have thought that, with total air superiority, the coalition has enough troops and war-planes to not have to operate 18-20 hours a day? Even if just for the sake of morale.

I realise that soldiers don't care much for politics but now that the military campaign is almost over, the political war to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people becomes increasingly important. That objective isn't going to be met when accidentally killing civilians.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Its just very sad, all of it

The human cost just sucks. What I've always found perversely interesting though is how it really doesn't seem to matter. Most of the anti-war crowd (and US chickenhawks when Saddam was our boy) have been dismissive, or at least disinterested in the human cost of Hussein being in power. The pro-war crowd goes on about that, but is dismissive about the human cost of "liberating" Iraq.

Both options are loaded with a lot of human misery.

[Alexander's Horse]

well that's the problem isn't it. Saddam was snuffing out families every day.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
But that then brings up another question: is it really necessary? I can see the point of blitzkrieg during the first attack and for strategic objectives (e.g. to secure the oil-fields and strategic bridges etc.), but at this stage in the war, is it really needed?

That's always the toughest judgment call to make, and there's never a clear answer looking forward. You don't give any slack to a routed, disorganized enemy, but there is a risk in being too aggressive - late, useless fratricide or civilian casualties.

It's a tough balancing act between enough pressure on the enemy, and starting relief and security duties.

I would have thought that, with total air superiority, the coalition has enough troops and war-planes to not have to operate 18-20 hours a day?

For pilots, there's a lot of time into and out of the target areas, loiter time for air traffic control and refueling, then you get on the ground, and more work then - debriefings, after-action reports, problems with the aircraft, squadron administrative work, etc. For infantry and armor pukes, when you're not fighting, you're likely moving, digging defensive positions, cleaning your weapons and gear - there's always something.

I realise that soldiers don't care much for politics but now that the military campaign is almost over, the political war to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people becomes increasingly important. That objective isn't going to be met when accidentally killing civilians.

This is when the tough phase really begins. It's also something the diehard irregulars will exploit, by doing the disguised as civilians bit, the suiciders, etc.

[Alexander's Horse]

It would be a lot tougher if the iraqi regime had some sort of ideology behind it which could keep people fighting. I don't think it does.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Most of the people won't keep fighting - most of them aren't in the fight now.

The problem is with those people who've been kicked out of the power structure, and particularly with those who are too dirty to ever surrender, because they know their future is somewhere between a US military tribunal and local tribal justice.

Infiltration of foreign jihadi will also be a problem, as will local powerbrokering between different groups. Quite a mess we've stepped in.

[Alexander's Horse]

Yes quite a mess.

But I thought those shots of marines sitting in Saddam's throne room were pretty awesome.

[MarkG]

where lots of people shoot at you

from what i heard there were no shootings in the area....

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Kramerman


hmm... i dunno... but check out Olaf's link on the first page... at around 18 seconds or so i definately see some sort of flashes being emitted from the building... some of them are right near where the tank shell hit too. Perhaps they arent camera flashes, but something else... maybe bulletes from machine gun fire hitting the building?

If you are referring to the link with comments in Swedish, those flashes are the Iraqi Ministry of Planning being hit by American fire. It's not the hotel. The incident we are discussing does not begin until 40 seconds into the clip.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by South killer
Don't blane the noble USA. They just make errors .
''Errors'' of USA:
1- 3 missiles on Iran territory
2- An entire bus of irquis escaping irak was hit by a missile on Sirian territory

Do you mean the busload of Syrian volunteers that was hit in Iraq early in the war? AFAIK there have been no incidents in Syrian territory.

Originally posted by South killer
3- A hospital ''accidentaly'' destroyed by missile

Do you have a link for this? The Baath party seems to be using hospitals as command centers and ammunition distribution points all over the place.

Originally posted by South killer
4- Lots of journalist ''accidentaly'' killed by ''friendly fire''

Like the journalist who was killed in Northern Iraq along with two U.S. Special Forces troops and a dozen of our Kurdish allies?

As long as you are willing to cast aspersions on the Americans, perhaps you can explain exactly what sort of benefit they hope to gain from these sorts of actions.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


What PM? I never sent you one. And I never change my mind. I ban first, and don't bother asking questions later, and I don't bother PMing people for bans, since they'll figure it out soon enough on their own, and usually just have to look at their last post.

This just in:

Two Al Jazeera journalists accidently banned by MtG in a "friendly flame" accident.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
No matter how "difficult" it is to operate in a war zone, an armoured column who calls up air-support should not have to worry about their own planes bombing them instead of the enemy. (Which is what happened in northern Iraq the other day.)

It seems like some of the pilots/troops are just not well enough trained, which is fairly amazing considering the amount of money that is spent on them.

What the hell do you know about it? Not all that much if you think an "armoured column" consists entirely of civilian 4x4s, which the column struck in the north was. Check out the BBC correspondent's story for verification.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Yes, we should never question our government representatives. We all know this is AMERICA, the shining beacon of enlightenment and freedom for the entire world, and we should all just cheer and show our appreciation for the information given us in official press releases, as we do the entire world a favor and give Iraqi Freedom.

You should be careful of that sort of behaviour. Remember that Ming doesn't understand sarcasm - he might ban you. (Or can mods not be banned?)