Who wants another war?+ air strikes on iraq
- Thread starter Tnega
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
I don't wanna be dragged into the is the war a good or bad thing arguement, but I will comment on the FF incedents.
As SA and Apoc said, as harsh as it may seem, the TV crew have no one to blame but themselves. When you try to report from smack bang in the battle field without the protection of your own forces you take the risk of being shot by them and or the enemy. Neither force has anyway of identifying who you are, and as I understand it they were shot with a load of Iraqi soldiers who had pulled up beside them anyway.
The downed Tornado on the other hand should not have happened. As Thur said there is agreed protocol for what to do in the event of IFF failure, assuming the pilot stuck to it, then the plane should not have been shot at, whether it was a trigger happy grunt or an over zealous automatic system.
As SA and Apoc said, as harsh as it may seem, the TV crew have no one to blame but themselves. When you try to report from smack bang in the battle field without the protection of your own forces you take the risk of being shot by them and or the enemy. Neither force has anyway of identifying who you are, and as I understand it they were shot with a load of Iraqi soldiers who had pulled up beside them anyway.
The downed Tornado on the other hand should not have happened. As Thur said there is agreed protocol for what to do in the event of IFF failure, assuming the pilot stuck to it, then the plane should not have been shot at, whether it was a trigger happy grunt or an over zealous automatic system.
when i posted that about the TV crew it was just after they had interviewed the ITN chief exec he said that they had got the ok to go on up the road and had then seen iraqi vehicles so they turned and came back 2 ITV vans and 2 iraqi vehicles, he whent on to say that the ITN vans have TV in huge letters all over the van so that there shouldnt be any mistake and have thermal strips on them to identify them but the soldiers opened fire on all 4 vehicles.. now if that situation has changed and they werent supposed to be there or they did somthing wrong and it was there own fault then, then that was a tragic accident of there own causing.
the tornado on the other hand did everything right from the reports and was still shot down
the tornado on the other hand did everything right from the reports and was still shot down
Well apparently it was Patriot v F16 today, Patriot 1 Aircraft 1 now. F16 took the patriot battery out lol . no one hurt thankfully but a few $ of damage i suspect. Bet he wouldnt have fired if our Tornado hadnt been downed previously. at least the military appear to be learning on the hoof. Makes you wonder whats up with the patriots though.
If I was a pilot, I'd think like this:
1. Patriot system - if it locks on to me and I don't eject, there's going to be minimum of 1, maximum 2+ deaths here (depending on plane).
2. If I target the patriot battery and take it out, all I will destroy is the missle truck. The fire control truck with the people in it, and the ammo/fuel bowser trucks are seperate and further away.
So, if one of my own side's missile systems targets me, I'll fire first!
1. Patriot system - if it locks on to me and I don't eject, there's going to be minimum of 1, maximum 2+ deaths here (depending on plane).
2. If I target the patriot battery and take it out, all I will destroy is the missle truck. The fire control truck with the people in it, and the ammo/fuel bowser trucks are seperate and further away.
So, if one of my own side's missile systems targets me, I'll fire first!
You would have time, and here's why:
1. You're in a plane, in the air.
2. Missile is on the ground.
3. Even at missile speeds, it will still take several seconds at least to reach you.
4. Pilots know the location of their own SAM batteries, which are already going to be plotted in as points in their flight plan data.
5. Your radar systems (in any modern plane) squawk like mad if they detect you being scanned by active or passive radar. They're called RWR's (Radar Warning Receivers).
6. Especially at night, you're not going to miss the flame from an inbound missile.
7. Pressing the button to dump chaff/flares takes what - 1 second?
8. If your weapons system is online, target acquisition for modern missiles does not take more than a few seconds - faster at any rate than a ground based missile can intercept you.
9. That American F16 pilot who found himself being targeted by his own Patriot battery seems to have had time to target and destroy it before it fired on him.
Any questions?
1. You're in a plane, in the air.
2. Missile is on the ground.
3. Even at missile speeds, it will still take several seconds at least to reach you.
4. Pilots know the location of their own SAM batteries, which are already going to be plotted in as points in their flight plan data.
5. Your radar systems (in any modern plane) squawk like mad if they detect you being scanned by active or passive radar. They're called RWR's (Radar Warning Receivers).
6. Especially at night, you're not going to miss the flame from an inbound missile.
7. Pressing the button to dump chaff/flares takes what - 1 second?
8. If your weapons system is online, target acquisition for modern missiles does not take more than a few seconds - faster at any rate than a ground based missile can intercept you.
9. That American F16 pilot who found himself being targeted by his own Patriot battery seems to have had time to target and destroy it before it fired on him.
Any questions?
Spirit said:
Spirit,
Im interested to know how you feel about this quote now? Do you still have no doubt its the truth? This isnt a personal attack (it so easily could be, but its not), I am genuinely asking you whether you think 'strike command' decieved you, or whether you think they were decieved. Or maybe you still think there are WMD (the phrase makes me wretch) that havnt been found yet.
Maybe 'strike command' are going to release the location later this year as a crimbo pressie to mr Blair?
Im trying really hard not to be sarcastic but I apologise if my despair over this matter has got the better of me...
grizz said:
Why could it so easily be a personal attack? If you have something to say about the integrity of my character just come out and say it instead of hiding behind snide comments.
#1 I was not intentionally deceived, the source of that information is highly trusted and would not lie.
#2 Maybe they were deceived yes, I don’t deny it’s a possibility as they have obviously been given information that has yet to be proved true. I for one do not hide behind blinkered views and am happy to accept any possibility until one or the other is proved correct..
#3 There is every chance and always will be that there were WMD in Iraq before we invaded that have been comprehensively destroyed – it doesn’t take long to dispose of a few warheads and the odd underground chemical factory and that is just a likely scenario as that of our initial intelligence information being incorrect.
Once again we now find ourselves arguing over something that cannot be proved either way as neither of us have any evidence to back up our arguments. I was given some information by a trusted source which I chose to pass on to you to add to the debate, and you are backing up your argument by the fact that nothing has been found which is hardly solid evidence there was nothing there in the first place. Neither of our opinions can be backed up or proved so can I ask why you even bothered to bring this thread up again?
As my original post has neither been proved wrong nor right what exactly did you expect to achieve by bring it up again and passing unjustified hinted comments about me personally at the same time?
Last edited:
Spirit said:
it wasnt snide i thought i went out of my way to make that clear. it could have been a personal attack because your earlier comment has made you look rather foolish. but as i said it wasnt. i have nothing to say about your character, just feel i have the right to say 'i told you so'. childish? maybe, but thats too bad.
of course if i am proved wrong and WMD's are located ill be happy to eat my words and retract everything ive said. my hope of course was that you would do the same as a result of the recent news reports. in case you havnt read anywhere, all 1400 weapons inspectors have said theres fuck all there. of course that may not be proof enough for you, so my question would then be exactly what proof do you need? 14000 weapons inspectors? 14 million maybe?
its all getting very silly on here lately, im not really interested in making you look foolish or vice versa, but id just like to see some acknowledgement that the case put forward by several people on here that using WMD's as a justification for war was invalid, has now been proved to be correct. (depending on your definition of proof - maybe foxy could give us the scientific interpretation of a proof? then of course we can start questioning whether we really exist)...
I have to say grizz has a perfectly valid point here, and that I feel its entirely acceptable to bring this thread up, I've just thru it and the debate is still interresting now, because there has been no proof of WMD's so far...
Basically what your trying to do here spirit, is reverse the normal order of proof, it must be entirely in the hands of the ppl that claim WMD has been present to provide proof for this, as is in all other scenarios, this is how science progress and its how most recognised justicial systems work... are you argueing this is wrong?
Basically what your trying to do here spirit, is reverse the normal order of proof, it must be entirely in the hands of the ppl that claim WMD has been present to provide proof for this, as is in all other scenarios, this is how science progress and its how most recognised justicial systems work... are you argueing this is wrong?
grizz said:
It has done nothing of the sort and I have no idea how you figure that one out. I was told some information by a reliable source in the RAF, nothing definite but just that there was more going on in Iraq than the public were aware of, well duh that’s pretty fucking obvious for anyone with half a brain anyway of course not all information is made public in a war.
I added the information to the debate for the sake of keeping the debate as accurate as possible. Even if the information I gave had been proved 100% incorrect I still wouldn’t look foolish, just wrong. Wrong doesn’t always = foolish and just because I passed on some information that appeared to be correct at the time and is now in question, although certainly not proved wrong, doesn’t reflect on my integrity in any way and I would happily do the same again.
grizz said:
As I said, I am happy to accept what we are told by the inspectors as the truth now, but all this proves is there are no WMD in Iraq at this point. What this has to do with the question of whether there were any weapons there 1 year ago, or two years ago, is the sum total of nothing. As I said, there is a possibility that there were weapons and they have been moved, destroyed etc. And if you don’t accept that possibility then you are just being naïve cos it’s as real as any other possibility.
grizz said:
No it hasn’t been proved incorrect at all. I repeat once again, no weapons now does not = no weapons in the past. I am happy to recognise the fact that Iraq currently do not have any WMD, and I am happy to recognise the fact that it appears less likely now than it did a year that they ever did, however what I am not happy to accept is that there has been any prove that they never did have any WMD because there has been nothing proved in this area yet and probably never will be as it’s now in the past.
I also repeat this – neither of our arguments can be conclusively proved, you have no evidence to suggest there never were any WMD in Iraq and I have no evidence to suggest there was so we will both just have to keep our minds open until something is proved conclusively either way. Or at least I plan to keep an open mind, if you want to make yours up without looking at the big picture that is your decision.
i feel i have made my point, you have dug your hole to a sufficent depth, and i see no reason to add anything further....
No I agree there hasn't, but likewise there has been no proof there ever were.Dog said:
dog said:
I understand what you are saying Dog and I do realise it is the governments responsibility to justify their decision to take action against Iraq. However, just because they cannot prove that there were WMD doesn't automatically mean there never were any. The integrity of the government is a much wider debate and if you are to question whether we should of gone to war at all or not there are many other issues to take into account alongside the question of WMD, but this particular debate is purely about whether there ever were any WMD or not and as that hasn't, and prolly never will be, proved conclusively either way it is really a bit of a pointless debate.
And yes, grizz had every right to re-open this thread and continue the debate now that it is some time down the line and there is more information available to debate. I was merely reacting to the fact that he is criticising me personally for the post he has quoted which is crap because I was just passing on something I had been told and would do the same again every time.
grizz said:
lol sorry you haven't made any point grizz. All you've done is call me names and suggest that no-one should add information to a debate until the debate is over and they are 100% sure it is correct. I stand by my original points if if you chose to leave the debate where it is that's fine - but you sure as hell haven't proved anything...
Spirit said:
no i wasnt! but as you did say 'i have no doubt it is the truth' i could if i wanted to
If calling me foolish isn't criticising I don't know what is 
What I mean't by that phrase is I had no doubt the person telling me the information I had been given was telling the truth. And it still has yet to be proved that that information is not true. So...
What I mean't by that phrase is I had no doubt the person telling me the information I had been given was telling the truth. And it still has yet to be proved that that information is not true. So...