Of course the vehicle was far enough away that the van was far enough away from the intersection that Johnson needed to use binoculars to see what happened to it.
Is this to say the command to stop was given while the vehicle was in "binocular distance"? What would be the point of that, if no one is out there to check the vehicle? Would it not make more sense that the vehicle was seen to approach at binocular distance (as was any vehicle prior to that), after which a signal to stop would be given at around 60 ft or so (which would be a fair amount into eye-to-eye distance rather than "binocular distance")? At that 60 ft threshold, the predicted "safe pattern" would be a vehicle engaging brakes and slowing down to sync with the guard positions ahead. The "alert posture" would be a vehicle that is not stopping and continues to accelerate as it crosses into the 60 ft threshold. Time is short at this point when you don't know if this bus is planning to blow through the gate or is steering directly to cream you, but one thing is for sure- it isn't intending to stop. So what do you do? Assume they still mean you no harm??? You could take a shot at the radiator, mechanically speaking, that isn't going to stop $hit if this bus is hurling toward you at this point. Maybe you'll scare the driver, but it's too late for the bus to stop even if the brakes are engaged at that point. They are virtually on top of you at this point- committed to the initial action. Your only logical discourse is that they mean you great harm, and that you must open all fire you have accessible- lethal force. As it turns out, the bus still snagged some miltary casualties. So indeed, this bus was no longer in "binocular distance" by the end of the incident.
Quote:
I'm sure knocking out the engine would have done the trick. But we can't know for sure, since the soldiers obviously didn't follow orders. Oh, but to you, it's OK for soldiers not to follow orders and just unload with explosive shells on a van and kill women and children.
This isn't Dirty Harry where you fire one lone 44 bullet that happens to hit the block just right as to disable the car. More likely, if you intend to disable the engine you are unloading a shower of bullets into the engine area, and even then it isn't certain that would immediately stop the bus. Since you are showering bullets at this point, it's a judgement call as to whether or not artillery is brought into the picture. However, if you see a bus hurling toward your comarades who are unleashing deadly fire upon it, I think you would tend to support them with whatever effective arms you have at the time. The impression is that this is a renegade bus by all means at this point.
You think this is a case of soldiers not following olders, but you disregard any timing factor that is involved. In effect, you are second-guessing the actions of those who were actually in the situation, while sitting in your easy chair in your comfy home, confident you have the full account of the incident at your disposal. Wonderful.
Quote:
You're the one that's not doing anything productive. I guess it's not surprising that you suggest unproductive measures for the pro-peace movement.
Stop being lazy and join the military. As the saying goes: put up or shut up.
Once again, from the comfort of your easychair you judge my life with regard to how "productive" or not I am? That is too rich! You judge me as "lazy"? W/o knowing more about me, do you conclude I am a "coward", as well? Seriously, your change in discussion focus is a bit unnerving as to being somebody who is remotely dignant of any response at all. Your belief is that anyone who opposes your antiwar cries should in turn go enlist into battle lest he be judged by you in turn. All the while you would villify a war and those who fight in it behind their backs, from the comfort of your own home. You'll say they are unprofessional, incompetent, and unnecessarily ruthless based on reports from your favorite liberal news sources. Is this pretty on-target for you?
Shame. That's all I can say on your behalf. Utter shame you should bare for your lack of support of your own countrymen. To think you can do that day after day, and then look down your nose at me to sell your viewpoint on a discussion board is utterly devoid of integrity. Once again- shame on you! Shame to all those who parrot beside you, as well.
Well who knows if this is true. I'm sure the anti-US folks will discount it but considering the well known desperate moves of the Saddam regime I wouldn't put it past them.
U.S. military officials yesterday insisted that the blood of the seven Iraqi women and children killed in a checkpoint shooting is on Saddam Hussein's hands - as a local religious leader said the victims had been forced into the death van.
Sahid Mohammed Bakir Almohari - a prominent Muslim cleric from the town near where the shooting and an earlier homicide bombing occurred - said on Fox News Channel that villagers told him Iraqi militants mercilessly orchestrated both incidents to try to whip up anti-American support.
"These people, children and women, those were put in the bus by Saddam Hussein's forces, their husbands or fathers were taken hostages and the driver was ordered to speed up to the checkpoint and not stop so that they would be shot at," said Almohari, one of many Shiites opposed to Saddam.
Would it not make more sense that the vehicle was seen to approach at binocular distance (as was any vehicle prior to that), after which a signal to stop would be given at around 60 ft or so (which would be a fair amount into eye-to-eye distance rather than "binocular distance")?
Just thought I'd point out that a vehicle moving at 60mph covers 88 feet per second, and that even a Porsche doing 60mph will take well over 100 feet to stop, slamming on the brakes. If you're worried about car-bombs that would have a several-hundred-foot blast radius, you can't wait to see the whites of their eyes. If they haven't made any indication of slowing down when they're 500-1000 feet away, you need to start thinking real fast of slowing them down yourself. As for the binoculars, can anyone here see a bullet hole with their naked eyes at 500 feet?
"Casualties: Among U.S. troops, 49 dead, seven captured, 15 missing, 154 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Among British troops, 27 dead, none missing or captured."
Those numbers aren't bad, what's a few dead anyway, just a small price to pay for the luxury of driving a 10 mile to the gallon SUV monstrosity.
Do you really think Iraq will allow a foreign "Christian state" to conquer them? Just look at Afghanistan, don't be fooled, America does not have things under control there. Just like the Russians before them, they will not maintain stability. These people have been fighting for centuries in the name of God. Sure come in, take control but once we have you under a false sense of security, wham! Don't take my word for it, go here; http://afghanistannews.net/. Not a day goes by where I don't here of stories where Rebels/Taliban attacked US forces or Allies/Northern Alliance. Just more boxes coming home but how many will it take before the world wakes up to the fact the blood for oil exchange program isn't worth the loss.
Little thing to think about, an army who playes Gameboy during their break vs. a pinned down extremist group who believe if they become a human bomb they will go to heaven. US is skipping these towns and cities for a reason, gorilla war is a bitch.......just more boxes...
Well who knows if this is true. I'm sure the [anti-moronic conservative-US] folks will discount it but considering the well known desperate moves of the Saddam regime I wouldn't put it past them.
Discount it? Are you blind? This is the whole point. We're the ones that are aware of problems like this which is why we'll advocate for more caution. It's their country, not ours. We should risk our lives to save theirs, not the other way around.
Little thing to think about, an army who playes Gameboy during their break vs. a pinned down extremist group who believe if they become a human bomb they will go to heaven. US is skipping these towns and cities for a reason, gorilla war is a bitch.......just more boxes...
But don't you remember? The US *invented* guerilla warfare during the colonial days. We only brought this upon ourselves. Just like we put Saddam in power, now we should bend over and take it from Saddam because it's our fault. </sacrasm>
I rest my case. Just another bunch of butchers---the sooner we send Hussien and his ilk to hell, the better.
If you don't also advocate us going into all those African countries that kill their people (just without chemical/bio weapons), then you're just a hypocrite. The whole "Saddam is evil to his people" is just a 'nice addition' that is good for the White House PR. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the war, but I also don't have any 'warm fuzzy' feelings about the reasons for it.
No. You stole the idea from the Native Americans; a people fighting against an invading army with overpowering military might.
The entire point of that was a joke .... It's like watching Bugs Bunny and saying. "Hey, he can't REALLY get up after an anvil drops on his head!".
If I had said, "We should have the US and Iraq line up tanks and then blast away until only one army is left, just like in the days of old European warfare", are you going to criticize me by poking holes in that military strategy?
Wednesday, U.S. forces spotted a 20-year-old Iraqi woman in labor in a pickup truck. The woman's family had been displaced from another city and was living in tents in Nasiriyah.
"I got the ambulance and sent her to the battalion aid station and delivered a healthy baby girl and named her America. It was a pretty cool way to start the day," said Navy Hospitalman First Class Kyle Morris, 39, of San Clemente, Calif.
I don't know if this thread is dead yet but here's an article that might explain the different viewpoints on the war and its success relative to media reporting:
This report from Robert Fisk at Baghdad International Airport: Who does one believe? It sure highlights the "first casualty if war is the truth" axiom:
This report from Robert Fisk at Baghdad International Airport: Who does one believe? It sure highlights the "first casualty if war is the truth" axiom:
Strange. Strange. I must say that I have stopped looking at news reports of the war on a constant basis. There is so much coming out that appears to be contradicted within 24-72 hours of its reporting. Some of what we are hearing is true, other parts are mistaken, and other parts are deliberate lies.
If I remember correctly, the Pentagon said some time ago that part of its strategy would include false news reports to keep the Saddam regime off balance. This might be especially useful - from a military point of view - if the regime's sources of information about the situation in the field were starting to dry up. However, from an individual observer's point of view, it makes following the daily news reports frustrating and a bit pointless.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Of course the vehicle was far enough away that the van was far enough away from the intersection that Johnson needed to use binoculars to see what happened to it.
Is this to say the command to stop was given while the vehicle was in "binocular distance"? What would be the point of that, if no one is out there to check the vehicle? Would it not make more sense that the vehicle was seen to approach at binocular distance (as was any vehicle prior to that), after which a signal to stop would be given at around 60 ft or so (which would be a fair amount into eye-to-eye distance rather than "binocular distance")? At that 60 ft threshold, the predicted "safe pattern" would be a vehicle engaging brakes and slowing down to sync with the guard positions ahead. The "alert posture" would be a vehicle that is not stopping and continues to accelerate as it crosses into the 60 ft threshold. Time is short at this point when you don't know if this bus is planning to blow through the gate or is steering directly to cream you, but one thing is for sure- it isn't intending to stop. So what do you do? Assume they still mean you no harm??? You could take a shot at the radiator, mechanically speaking, that isn't going to stop $hit if this bus is hurling toward you at this point. Maybe you'll scare the driver, but it's too late for the bus to stop even if the brakes are engaged at that point. They are virtually on top of you at this point- committed to the initial action. Your only logical discourse is that they mean you great harm, and that you must open all fire you have accessible- lethal force. As it turns out, the bus still snagged some miltary casualties. So indeed, this bus was no longer in "binocular distance" by the end of the incident.
Quote:
I'm sure knocking out the engine would have done the trick. But we can't know for sure, since the soldiers obviously didn't follow orders. Oh, but to you, it's OK for soldiers not to follow orders and just unload with explosive shells on a van and kill women and children.
This isn't Dirty Harry where you fire one lone 44 bullet that happens to hit the block just right as to disable the car. More likely, if you intend to disable the engine you are unloading a shower of bullets into the engine area, and even then it isn't certain that would immediately stop the bus. Since you are showering bullets at this point, it's a judgement call as to whether or not artillery is brought into the picture. However, if you see a bus hurling toward your comarades who are unleashing deadly fire upon it, I think you would tend to support them with whatever effective arms you have at the time. The impression is that this is a renegade bus by all means at this point.
You think this is a case of soldiers not following olders, but you disregard any timing factor that is involved. In effect, you are second-guessing the actions of those who were actually in the situation, while sitting in your easy chair in your comfy home, confident you have the full account of the incident at your disposal. Wonderful.
Quote:
You're the one that's not doing anything productive. I guess it's not surprising that you suggest unproductive measures for the pro-peace movement.
Stop being lazy and join the military. As the saying goes: put up or shut up.
Once again, from the comfort of your easychair you judge my life with regard to how "productive" or not I am? That is too rich! You judge me as "lazy"? W/o knowing more about me, do you conclude I am a "coward", as well? Seriously, your change in discussion focus is a bit unnerving as to being somebody who is remotely dignant of any response at all. Your belief is that anyone who opposes your antiwar cries should in turn go enlist into battle lest he be judged by you in turn. All the while you would villify a war and those who fight in it behind their backs, from the comfort of your own home. You'll say they are unprofessional, incompetent, and unnecessarily ruthless based on reports from your favorite liberal news sources. Is this pretty on-target for you?
Shame. That's all I can say on your behalf. Utter shame you should bare for your lack of support of your own countrymen. To think you can do that day after day, and then look down your nose at me to sell your viewpoint on a discussion board is utterly devoid of integrity. Once again- shame on you! Shame to all those who parrot beside you, as well.
INNOCENT VAN VICTIMS SET UP BY SADDAM: IMAM
By KATE SHEEHY
April 2, 2003
U.S. military officials yesterday insisted that the blood of the seven Iraqi women and children killed in a checkpoint shooting is on Saddam Hussein's hands - as a local religious leader said the victims had been forced into the death van.
Sahid Mohammed Bakir Almohari - a prominent Muslim cleric from the town near where the shooting and an earlier homicide bombing occurred - said on Fox News Channel that villagers told him Iraqi militants mercilessly orchestrated both incidents to try to whip up anti-American support.
"These people, children and women, those were put in the bus by Saddam Hussein's forces, their husbands or fathers were taken hostages and the driver was ordered to speed up to the checkpoint and not stop so that they would be shot at," said Almohari, one of many Shiites opposed to Saddam.
...
Would it not make more sense that the vehicle was seen to approach at binocular distance (as was any vehicle prior to that), after which a signal to stop would be given at around 60 ft or so (which would be a fair amount into eye-to-eye distance rather than "binocular distance")?
Just thought I'd point out that a vehicle moving at 60mph covers 88 feet per second, and that even a Porsche doing 60mph will take well over 100 feet to stop, slamming on the brakes. If you're worried about car-bombs that would have a several-hundred-foot blast radius, you can't wait to see the whites of their eyes. If they haven't made any indication of slowing down when they're 500-1000 feet away, you need to start thinking real fast of slowing them down yourself. As for the binoculars, can anyone here see a bullet hole with their naked eyes at 500 feet?
Those numbers aren't bad, what's a few dead anyway, just a small price to pay for the luxury of driving a 10 mile to the gallon SUV monstrosity.
Do you really think Iraq will allow a foreign "Christian state" to conquer them? Just look at Afghanistan, don't be fooled, America does not have things under control there. Just like the Russians before them, they will not maintain stability. These people have been fighting for centuries in the name of God. Sure come in, take control but once we have you under a false sense of security, wham! Don't take my word for it, go here; http://afghanistannews.net/. Not a day goes by where I don't here of stories where Rebels/Taliban attacked US forces or Allies/Northern Alliance. Just more boxes coming home but how many will it take before the world wakes up to the fact the blood for oil exchange program isn't worth the loss.
Little thing to think about, an army who playes Gameboy during their break vs. a pinned down extremist group who believe if they become a human bomb they will go to heaven. US is skipping these towns and cities for a reason, gorilla war is a bitch.......just more boxes...
Originally posted by Scott
Well who knows if this is true. I'm sure the [anti-moronic conservative-US] folks will discount it but considering the well known desperate moves of the Saddam regime I wouldn't put it past them.
Discount it? Are you blind? This is the whole point. We're the ones that are aware of problems like this which is why we'll advocate for more caution. It's their country, not ours. We should risk our lives to save theirs, not the other way around.
Originally posted by Randycat99
What are "gorillas" doing out in the desert, anyway?
"Gorillas" is the military code for the guerillas so that they won't know that we're talking about them.
Originally posted by Relic
Little thing to think about, an army who playes Gameboy during their break vs. a pinned down extremist group who believe if they become a human bomb they will go to heaven. US is skipping these towns and cities for a reason, gorilla war is a bitch.......just more boxes...
But don't you remember? The US *invented* guerilla warfare during the colonial days. We only brought this upon ourselves. Just like we put Saddam in power, now we should bend over and take it from Saddam because it's our fault. </sacrasm>
Originally posted by pyr3
The US *invented* guerilla warfare during the colonial days.
No. You stole the idea from the Native Americans; a people fighting against an invading army with overpowering military might.
Originally posted by ena
I rest my case. Just another bunch of butchers---the sooner we send Hussien and his ilk to hell, the better.
If you don't also advocate us going into all those African countries that kill their people (just without chemical/bio weapons), then you're just a hypocrite. The whole "Saddam is evil to his people" is just a 'nice addition' that is good for the White House PR. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the war, but I also don't have any 'warm fuzzy' feelings about the reasons for it.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
No. You stole the idea from the Native Americans; a people fighting against an invading army with overpowering military might.
The entire point of that was a joke .... It's like watching Bugs Bunny and saying. "Hey, he can't REALLY get up after an anvil drops on his head!".
If I had said, "We should have the US and Iraq line up tanks and then blast away until only one army is left, just like in the days of old European warfare", are you going to criticize me by poking holes in that military strategy?
Originally posted by pfflam
good news . . . imam support
And a girl named America.
Wednesday, U.S. forces spotted a 20-year-old Iraqi woman in labor in a pickup truck. The woman's family had been displaced from another city and was living in tents in Nasiriyah.
"I got the ambulance and sent her to the battalion aid station and delivered a healthy baby girl and named her America. It was a pretty cool way to start the day," said Navy Hospitalman First Class Kyle Morris, 39, of San Clemente, Calif.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pyr3
The US *invented* guerilla warfare during the colonial days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. You stole the idea from the Native Americans; a people fighting against an invading army with overpowering military might.
My vote goes to Robin Hood, as inventor of gurilla warfare that is...
http://thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Content...=1035779892424
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...ction=dialogue
Originally posted by sammi jo
This report from Robert Fisk at Baghdad International Airport: Who does one believe? It sure highlights the "first casualty if war is the truth" axiom:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...ction=dialogue
Strange. Strange. I must say that I have stopped looking at news reports of the war on a constant basis. There is so much coming out that appears to be contradicted within 24-72 hours of its reporting. Some of what we are hearing is true, other parts are mistaken, and other parts are deliberate lies.
If I remember correctly, the Pentagon said some time ago that part of its strategy would include false news reports to keep the Saddam regime off balance. This might be especially useful - from a military point of view - if the regime's sources of information about the situation in the field were starting to dry up. However, from an individual observer's point of view, it makes following the daily news reports frustrating and a bit pointless.
We will know when it is over (more or less).