Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I just want to contrast Syrian "Regime" with the Iraqi "Government".
Both are alleged to have used illegal barrel bombs. Yet I don't recall our Governments (Britain, USA, EU) making a big fuss and moralizing over the latter a year ago (May 2014).
By the way, I also note the absence of outrage over the current Saudi air attacks on Yemen. In what way are these attacks morally superior to Assad’s barrel bombing of rebel areas in Syria?
If you or I were being bombed from the air in our homes how much would we care about the shape of the bomb? Also, if we are so exercised about barrel bombs, when did you last hear through any British or US medium that ‘our’ ‘democratic’ Iraqi President, Nouri al Maliki, had used these weapons in populated areas against Sunni militants in Fallujah in 2014?
My own guess is that this stuff about barrel bombs is a result of the failure to establish that Assad had used chemical weapons, and his subsequent decision to dismantle and abandon his chemical munitions. Supporters of continuing efforts to overthrow Assad at all costs speak and write as if the case had been proved, but in fact it never was, and alternative theories have been put forward (also unproven) by the American journalist Seymour Hersh. So I advise care, and intelligent curiosity, when you hear or read the phrase.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/12 19:43:49
Both are alleged to have used illegal barrel bombs. Yet I don't recall our Governments (Britain, USA, EU) making a big fuss and moralizing over the latter a year ago (May 2014).
By the way, I also note the absence of outrage over the current Saudi air attacks on Yemen. In what way are these attacks morally superior to Assad’s barrel bombing of rebel areas in Syria?
If you or I were being bombed from the air in our homes how much would we care about the shape of the bomb? Also, if we are so exercised about barrel bombs, when did you last hear through any British or US medium that ‘our’ ‘democratic’ Iraqi President, Nouri al Maliki, had used these weapons in populated areas against Sunni militants in Fallujah in 2014?
My own guess is that this stuff about barrel bombs is a result of the failure to establish that Assad had used chemical weapons, and his subsequent decision to dismantle and abandon his chemical munitions. Supporters of continuing efforts to overthrow Assad at all costs speak and write as if the case had been proved, but in fact it never was, and alternative theories have been put forward (also unproven) by the American journalist Seymour Hersh. So I advise care, and intelligent curiosity, when you hear or read the phrase.
Human rights only matter when they are violated by someone the West does not like.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/12 20:33:22
Both are alleged to have used illegal barrel bombs. Yet I don't recall our Governments (Britain, USA, EU) making a big fuss and moralizing over the latter a year ago (May 2014).
By the way, I also note the absence of outrage over the current Saudi air attacks on Yemen. In what way are these attacks morally superior to Assad’s barrel bombing of rebel areas in Syria?
If you or I were being bombed from the air in our homes how much would we care about the shape of the bomb? Also, if we are so exercised about barrel bombs, when did you last hear through any British or US medium that ‘our’ ‘democratic’ Iraqi President, Nouri al Maliki, had used these weapons in populated areas against Sunni militants in Fallujah in 2014?
My own guess is that this stuff about barrel bombs is a result of the failure to establish that Assad had used chemical weapons, and his subsequent decision to dismantle and abandon his chemical munitions. Supporters of continuing efforts to overthrow Assad at all costs speak and write as if the case had been proved, but in fact it never was, and alternative theories have been put forward (also unproven) by the American journalist Seymour Hersh. So I advise care, and intelligent curiosity, when you hear or read the phrase.
Human rights only matter when they are violated by someone the West does not like.
Or wants to replace with someone more malleable...
Unless filled with chem weapons, all they are is a cheap dumb (not precision) munition. What they target with them, and their ROE, may be an issue, but making an issue of the weapon itself seems stupid. Hell, we have munitions we use that have a hell of a lot more explosive power, the difference is we also tend to put some type of guidance system on them and out ROE is pretty strict as to what we target with them.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Yah, I'm not too sure what the problem with "dumb" munitions is exactly. I would be willing to place the blame on neocons and liberal hawks up to no good again though.
These charges can't be trusted. Saddam was accused of preparation for chemical and biological warfare that was a formal occasion of its overthrow. But nothing was found. And when it poisoned Kurds earlier, it wasn't big deal for them (for "West").
When the opposition in Syria used the chemical shells of home-made mortars, they accused Assad and refused to make investigation.
It is necessary to worry that the ISIL will use such weapon when suffers defeat in direct warfight.
We are without initiative and we trust our authorities and media.
Barrel bomb less harmful than cluster bombs, used by USA in Serbia (for example).
They use barrels because of shortage of normal ammunition, but not to do much harm to civilians. some bombs also make big psychological effect when rustle
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/13 02:41:35
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
Freakazoitt wrote: These charges can't be trusted. Saddam was accused of preparation for chemical and biological warfare that was a formal occasion of its overthrow. But nothing was found. And when it poisoned Kurds earlier, it wasn't big deal for them (for "West").
When the opposition in Syria used the chemical shells of home-made mortars, they accused Assad and refused to make investigation.
It is necessary to worry that the ISIL will use such weapon when suffers defeat in direct warfight.
We are without initiative and we trust our authorities and media.
Barrel bomb less harmful than cluster bombs, used by USA in Serbia (for example).
They use barrels because of shortage of normal ammunition, but not to do much harm to civilians. some bombs also make big psychological effect when rustle
I'm pretty confident that the US did find chemical weapons. I've personally known individuals that guarded munitions brought from Iraq while having to wear full MOPP gear, I've been personally trained to look for it (despite never having gone to Iraq), I'm sure just about ever Vet or active service person on this forum has heard about the wounded veterans that are being refused help by the VA because they likely have burns and damage from chemical weapons.
The US probably ate the bullet on the WMD thing because they were uncomfortable with what they found. Either it was from Russia, China, Europe or had US stamps on it. My guess would be Europe, Russia or China as Iraqis jad their munitions for days. An that was a can of worms the US didn't want to open.
Also, my understanding is that some chemical weapons were found, but they were ancient and dilapidated stockpiles, dating from before the first gulf war, which rather undermined the bullgak narrative.
Also, my understanding is that some chemical weapons were found, but they were ancient and dilapidated stockpiles, dating from before the first gulf war, which rather undermined the bullgak narrative.
This is pretty much exactly the case.
Yes, weapons were found, but nothing like was claimed, they weren't organized stockiles and active production facilities, they were munitions buried for years from previous conflicts (many if not most, from the Iran/Iraq war) that, while dangerous, were no longer functional weapons (at least as anything other than IED's). Battlefield detritus rather than actively maintained arsenals.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Also, my understanding is that some chemical weapons were found, but they were ancient and dilapidated stockpiles, dating from before the first gulf war, which rather undermined the bullgak narrative.
If I remember it right the US sell some stuff and then banned the selling of stuff.
I fingered who I fingered because of what the Iraqis used. Like Italian land mines or Russian jets, Chinese and Russian mortars etc etc. The history of the munitions are off written right on the sides of them. You can learn a lot just by what is stamped on the side.
But in Iraqi - Iran war USA supported Iraq. AFAIR, on one side with USSR. After (or during) that war Saddam used chemicals ones against Kurds and then started to destroy/bury chemicals.
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
Barrel bomb less harmful than cluster bombs, used by USA in Serbia (for example).
Tsk tsk, those Su 34's are dropping cluster bombs too.
Not that I have an issue with the Ruskie's blowing up jihadi's....just don't try to claim some humanistic or moral superiority. Ya'll are brutal. Its what you do. Its what you've always done.
Barrel bomb less harmful than cluster bombs, used by USA in Serbia (for example).
Tsk tsk, those Su 34's are dropping cluster bombs too.
Not that I have an issue with the Ruskie's blowing up jihadi's....just don't try to claim some humanistic or moral superiority. Ya'll are brutal. Its what you do. Its what you've always done.
Да здравствует империю !
Yah?
They're not...Its actually US that claim moral superiority whilst blowing the crap out of the Middle East.
Russia on the other hand is quite open about its motives. Its defending a military ally
Ya'll are brutal. Its what you do. Its what you've always done.
Remind me, who was it that bombed an Afghan hospital recently?
Edit: got the country wrong.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/10/13 23:29:28
Remind me, who was it that bombed an Iraqi hospital recently?
Probably Da'Ish or one of the Shia militia.
The US had an AC130 blow the snot out of one in Afghanistan, seemingly at this point at the request of Afghan troops who called it in, claiming to be taking fire from the building.
Knowing a bit about how an AC130 engages, I personally hope we release the video/sound from the engagement. It would not surprise me to see muzzle flashes or armed guys before Specter cuts loose.
Of course, the Russians capped two hospitals and 5-6 ambulances in Syria during a two day period and the press doesn't seem to give two feths about that.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Remind me, who was it that bombed an Iraqi hospital recently?
Probably Da'Ish or one of the Shia militia.
The US had an AC130 blow the snot out of one in Afghanistan, seemingly at this point at the request of Afghan troops who called it in, claiming to be taking fire from the building.
Knowing a bit about how an AC130 engages, I personally hope we release the video/sound from the engagement. It would not surprise me to see muzzle flashes or armed guys before Specter cuts loose.
Of course, the Russians capped two hospitals and 5-6 ambulances in Syria during a two day period and the press doesn't seem to give two feths about that.
I addressed that at the end
Think the hospital was not indicated on the map when the ANA FO plotted the strike
posted pictures of the front of the hospital. Can't really tell at all its a hospital unless one can read English, also whatever written dialect they had in front of the building.
Also the ANA FO is not from that area at all.
ANA FO gave a ten digit grid spot on though
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Peter Wiggin wrote:
Tsk tsk, those Su 34's are dropping cluster bombs too.
Not that I have an issue with the Ruskie's blowing up jihadi's....just don't try to claim some humanistic or moral superiority. Ya'll are brutal. Its what you do. Its what you've always done.
Да здравствует империю !
Yah?
Yes, my point was - barrels less harmful than common cluster bombs, used by many armies.
SU34 drop FAB, BTAB and KAB,not clusters. Maybe it was some Ukrainian Grad rockets
--
What about FSA role in anti-ISIL actions? Kurds and FSA united against ISIL to take Raqqa. Kurds ally to Russia too and also potential ally to Assad. But FSA is enemy to Russia/Assad. How to avoid friendly fire if they all together? And how Kurds will kill Nusra, if Nusra mixed with FSA?
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
Peter Wiggin wrote:
Tsk tsk, those Su 34's are dropping cluster bombs too.
Not that I have an issue with the Ruskie's blowing up jihadi's....just don't try to claim some humanistic or moral superiority. Ya'll are brutal. Its what you do. Its what you've always done.
Да здравствует империю !
Yah?
Yes, my point was - barrels less harmful than common cluster bombs, used by many armies.
SU34 drop FAB, BTAB and KAB,not clusters. Maybe it was some Ukrainian Grad rockets
I bow to your superior knowledge of Ruskie munitions. And I got a hearty chuckle from the latter part, but ya'll really should piss off from the Donbas.
What about FSA role in anti-ISIL actions? Kurds and FSA united against ISIL to take Raqqa. Kurds ally to Russia too and also potential ally to Assad. But FSA is enemy to Russia/Assad. How to avoid friendly fire if they all together? And how Kurds will kill Nusra, if Nusra mixed with FSA?
From everything I've seen, FSA are just another jihadi militia.
Kurds are a solid group of folks, who will ally with those directly opposing Daesh. From the limited exposure I've had with Kurds, they don't have much love for jihadi's like Nusra. I don't see the two groups getting along. Besides, Nusra is a "group", FSA is a "group", but the Kurds are a powerfully cohesive ethnic culture and they will be here long after those two groups have poofed like dust in the wind.
No friends but the mountains, as they say.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/14 02:52:05
Freakazoitt wrote: These charges can't be trusted. Saddam was accused of preparation for chemical and biological warfare that was a formal occasion of its overthrow. But nothing was found. And when it poisoned Kurds earlier, it wasn't big deal for them (for "West").
When the opposition in Syria used the chemical shells of home-made mortars, they accused Assad and refused to make investigation.
It is necessary to worry that the ISIL will use such weapon when suffers defeat in direct warfight.
We are without initiative and we trust our authorities and media.
Barrel bomb less harmful than cluster bombs, used by USA in Serbia (for example).
They use barrels because of shortage of normal ammunition, but not to do much harm to civilians. some bombs also make big psychological effect when rustle
I'm pretty confident that the US did find chemical weapons. I've personally known individuals that guarded munitions brought from Iraq while having to wear full MOPP gear, I've been personally trained to look for it (despite never having gone to Iraq), I'm sure just about ever Vet or active service person on this forum has heard about the wounded veterans that are being refused help by the VA because they likely have burns and damage from chemical weapons.
The US probably ate the bullet on the WMD thing because they were uncomfortable with what they found. Either it was from Russia, China, Europe or had US stamps on it. My guess would be Europe, Russia or China as Iraqis jad their munitions for days. An that was a can of worms the US didn't want to open.
The Kurds being poisoned was a big deal btw.
First, no, we did not find chemical weapons in Iraq of the sorts we were looking for. What was found were twenty-year-old munitions that we already knew Iraq had (they were there the first time we went there) that had been left in some caves by persons unknown. What we most certainly did not find was the means for Saddam to be engaged in the production of new biochemical warfare agents, which was the stated reason we invaded the country.
The United States did not, nationally, give a damn what happened to the Kurds, as most Americans didn't (and don't) really care what goes on over there so long as our gasoline is cheap.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Most of the 5000+ chem munitions were not found 'left in some caves' or buried in the desert. They were on military bases and in munitions storage bunkers.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: Most of the 5000+ chem munitions were not found 'left in some caves' or buried in the desert. They were on military bases and in munitions storage bunkers.
And exactly how old were they? Were they recently manufactured (after 1991), or were they they ancient relics of the Iran-Iraq war?
They were old, never claimed otherwise. But folks claiming No WMDs were found! or they found a few buried in the desert or forgotten about in a cave' are probably misinformed.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: They were old, never claimed otherwise. But folks claiming No WMDs were found! or they found a few buried in the desert or forgotten about in a cave' are probably misinformed.
To be fair, the implication of "No WMDs were found!" has always been that "No evidence of the construction of new WMDs was found!".
Remember that Iraq was said to be clearly in possession not just of WMDs but the ability to construct more.
And remember, many of the interviews/interrogations with Saddam's main subordinate leaders and scientists after they were captured indicated they firmly believed he did intend to reconstitute WMD capability if he could get the sanctions lifted.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: And remember, many of the interviews/interrogations with Saddam's main subordinate leaders and scientists after they were captured indicated they firmly believed he did intend to reconstitute WMD capability if he could get the sanctions lifted.
Also, my understanding is that some chemical weapons were found, but they were ancient and dilapidated stockpiles, dating from before the first gulf war, which rather undermined the bullgak narrative.
This is pretty much exactly the case.
Yes, weapons were found, but nothing like was claimed, they weren't organized stockiles and active production facilities, they were munitions buried for years from previous conflicts (many if not most, from the Iran/Iraq war) that, while dangerous, were no longer functional weapons (at least as anything other than IED's). Battlefield detritus rather than actively maintained arsenals.
Does anyone still honestly believe that the invasion of Iraq was about WMDs?
I feed into it
We wanted free oil. It was all about the oil.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Jihadin wrote: I feed into it
We wanted free oil. It was all about the oil.
It was all about the ideologies baby .
Privatizing the oil was attempted and shot down. The point was to pick a weak opponent and do some state building. Prove the power of liberal democracy and markets and alter the M.E. one state at a time. That was the reason the Bush admins periphery (Neocons) in the DOD did it. Cheney did it for the Benjamins and set his corporate buddies up. Rumsfeld was in it to prove the strenght of his 'new' transformative military, which is why he tried to do it with minimum troops possible.
Bush....Bush....I've no actual idea past he just wanted to fight Iraq for some reason.
Largely though it was the Neocons infesting the Bush admin that convinced everybody it was a good idea. They had been planning the idea sense Barry Goldwater.
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
The Undying Spawn of Shub-Niggurath 
.