Iraq stuff

[Colt]

Who says it was "stolen"? Your asserting that this whole thing is fake is really erroneous. Did you pay attention to the video at all? You can SEE the tires on the trucks being blown out and the engine block on the larger truck is glowing and on fire from the 71 30mm HEI shells expended. Please tell me how you simulate that with fireworks and how these actors play the part of "Warm little bits splattered all over the ground."

On a side note, the Apache was probably carrying 320 or 1200 rounds so either way, it had been shooting at stuff previously. It's also possible that this is footage from an AH-1 Super Cobra... Still a hell of a lot of firepower. - Colt

 

[Corpse]

It's also possible that this is footage from an AH-1 Super Cobra... Still a hell of a lot of firepower. - Colt

I don't think so, the Super Cobra carries a M197 3-barrelled gatling gun in 20mm, this weapon has a firing rate of 2000-3000spm though its selectable rate is usually around 750-1500rpm.

The gun in the footage sounds like its firing around 600rpm (10 rounds per second), that is roughly the rate of fire of the M230 chaingun.

 

[welsh]

25K dead Iraqis. Damn. I thought the 100K estimate was to much, but this is probably about right.

In most wars the civilian deaths outnumber the military by a factor of at least 4 to 1, probably closer to 10 to 1.

 

[calculon000]

I saw that video a year or so ago, and then I saw it again in the movie "The Jacket". At the time I assumed it was from the first Iraq war because they used it in that movie, but was I wrong?

 

[Colt]

You're probably right Corpse but, as you said, the rate of fire on most externally-powered cannons is selectable.

Calculon, The Jacket? Not sure what kind of movie would use this footage...

 

[aegis]

ok so lets take the other side- assuming it was not stolen and us army did not care about showing this: the people on the video could be known terrorists which were marked by the military as potential threat, and those trucks could load some nice explosives, i dont see anything non humanitarian about it. those could be 3 guyz on the way to make a nice bombing to blow out 100 people or more, what would you do? rehablitate them?

 

[calculon000]

Calculon, The Jacket? Not sure what kind of movie would use this footage...

The main Character (played by the guy who played the pianist) fought in the first Gulf war, the movie showed a bunch of footage from that war to establish the setting. The Jacket came out in 2005, I really liked it. You can probably rent it now.

 

[welsh]

Ok Aegis-

Let's make a few assumptions-
(1) Lets assume these guys are believed to be terrorists and are in the midst of a conspiracy to do something nasty like blow up a pipe line.

(2) let's further assume these guys fall into the idea that in a war zone a person is guilty until proven innocent (which would be kind of dangerous as it would probably lead to a lot of civilians dead, wounded, incarcerated and tortured)- not a good policy.

(3) And then let's assume that these guys are bad because the US forces assumes so- and thus let's put faith in the idea that "Americans can do no wrong" (also a dangerous idea considering the number of times americans have committed atrocities).

- we still have the americans putting a lot of bullets into what is clearly a wounded man.

Is that a mercy killing or a murder?

 

[Bradylama]

Well, one thing's for sure, if they hadn't have killed him, he would've been bleeding to death on the desert, slowly, and assumably painfully.

Ever tried to surrender to a helicopter?

 

[Corpse]

You're probably right Corpse but, as you said, the rate of fire on most externally-powered cannons is selectable..

Thrust me, the difference between 600 and 750rpm (which is the minimum selectable rate on the M197) is clearly audible, I have worked on enough weapon sound effects to tell the difference.

EDIT: Just put these two wav files together from the clip for comparison, they are both one second in length.

and the engine block on the larger truck is glowing and on fire from the 71 30mm HEI shells expended.

Actually the M230 was designed to fire the 30x113mm, I think they most commonly use the M789 HEDP round though from what I have read, 30x173mm rounds can also be used in some 30x113mm systems.

30x113mm

30x173mm PGU-13/B HEI

Well, one thing's for sure, if they hadn't have killed him, he would've been bleeding to death on the desert, slowly, and assumably painfully.

I agree with you there, that guy was going to die there anyway; they did him a favour by making it quick.

 

[aegis]

ok welsh your approach throws me to the conclusion that you're totally against the iraq war.

and you would rather let iraq continue manifesting terror and harvesting money for islamic globalisation, sadam already tried it twice.
i dont understand why do you consider terrorists which kill thier own people (most of the casualties in iraq are locals) someone to be protected against the american]s aggression.

if a country supports terror it should be stopped, i see nothing wrong in that policy, if someone is on the way to kill people just to prove how he can manifest terror into the world/country i would kill it first-and thats what they did.

the army intelligance in the military is (supposed to be) alot more focused than "just people on the warzone" , terrorists are being hunted every day.
i still dont understand what would you suggest to do with known terrorists.

 

[Wooz]

if a country supports terror it should be stopped, i see nothing wrong in that policy, if someone is on the way to kill people just to prove how he can manifest terror into the world/country i would kill it first

Following your logic, the world should nuke Israel and the USA, among others.

 

[Colt]

Actually the M230 was designed to fire the 30x113mm, I think they most commonly use the M789 HEDP round though from what I have read, 30x173mm rounds can also be used in some 30x113mm systems.

Regarding 30x173mm... This ammunition family is also compatible with all 30mm x 113 gun systems.

- Colt

 

[Tayl]

if a country supports terror it should be stopped, i see nothing wrong in that policy, if someone is on the way to kill people just to prove how he can manifest terror into the world/country i would kill it first-and thats what they did.
terrorists.

The problem with your logic is that there was no proof that Saddam was 'on his way to kill people'. Where were the WMD's we were promised? Where was the hard evidence linking Iraq to 9/11? So your argument falls flat on its face right there.

Also, I am not comfortable with the idea that America needs to police the entire world. Why do our friends and family need to go off to die? Have you lost friends or family in Iraq? Do you know anyone who serves? I tend to find people that have your line of reasoning don't come from a military background and have never experienced the pain of losing that person in a place like Iraq. It is really easy to say "We need to protect the world from terrorism!" when you aren't glued to the TV agonizing over each suicide bomb report and nearly crying everytime you pick up the phone for fear that some officer is calling to regrettfully inform you that your family member was killed.

 

[Brother None]

ok welsh your approach throws me to the conclusion that you're totally against the iraq war.

What an odd conclusions

and you would rather let iraq continue manifesting terror and harvesting money for islamic globalisation, sadam already tried it twice.

Actually, Saddam was pretty much against terrorism. Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism *since* the war, before that it was mostly just Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

i dont understand why do you consider terrorists which kill thier own people (most of the casualties in iraq are locals) someone to be protected against the american]s aggression.

That's odd, because it seems to me "their own people" are in dire need against protection from the Americans, what with 39% of Iraqi casualties so far being made by Americans and 9% by Iraqi insurgents.

the army intelligance in the military is (supposed to be) alot more focused than "just people on the warzone" , terrorists are being hunted every day.
i still dont understand what would you suggest to do with known terrorists.

I don't understand why you assume these targets are known terrorists just because they're getting shot. You're twisting logic around. You're supposed to shoot people because they're bad, not shoot them and then say they're bad because you just shot them

 

[Tayl]

Heh, nice. Let's be friends, Kharn.

 

[aegis]

in answer to tayl:

are you kidding? iraq was a known supporter for quite a FEW terrorist organizations. i wouldn't call iraq a peacful community where a murdurous dictator sits atop it. i'm amazed still by your defending those "peacful" countries. the fact that america did not find proof for 9.11 or chemical missiles doesnt neglect the fact that these people were against the USA EUROPE and everything non muslamic.

hehe, and you should live in israel cause thats the way of life there, and it started in london too. only wonderous thing happened-not the arab organizations or the countries that support them are to blame. BUT THE USA.

hail to the media, it flooded every single individual with humanitarian and liberal way of thinking, but forget the existance of the individual/country in the process.

to kharn-

Actually, Saddam was pretty much against terrorism. Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism *since* the war, before that it was mostly just Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

?????

impossible. saddam, with iran and syria are the main suporters of terror orgnizations.
i guess you're only considering world terror. i'm considering those against israel too.

That's odd, because it seems to me "their own people" are in dire need against protection from the Americans, what with 39% of Iraqi casualties so far being made by Americans and 9% by Iraqi insurgents.

again, i dont know where u get your facts, last week there were over a hundered casualties of local iraques from a bombing.

either you're inventing stuff to contredict me or your media really hates bush. both are really bad for getting the truth.

I don't understand why you assume these targets are known terrorists just because they're getting shot. You're twisting logic around. You're supposed to shoot people because they're bad, not shoot them and then say they're bad because you just shot them

and i dont know why you assume they arent??
but i guess its all a matter of belief and if it is, we better stop here cause in belief there is no logic.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

the fact that america did not find proof for 9.11 or chemical missiles doesnt neglect the fact that these people were against the USA EUROPE and everything non muslamic.

Actually, the Baath party is/was a largely secular party, based on a arab nationalist ideology. If I recall correctly Saddam even had a few christians in his government. The fact that his dictatorship was entirely sunni-supported stems from the fact that his clan came from a Sunni dominated region (Tikrit). Baath support for Hamas was also out of Arab (not muslim) vs Isreali aims.


On a side note, aren't you going a bit overboard on the caps, my good man? Take this for example:

iraq was a known supporter for quite a FEW terrorist organizations

No sense it makes.

 

[Brother None]

impossible. saddam, with iran and syria are the main suporters of terror orgnizations.

No, no he isn't

Iran and Syria are, but so are Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, two of whom are great allies of the US.

Saddam didn't like terrorists that much, he harboured a few and supported terrorism half-heartedly, but he was nothing compared to any of the countries above. So why one would invade Iraq for terrorist support BEFORE invading Saudi Arabia for the same is beyond me.

again, i dont know where u get your facts, last week there were over a hundered casualties of local iraques from a bombing.

But there have been 25,000 dead in total, so far, as you can read in this very thread one page back

The number of Iraqi civilians who met violent deaths in the two years after the US-led invasion was today put at 24,865 by an independent research team.
The figures, compiled from Iraqi and international media reports, found US and coalition military forces were responsible for 37% of the deaths, with anti-occupation forces and insurgents responsible for 9%. A further 36% were blamed on criminal violence.

either you're inventing stuff to contredict me or your media really hates bush. both are really bad for getting the truth.

Either that or maybe the media doesn't love Bush so much that they cover up the truth for him. Since you're offering no proof or facts here, I'm not sure why I'd be converted to your side.

and i dont know why you assume they arent??

Uhm, because I've seen no proof they aren't? The military has, as far as I known, issued no statement saying "these men were known terrorists, this was a precision strike operation".

There is no reason the US military would not issue such a statement if that was the case. Obviously, therefore, it isn't

 

[welsh]

Bradylama- I agree that surrendering to a helicopter is tough business. One of the reasons submarine attacks on civilian cruise ships was considered a war crime was because the submarine could not pick up survivors- same logic.

Aegis- Actually I did support this war but not how it's being managed. One can attempt to do the "right thing" and still screw it up so badly that you get a wrong result. The distinction is important.

For example I could support the US going to war against Germany during the Second World War, but I don't have to support murdering prisoners, torturing captives, raping women or a variation of things that one can object to both on moral or practical grounds.

Sadly, I think the occupation of Iraq and the war itself has been a botched job. That raises the question whether we "could" have done better. I am not so sure, but I hope so. God knows we're doing a pretty crappy job of it now.