NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4357684.stm
Judge Santiago Pedraz issued the warrant for Sgt Shawn Gibson, Capt Philip Wolford and Lt Col Philip de Camp, of the US 3rd Infantry Division.
Jose Couso, of Spanish TV network Telecinco, died in April 2003 when a US tank fired on the Palestine Hotel.
Reuters news agency cameraman Taras Protsyuk, a Ukrainian, was also killed.
The National Court agreed to consider filing criminal charges against three members of the tank crew two years ago, acting on a request from Mr Couso's family.
Speaking on Wednesday, the judge said he had issued the arrest order because of a lack of judicial co-operation from the US in the case.

Does anyone know what exactly happened there?
How can you think the Palestine Hotel, of all places in Bagdhad, was an enemy position?
And even if you do think so and kill someone by accident, aren't you still liable?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4357684.stm

Does anyone know what exactly happened there?
How can you think the Palestine Hotel, of all places in Bagdhad, was an enemy position?
And even if you do think so and kill someone by accident, aren't you still liable?

That brings to mind the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by the USA. I think the excuse used at the time was that the maps they had were outdated... lame to say the least.
If US soldiers can be held accountable for killing citizens of neutral or allied nations in a war zone, they might be in for some hard times...

That brings to mind the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by the USA. I think the excuse used at the time was that the maps they had were outdated... lame to say the least.
If US soldiers can be held accountable for killing citizens of neutral or allied nations in a war zone, they might be in for some hard times...You think a country unwilling to subject itself to international justice, such as the International Criminal Court, will subject itself to international arrest warrants, such as those issued by Spain? ;)

You think a country unwilling to subject itself to international justice, such as the International Criminal Court, will subject itself to international arrest warrants, such as those issued by Spain? ;)

I seriously doubt it. The USA makes laws for others, it doesn't normally apply the same laws to itself....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4357684.stm

Does anyone know what exactly happened there?

It was during the first phase of the war, the "major combat phase". A US tank that was part of a column of vehicles that came under heavy fire from several directions fired a shell at the Palestine hotel. The tank commander later explained that, looking through the periscope, he saw a flash of light that could be a reflected light from the targeting scope of either a sniper rifle or a rocket launcher.


How can you think the Palestine Hotel, of all places in Bagdhad, was an enemy position?
What exactly would make it different from any other building in Baghdad?

Besides, when you're inside a tank, under fire, looking at the world around you through the tiny periscope, identifying buildings in a matter of seconds is a pretty tough work.


And even if you do think so and kill someone by accident, aren't you still liable?
Not under war circumstances.

That brings to mind the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade by the USA. I think the excuse used at the time was that the maps they had were outdated... lame to say the least.
You suppose they targeted an embassy on purpose?:rolleyes:

You suppose they targeted an embassy on purpose?:rolleyes:

It is the US.

You suppose they targeted an embassy on purpose?:rolleyes:China was opposing the intervention in the SC at the time. It could well have been a "signal" for them to stay out of European affairs. Not that anyone would publicly admit it.

It is the US.
Ah yes. I mean, everybody knows that the US are irrationally evil, always looking for someone to kill

China was opposing the intervention in the SC at the time. It could well have been a "signal" for them to stay out of European affairs. Not that anyone would publicly admit it.
And what exactly could China conceivably have done to hinder the UN approved NATO operation?

And what exactly could China conceivably have done to hinder the UN approved NATO operation?The operation wasn't UN approved until after the operation because of China.

Ah yes. I mean, everybody knows that the US are irrationally evil, always looking for someone to kill

They do not have the best reputation.

What exactly would make it different from any other building in Baghdad?
Something like 200 foreign journalists had made it their headquarters for the war.
I would've imagined that US Forces that would operate in the area would be told about that, considering that you could watch those people in the hotel every hour on live TV..

You suppose they targeted an embassy on purpose?:rolleyes:

I don't think so, personally. They wouldn't go that far, I think. My explanation would be, it was a MAJOR blunder somewhere up high and they tried to use the outdated maps explanation to avoid international consequences and loss of face.
They did, anyway. Seriously, who would believe that the largest superpower in the world is unable to provide up to date maps to its troops???

They did, anyway. Seriously, who would believe that the largest superpower in the world is unable to provide up to date maps to its troops???I would. The US military has a big potential for promoting the wrong people. It's one of the major problems armies face during peace.

I would. The US military has a big potential for promoting the wrong people. It's one of the major problems armies face during peace.

Still... it IS embarrasing to say the least.
I wonder if there has been so much as an apology to the family of that Spanish journalist?

i especially liked this part of the article:

Earlier on the same day, a correspondent for the Arabic TV broadcaster al-Jazeera was killed when US missiles hit the network's office in Baghdad.

Following the incident, then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell said a US review of the incident had found the use of force was justified.
/

:rolleyes: mmmmm

Still... it IS embarrasing to say the least.
I wonder if there has been so much as an apology to the family of that Spanish journalist?Friendly fire is more embarassing. Stuff like this always happens in the beginning of a war and as the war progresses and the people get practice and incompetence gets weeded out, it continues to happen, though not as often.

Even Wiki has an article about it.
The list of links at the bottom might be particularly useful, given the somethimes disputed accuracy of wikipedia by people who disagree with articles...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_8,_2003_journalist_deaths_by_U.S._fire
At briefing from The Pentagon on April 8, a reporter asked "(...) There are reports that a tank took small arms and perhaps R.P.G. fire from the direction of the hotel, although journalists say that they saw no sign of it. Do you think that's reason enough for a tank to fire a round at the hotel where you know there are unarmed journalists?"

Major General Stanley McChrystal answered "(...) particularly with this war, journalists have been closer to coalition soldiers than probably ever before with the embedded program, and those who are not. (...) When [forces] get into combat in the cities, which, from the beginning, we had specifically said would be dangerous and difficult, you put yourself in their position, they had the inherent right of self-defense. When they are fired at, they have not only the right to respond, they have the obligation to respond to protect the soldiers with them and to accomplish the mission at large (...)."

Something like 200 foreign journalists had made it their headquarters for the war.
And that was supposed to rule out the possibility of the hotel being used as a firing position by the Iraqis?

That journalists say they saw nothing does not surprise me, to be honest. I mean, the CNN admitted doing their best to see nothing of Saddam's crimes in Iraq for friggin 12 years, why would their policy suddenly change?

I mean, the CNN admitted doing their best to see nothing of Saddam's crimes in Iraq for friggin 12 years

Yeah, unlike the US... :rolleyes:

And that was supposed to rule out the possibility of the hotel being used as a firing position by the Iraqis?

That journalists say they saw nothing does not surprise me, to be honest. I mean, the CNN admitted doing their best to see nothing of Saddam's crimes in Iraq for friggin 12 years, why would their policy suddenly change?
:rolleyes:
They looked at the footage, and there was nothing there.
The journalists there were having a battle fought around their hotel - I'm pretty sure they had better things to think about than to satisfy some claims that all the evil news media is horribly biased against sensible religious fundamentalism.

And besides, it's perfectly possible that there was firing going around, I don't know if you've ever seen pictures of the hotel, but there is plenty of places from where there could've been fire.
The US soldiers looked up, apparently saw the reflection from a camera lense or something, and then fired at the hotel. Very, very gross negligence at best - criminal in any other case.
http://www.inlet.org/wade/photos/0411/Journalists_fly_white_sheets_out_of_windows_after_US_bombs_Reuters.jpg

:rolleyes:
They looked at the footage, and there was nothing there.
The journalists there were having a battle fought around their hotel - I'm pretty sure they had better things to think about than to satisfy some claims that all the evil news media is horribly biased against sensible religious fundamentalism.

And besides, it's perfectly possible that there was firing going around, I don't know if you've ever seen pictures of the hotel, but there is plenty of places from where there could've been fire.
The US soldiers looked up, apparently saw the reflection from a camera lense or something, and then fired at the hotel. Very, very gross negligence at best - criminal in any other case.

I love to see a bunch of armchair warriors figure out what should have been done. You guys have an abstract concept of combat that just defies my imagination.

Even if there was no fire coming from the hotel, it may well have seemed like it. In fact, there probably were small arms or even RPGs being shot at US troops from someplace in that hotel. The US troops had to make the decision and in combat, there isn't all that much time. Too bad for the reporters that they happened to be in harm's way, but that's the nature of combat reporting. They knew the risks when they went to the area.

This is why the US should never ratify the ICC treaty.

I've got a little story that illustrates just how fast things can happen in a combat area. I was in the strike on Libya in 1986, flying off the Kitty Hawk. We had about a thirty minute ingress to our target and being near the end of the stream, we had quite a bit of anti-aircraft fire to distract us. About 15 seconds from the target, I turned the radar on and started looking for the offset aim-point that I was using to identify the target on my radar. It was an old analog radar, by the way, not one of the new SAR radars that makes everything look like TV. Anyhow at T-15 seconds, I started looking for the OAP. At about t-12 seconds, I found it, made a position correction, started correcting the system velocities and started looking for my target's primary return. At about t-5 seconds, I found the target and put the computer into the attack mode. We dropped out bombs and hightailed it out of there. That was exciting too, but another story.

We got back to the ship and pulled the video tapes. After four hours of watching those fifteen seconds over and over, we finally decided that I had found the correct target.

That's how things happen in real life. Those soldiers were absolutely justified in shooting anything that they thought threatened them. As I said, it's too bad about the reporters, but they were in a dangerous area. It's kind of like going to the beach and not expecting to get wet.

It is the US.
Hey now. Thats a bit uncalled for. If you have proof that the U.S. targeted them on purpose, lets see it!

I'd also like to point out the sheer audacity of a reporter who expects to go into a warzone, and be safe, especially when we are fighting an enemy that doesn't fight according to the geneva convention.

I'd also like to point out the sheer audacity of a reporter who expects to go into a warzone, and be safe, especially when we are fighting an enemy that doesn't fight according to the geneva convention.

No one is claiming the reporter thought he was safe. Well...no one other than you anyway.

I love to see a bunch of armchair warriors figure out what should have been done. You guys have an abstract concept of combat that just defies my imagination.
I've been saying that for years. They never do get it though.

No one is claiming the reporter thought he was safe. Well...no one other than you anyway.
Well, the impression I get from a few posters is that theres NO WAY that a reporter can be killed in combat, unless it's because of direct disregard for them by American forces,or even purposful targeting and not because, well, they are in a war zone.

I don't think so, personally. They wouldn't go that far, I think. My explanation would be, it was a MAJOR blunder somewhere up high and they tried to use the outdated maps explanation to avoid international consequences and loss of face.
They did, anyway. Seriously, who would believe that the largest superpower in the world is unable to provide up to date maps to its troops???

Actually the Chinese embassy bombing is a non-issue. It was a regional bombing, covering an entire area... Of which (Per Geneva Convention provisions) prior notification was sent to the area for the purpose of evacuation. Thus, was perfectly legal from the sense of warfare (The US provided notification; they are not responsible for people who did not leave the area after said notification).

As to the tank attack. It was a war zone. Things like this happen.

While I don't and have not approved of the Iraq war, I in no way side with the Spanish courts on this issue. Their journalists were in a battle zone, during fighting. They were subject to possible injury and loss of life... Shit happened, they died, get over it.

Actually the Chinese embassy bombing is a non-issue. It was a regional bombing, covering an entire area... Of which (Per Geneva Convention provisions) prior notification was sent to the area for the purpose of evacuation. Thus, was perfectly legal from the sense of warfare (The US provided notification; they are not responsible for people who did not leave the area after said notification).


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/338557.stm

"Nato spokesman Jamie Shea said Nato pilots had mistaken the building for a legitimate military target and then hit it with precision-guided weapons."

Doesn't really sound like a bombing of the entire region with prior warning...

I love to see a bunch of armchair warriors figure out what should have been done. You guys have an abstract concept of combat that just defies my imagination.

On this I agree, few (if any) people who make such tactical after-the-fact decisions have any combat experience what-so-ever.

They might as well be custodial staff reviewing the operating procedures of a neurologist.

Or a trash-collector reviewing the work of a astro-phycisist.

On this I agree, few (if any) people who make such tactical after-the-fact decisions have any combat experience what-so-ever.

They might as well be custodial staff reviewing the operating procedures of a neurologist.

Or a trash-collector reviewing the work of a astro-phycisist.
And that, my friends, basically says it all.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/338557.stm

"Nato spokesman Jamie Shea said Nato pilots had mistaken the building for a legitimate military target and then hit it with precision-guided weapons."

Doesn't really sound like a bombing of the entire region with prior warning...

That was not the only building being bombed.... You seem to be under the impression that one plane was sent in to hit one building... If that is your impression; you've been sorely mislead.

As per guidelines, PRIOR notice was sent of bombing missions into the region. Along with recommendations for evacuation [which is required under the Geneva Convention]; including notification to the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade [which was the theater of action]. Such is required in ALL CASES, under convention, where arial attacks are being made within city targets, and civilian casualties are likely to ensue.

I love to see a bunch of armchair warriors figure out what should have been done. You guys have an abstract concept of combat that just defies my imagination.
That's right then, we'll give guns to a bunch of armchair warriors and send them into Bagdhad, and expect they do any better.

http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2003/palestine_hotel/palestine_hotel.html
This is a pretty complete report of what happened there. It's a bit of a read, but it makes pretty clear that the Palestine Hotel was not part of the battle, and that this US tank crew quite obviously made a wrong call.

All I ask is that people responsible for making such a call can expect to deal with the consequences.
If I run someone over in my car, I don't go about and tell people that they don't know what driving really is like - as if that would change anything.

I can understand that adrenaline is probably rather intense, and that sometimes one must make judgement calls without knowing all the facts, but this was obviously uncalled for, and it cost these people their lives.

And since the US Government seems utterly desinterested in having the matter cleared up, Spain has decided to try on its own, or at least to make a statement to that effect.

On this I agree, few (if any) people who make such tactical after-the-fact decisions have any combat experience what-so-ever.

They might as well be custodial staff reviewing the operating procedures of a neurologist.

Or a trash-collector reviewing the work of a astro-phycisist.

Not quite.

While I agree that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for most of the armchair warriors to make a correct decision (or any decision, for that matter) during combat, we are not discussing them. We are discussing soldiers. These people are supposedly trained to make the correct decisions under fire.

I am trained to do the job I do. If I make a mistake on the job, I am taken to task over it, and if I were to make a mistake that resulted in the death of somebody, I would be facing criminal charges.

Personally, I also find it reprehensible that people can be so blasé about the deaths of innocents: i.e. 'Stuff like this always happens in the beginning of a war' or 'Too bad for the reporters that they happened to be in harm's way' or 'Those soldiers were absolutely justified in shooting anything that they thought threatened them'. By this logic they can shoot anything and anybody they want. 'Whoops, I thought that baby carriage might have explosives in it...'

Mind you, all the complaining in the world won't change a thing when talking about the military of the world's only superpower. After all, how can they be forced to be accountable to anybody?

And that, my friends, basically says it all.

In refference to your sig.

"Your duty is not to die for your country; your duty is to make the other sorry dumb bastard die for his..." - General George S. Patton :)

-snip-
Two things
a) Patton was an emotionally unstable moron who didn't have much of a problem with making his guys die for their country.
b) These guys were civilians from your side. Hardly applicable then...

You suppose they targeted an embassy on purpose?I don't know...

It is possible the US Professional killers were just unlucky...or Stupid...

You know...just like when they killed civilians on that Airliner...

It is obviously the reporters' faults for staying in a hotel, those bastards.

Not quite.

While I agree that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for most of the armchair warriors to make a correct decision (or any decision, for that matter) during combat, we are not discussing them. We are discussing soldiers. These people are supposedly trained to make the correct decisions under fire.

I am trained to do the job I do. If I make a mistake on the job, I am taken to task over it, and if I were to make a mistake that resulted in the death of somebody, I would be facing criminal charges.

Personally, I also find it reprehensible that people can be so blasé about the deaths of innocents: i.e. 'Stuff like this always happens in the beginning of a war' or 'Too bad for the reporters that they happened to be in harm's way' or 'Those soldiers were absolutely justified in shooting anything that they thought threatened them'. By this logic they can shoot anything and anybody they want. 'Whoops, I thought that baby carriage might have explosives in it...'

Mind you, all the complaining in the world won't change a thing when talking about the military of the world's only superpower. After all, how can they be forced to be accountable to anybody?

Oh, I'm not blasse about it. But I'm not about to perform after-the-fact secong guessing of situations that I likely would have repeated, under similar circumstances [myself having military combat experience].

It's unfortuneate... But I'm not about to charge soldiers for effectively "doing their job". My beef is with the purpose and intents of the war, and this the politic behind it; not with the soldiers stuck fighting in it; nor necessarily for the reporters trying to report it. But as soon as you mix a multitude of weapons by coalition and local forces; and throw civilians in the equation in or near the battlefield.... Someone is going to get killed...

Even if you were to attempt charges, you would only direct charges at the party responsible for the order [Tank Commander, Captain Wolford]...

Not at the Tank Gunner [Sergent Gibson] or the Battalion Commander [Lieutenant Colonel deCamp] (especially in the case where the battalion commander issued immediate reprieve and questioning of the attack...)...


Who just shot the Palestinian Hotel? [to Wolford] Did you just fucking shoot the Palestinian Hotel?!

After which case he ordered the Captain to immediately cease all fire.

The actions by the Spanish court already smell horribly of bad politics... My own nation's avoidance, and failure to address this issue with bad-politic is bad enough... Spain does not need to attempt to act just as fucked up at some pathetic attempt at [in]justice.

Two things
a) Patton was an emotionally unstable moron who didn't have much of a problem with making his guys die for their country.
b) These guys were civilians from your side. Hardly applicable then...
Patton was a Moron? WOW, go read a history book.

Patton was a Moron? WOW, go read a history book....a US edition?....a history book by the US?

....a US history book?...a US edition?....a history book by the US?
Make up your mind!
Either way, Sure. Or you could go read about him in a German history book. Or a Russian history book. Or a British history book. Or a French history book. Whatever trips you trigger, big guy!

Patton was a Moron? WOW, go read a history book.

I know, unstable, likely.... Insane, pretty possible...

A moron? No way... Militarily, he was a genious.... An eccentric (read nuts) genious; but still a genious...

I know, unstable, likely.... Insane, pretty possible...

A moron? No way... Militarily, he was a genious.... An eccentric (read nuts) genious; but still a genious...
He was a little unstable, sure. But I can't think of anybody else I'd rather have leading an Army of my nation. Al-Quiaeda (however the hell you spell it)is damn lucky he's dead!

Sure. Or you could go read about him in a German history book. Or a Russian history book. Or a British history book. Or a French history book. Whatever trips you trigger, big guy!When get to you get around to read the different World versions of History... beware... the POVs could shock you.

Its nothing like Hollywood...We are not exclusively painted as the "Good guys"

When get to you get around to read the different World version of History... beware... the POVs could shock you.

Its nothing like Hollywood...We are not exclusively painted as the "Good guys"
I'm well aware of the different versions of history. I'm also aware that America isn't infallible. And I'll be the first to admit that some Americans have commited war crimes, along with soldiers from every nation on this planet. But one thing you cannot convince me of, no matter what "book" you get it from, is that George Patton was anything less than a military genius.

I don't think so, personally. They wouldn't go that far, I think. My explanation would be, it was a MAJOR blunder somewhere up high and they tried to use the outdated maps explanation to avoid international consequences and loss of face.
They did, anyway. Seriously, who would believe that the largest superpower in the world is unable to provide up to date maps to its troops???
How about the submarine captain who, using outdated maps, slammed his boat into an underwater mountain at 30 knots, tearing up the hull, injuring much of his crew and killing one? (Okay, it was the people at the helm that did it, but he told them where to go.)

Google "USS San Francisco" and "crash" if you don't already know about this goof...

Edit: I don't know enough war history to conclusively state that Patton was or wasn't a good tactical or strategic planner, but I do know from talking with veterans that he was generally well-liked. Empathy and camaraderie with your men is not crucial to being a good officer, but it helps. (Among other things, you have more of a feeling you're not being sent off to die uselessly. And your superior officer won't be using a fucking rubber stamp to sign the note to your family, in the event of your death.)

Maybe we should blow up a Spanish train. It seems if you do that Spain will do whatever you want them to.

There are still people ignorant enough about Spanish politics to think the current government won because of the bombings? Wow.

There are still people ignorant enough about Spanish politics to think the current government won because of the bombings? Wow.
The bombings didn't hurt the new government's results. In fact, didn't the old regime's insistance that ETA was responsible hurt them at the polls?

Anyway, I've deleted my post. My apologies to any who were insulted.

EDIT: Also you should note that the bombing incident shows a basic psychological difference between the Spanish people and Americans. Bush got reelected in large part because after 9/11 he was percieved as taking the fight to the enemy and not backing down regardless of whether Iraq was right or not. Not backing down was more important to us than electing a real president. To the Spanish, not so much. They didn't care about the impression they might give the terrorists by replacing their leader and withdrawing from Iraq. It's just a basic difference between our people.

Maybe we should blow up a Spanish train. It seems if you do that Spain will do whatever you want them to.and what would YOU want them to do?

Stop the Judicial procedures? sack the Judge? rewrite the Laws in your favor?

and what would YOU want them to do?

Stop the Judicial procedures? sack the Judge? Change the Laws?
I honestly don't care what they do. It's their country, they get to do what they want over there.

I honestly don't care what they do. It's their country, they get to do what they want over there.WOW....All of a sudden...You are starting to make sense...

Must be Thursday :D

and what would YOU want them to do?

Stop the Judicial procedures? sack the Judge? rewrite the Laws in your favor?

You are being too light! All who say that it is possible for an American to make a stupid mistake that they should be held accountable for, especially a member of the glorious infallible military, are obviously filthy sub human commies, and deserve nothing less than execution.

The bombings didn't hurt the new government's results. In fact, didn't the old regime's insistance that ETA was responsible hurt them at the polls?

Among other things, yes. The opportunistic lying to get at ETA was a contributing factor towards the end, but the polls prior to the bombing were mixed. It's not like the bombings happened and then all of a sudden a weak opposition got new wind, but it was a very close race into the end and your guess is as good as mine if the sitting government would have won had the bombings not occurred. It's a very silly thing to claim, though, that the terrorists got what they wanted - the Iraq war was very unpopular with the Spanish populace, and just because the wills of the two coincided, does not mean that the latter willed it because of the former.

Anyway, I've deleted my post. My apologies to any who were insulted.

You should have let it stand, as it would have been a great post to point to when some USian gets upset about their terror victims being mocked, but perhaps you realised that.

EDIT: Also you should note that the bombing incident shows a basic psychological difference between the Spanish people and Americans. Bush got reelected in large part because after 9/11 he was percieved as taking the fight to the enemy and not backing down regardless of whether Iraq was right or not. Not backing down was more important to us than electing a real president. To the Spanish, not so much. They didn't care about the impression they might give the terrorists by replacing their leader and withdrawing from Iraq. It's just a basic difference between our people.

Doesn't that mean you are swayed by terrorism? Why is this direction more acceptable and less mockable? Should the Spanish have been swayed to vote differently just because of "what the terrorists might think?" Isn't that a bigger victory for the terrorists?

You should have let it stand, as it would have been a great post to point to when some USian gets upset about their terror victims being mocked, but perhaps you realised that.




Dude, I've posted a 9/11 thread with my Jesussaves puppet. It's not like I'm thin skinned and I'm not doing anything to the Spanish terror victims that I haven't done to the American ones.

Dude, I've posted a 9/11 thread with my Jesussaves puppet. It's not like I'm thin skinned and I'm not doing anything to the Spanish terror victims that I haven't done to the American ones.

Gee, you're such a swell person.

I kid, I kid.

Gee, you're such a swell person.

I kid, I kid.
Oh, lighten up and stop being so PC.

Oh, lighten up and stop being so PC.

I wasn't aware I was being.

How about the submarine captain who, using outdated maps, slammed his boat into an underwater mountain at 30 knots, tearing up the hull, injuring much of his crew and killing one? (Okay, it was the people at the helm that did it, but he told them where to go.)

Google "USS San Francisco" and "crash" if you don't already know about this goof...

Edit: I don't know enough war history to conclusively state that Patton was or wasn't a good tactical or strategic planner, but I do know from talking with veterans that he was generally well-liked. Empathy and camaraderie with your men is not crucial to being a good officer, but it helps. (Among other things, you have more of a feeling you're not being sent off to die uselessly. And your superior officer won't be using a fucking rubber stamp to sign the note to your family, in the event of your death.)

The interesting question is : Where on earth did he find a map old enough not to list a mountain???

What exactly would make it different from any other building in Baghdad?
Besides, when you're inside a tank, under fire, looking at the world around you through the tiny periscope, identifying buildings in a matter of seconds is a pretty tough work.


That the US army knew that the Palestine Hotel was the residence of the journalists.

Then, if they are unable to target a valid enemy, WTF are they doing there? Is it the allmighty army you are proud of?

Ah yes. I mean, everybody knows that the US are irrationally evil, always looking for someone to kill

No, not always; only if there are oil or Halliburton in the middle.

I wonder if there has been so much as an apology to the family of that Spanish journalist?

There has not been anything. It was while Aznar was president, remember.

This is why the US should never ratify the ICC treaty.

If you don't follow the international laws, you can't expect that people will obey YOU.

While I don't and have not approved of the Iraq war, I in no way side with the Spanish courts on this issue. Their journalists were in a battle zone, during fighting. They were subject to possible injury and loss of life... Shit happened, they died, get over it.

And what about the USA soldiers dead? Does the USA get over the near 2,000 casualties?

And since the US Government seems utterly desinterested in having the matter cleared up, Spain has decided to try on its own, or at least to make a statement to that effect.

That's it! Clear, easy, and shiny.

The actions by the Spanish court already smell horribly of bad politics... My own nation's avoidance, and failure to address this issue with bad-politic is bad enough... Spain does not need to attempt to act just as fucked up at some pathetic attempt at [in]justice.

There is always a first time for everything.

Nothing will come of this. It's solely a political move. The US military will intervene should any soldier be taken for trial by any nation.

The US military will intervene should any soldier be taken for trial by any nation.intervene in what way?

intervene in what way?

It wouldn't be an all-out conflict, but there would definitely be attempts to forcefully extract the individuals from the country they are in. It's a pretty big tradition/belief in the US military that one doesn't leave their comrades behind, and if someone has 'em, you'll try your hardest to get them back.

If Spain actually got its hands on some soldiers and wouldn't let them go, it wouldn't be pretty.

It wouldn't be an all-out conflict, but there would definitely be attempts to forcefully extract the individuals from the country they are in. It's a pretty big tradition/belief in the US military that one doesn't leave their comrades behind, and if someone has 'em, you'll try your hardest to get them back.

If Spain actually got its hands on some soldiers and wouldn't let them go, it wouldn't be pretty.

What? Lol. SO you are declaring war on Europe? You confuse "friends behind" with "killers being judged".

So why don't you rescue Saddam?

Curious:

Arabs kill americans... let's kill arabs...
Americans kill spaniards... let's kill more spaniards...

You've lost the sense of reality or somewhat?

Hey, they did the same thing to Canadians in Afghanistan, who were there helping THEM! They were told not to fire, but they were so wired on drugs they did it anyway and we had dead kids come home, it never should of happened. But if memory serves me correct, not much came of it in the USA. Because as we all know the US can do no wrong. :rolleyes:

What? Lol. SO you are declaring war on Europe? You confuse "friends behind" with "killers being judged".

It wouldn't matter. Europe wouldn't get involved on Spain's behalf if it meant real conflict, because Europe doesn't like fighting in general. I wouldn't be surprised if the Spanish government just turned them back over just to avoid hostilities. They'd know the US would do it. Because we're crazy like that.

Hey, they did the same thing to Canadians in Afghanistan, who were there helping THEM! They were told not to fire, but they were so wired on drugs they did it anyway and we had dead kids come home, it never should of happened. But if memory serves me correct, not much came of it in the USA. Because as we all know the US can do no wrong. :rolleyes:

Well, if we were to listen to you as our source of news, they never do anything right.

It's rather hard to say who is the enemy in a combat situation where you're taking fire. The tank element in question took fire from the direction of the building where the reporter was standing. After action testimony says that the officer saw a man with binoculars and a cell phone looking at them from the building when the tank was shot at. They assumed he was a spotter - not an illogical conclusion.

If you want to be a reporter in a war zone, fine. If you happen to be misidentified as the enemy, especially when you're not waving a big flag that says, "Hey, I AM A REPORTER" you can expect to get shot.

I think that reporters should be required to wear the same non-combatant insignia that other non-combatants wear. A big white piece of cloth with a big red cross on it.

We're talking about an engagement distance a little in excess of 1000 meters.

Tell you what. You go outside on a perfectly clear day, and have a friend wave at you from within a crowd of people 1000 meters away. Let me know if you can tell them apart from everyone else.

Studies have shown that in terms of military spotting, most people "disappear" against any background - in broad daylight - even if they are standing up - when the range is that great.

I've shot at that distance before - and out to 1500 yards - at a target 8 ft x 8 ft - using a scope - and I had to be told where the target was because it was so hard to see - a white sheet against a green hillside.

Reading this thread.

How many contributers have ever been under enemy fire and had to make the decision extremely quickly as to what to shoot back at?

But its ok for contributers to take their time, to weigh up the pros and cons, to discuss through and through what is a legitimate target and what is'nt, when in the real world, combat moves more like <BANG> next target<BANG> flash of light building 2 o'clock 3 rd floor <BANG>

PS and you are in the poor bloody infantry, combat goes way faster than that

I don't know...

It is possible the US Professional killers were just unlucky...or Stupid...

You know...just like when they killed civilians on that Airliner...
You are a moron. DO some real reading about the USS VINCENNES incident. She was IN combat during that time. She was being engaged by Iranian gunboats and taking fire. If you weren't a moron and had a fucking clue about the incident, you would know about the USS STARK attack a few months prior, but I bet you don't know about that. The VINCENNES tried to contact the aircraft on radio but got no response. The CO waited until the last possible safe moment to fire his SM-2s. Don't bash the armed force. People like you just make me sick. You ought to move to Cuba.

Hey, they did the same thing to Canadians in Afghanistan, who were there helping THEM! They were told not to fire, but they were so wired on drugs they did it anyway and we had dead kids come home, it never should of happened. But if memory serves me correct, not much came of it in the USA. Because as we all know the US can do no wrong. :rolleyes:
And you know so much about war and combat because you served in what military?

Reading this thread.

How many contributers have ever been under enemy fire and had to make the decision extremely quickly as to what to shoot back at?

But its ok for contributers to take their time, to weigh up the pros and cons, to discuss through and through what is a legitimate target and what is'nt, when in the real world, combat moves more like <BANG> next target<BANG> flash of light building 2 o'clock 3 rd floor <BANG>

PS and you are in the poor bloody infantry, combat goes way faster than that

I've been in combat before, in the infantry. And I know that it's hard to tell who is who past about 500 yards. You can extend that a bit if you have binoculars, but identifying an individual as being "enemy" at that distance is usually a matter of asking yourself, "am I taking fire from that direction?"

If you are, even single rounds, the answer is Yes. Unless you absolutely know that the source of fire is your own military forces in a completely secure position.

The reporter who was killed was in no way in a completely secure position. There was fire coming from his building (or near it) towards the US soldiers. The reporter was not wearing anything that would distinguish him from an insurgent - that is, he had binoculars and a cell phone - and civilian clothes - just what insurgent spotters would wear. He was up high in a tall building - just where insurgent spotters had been.

They were over 1000 yards away. What are they supposed to think?

It wouldn't matter. Europe wouldn't get involved on Spain's behalf if it meant real conflict, because Europe doesn't like fighting in general. I wouldn't be surprised if the Spanish government just turned them back over just to avoid hostilities. They'd know the US would do it. Because we're crazy like that.

The USA declaring war on Spain? :D

If you can't even make a stand against a group of AK's in the desert!

--------

Cypresaria: If they are unable to combat, they shouldn't be sent there.

The reporter who was killed was in no way in a completely secure position. There was fire coming from his building (or near it) towards the US soldiers. The reporter was not wearing anything that would distinguish him from an insurgent - that is, he had binoculars and a cell phone - and civilian clothes - just what insurgent spotters would wear. He was up high in a tall building - just where insurgent spotters had been.

They were over 1000 yards away. What are they supposed to think?

They are supposed to think - no, they MUST KNOW- that it was the Palestine Hotel, the residence of the journalists.

They are supposed to think - no, they MUST KNOW- that it was the Palestine Hotel, the residence of the journalists.

A location where the insurgents were firing from.

So, US soldiers should all (every last one of them) know where every journalist is located, and carefully check while they are being shot at, and more to the point, every insurgent will be following the rules as well to make sure they are not firing from any locations anywhere near journalists, so as to avoid confusion.

Journalists get shot in war. It's a known occupational hazard. Yes, it can be considered a mistake. But it's not as if we knew he was a journalist.

If you receive fire from any particular direction, doctrine states that you MUST immediately return fire in that direction. There isn't any "check this, check that" in the drill - it's called "immediate action" for a reason.

Soldiers that do not perform "immediate action" when they come under fire always end up dead.

I seriously doubt it. The USA makes laws for others, it doesn't normally apply the same laws to itself....

No we just enforce our own laws on our own people. There was an inquiry and they were cleared.

Nothing is going to come of this so it is a moot point.

A location where the insurgents were firing from.

So, US soldiers should all (every last one of them) know where every journalist is located, and carefully check while they are being shot at, and more to the point, every insurgent will be following the rules as well to make sure they are not firing from any locations anywhere near journalists, so as to avoid confusion.

Journalists get shot in war. It's a known occupational hazard. Yes, it can be considered a mistake. But it's not as if we knew he was a journalist.

If you receive fire from any particular direction, doctrine states that you MUST immediately return fire in that direction. There isn't any "check this, check that" in the drill - it's called "immediate action" for a reason.

Soldiers that do not perform "immediate action" when they come under fire always end up dead.

But that tank WASN'T under fire from that position!

And the soldiers and/or officials never apologized, don't forget!

And you know so much about war and combat because you served in what military?

Nope, can't say I did, my sister and brother-in-law have , as have many in my family, but not me personally.

You suppose they targeted an embassy on purpose?:rolleyes:

In that case, then what about that bomb that hit near the French Embassy in Tripoli back when the United States bombed Libya for the Pan Am bombing over Lockerbi?

Well, if we were to listen to you as our source of news, they never do anything right.

Oh, so even in a situation where you are high on drugs and fail to follow proper protocols, that still makes it okay? Even though they KNEW there were Canadian forces in the area training? And were told not to fire? But shit happens right. It's not like they were responsible, give me a freaken break.

But that tank WASN'T under fire from that position!

And the soldiers and/or officials never apologized, don't forget!

The soldiers all testified that there was fire coming from that position.

1000 yards is a long long way. The fire could have come from half that distance - but the only structure with visible figures on it was the hotel - and like I said, they were dressed just like insurgents, with binoculars and cell phones - just like insurgent spotters.

If you don't want to get shot, don't go to war. Accidents happen in war. And no one should be sorry - the reporters knew the job was dangerous - the reporters here on NPR are always on about how much they get shot at and how proud they are to risk their lives to bring us the story.

It might help if reporters all wore an internationally recognized set of clothing that identified them as a non-combatant. I'm thinking of a brilliant orange head to toe jumpsuit that has a large white spot on the chest and back with a large red cross inside it. The suit would also have loops to hold high powered strobe lights at night.

Oh, so even in a situation where you are high on drugs and fail to follow proper protocols, that still makes it okay? Even though they KNEW there were Canadian forces in the area training? And were told not to fire? But shit happens right. It's not like they were responsible, give me a freaken break.

I didn't say that. But you've never posted a single thread on NS General that shows US soldiers doing anything right. That's what I said.

If we were to take all of your posts as the totality of what US soldiers do, we might imagine drug-crazed rapists burning down villages and sodomizing every man and donkey in sight.

He was a little unstable, sure. But I can't think of anybody else I'd rather have leading an Army of my nation. Al-Quiaeda (however the hell you spell it)is damn lucky he's dead!

Here here. I wish he was alive today. He's one tough SOB! Even the Germans respected him including Rommel. Hell, Patton studied Rommel's tactics and applied them to defeat him.

When get to you get around to read the different World versions of History... beware... the POVs could shock you.

Its nothing like Hollywood...We are not exclusively painted as the "Good guys"

As a student of History, especially military history, you really need to get out more and actually read books.

I didn't say that. But you've never posted a single thread on NS General that shows US soldiers doing anything right. That's what I said.

If we were to take all of your posts as the totality of what US soldiers do, we might imagine drug-crazed rapists burning down villages and sodomizing every man and donkey in sight.

I'll take that even further, Steph.

I *DARE* you to post a link to a story where US troops are doing something good for Iraqis (or someone else overseas) - and make a genuinely positive comment about it.

I didn't say that. But you've never posted a single thread on NS General that shows US soldiers doing anything right. That's what I said.

If we were to take all of your posts as the totality of what US soldiers do, we might imagine drug-crazed rapists burning down villages and sodomizing every man and donkey in sight.

Save the donkey that sounds about right. At least that is all we've been seeing since 2003. I'm sure there are many in the military that are trying to do good, I don't dispute that. However, when you go into a battle that was poorly planed and executed, I guess one is to expect these things. On that you will get no argument out of me. I don't per se blame the soldiers, I blame the civilian leadership. But that incident in Afghanistan with the Canadians was inexcusable, they didn't follower proper orders and they were high. Big difference.

It wouldn't be an all-out conflict, but there would definitely be attempts to forcefully extract the individuals from the country they are in. It's a pretty big tradition/belief in the US military that one doesn't leave their comrades behind, and if someone has 'em, you'll try your hardest to get them back.

If Spain actually got its hands on some soldiers and wouldn't let them go, it wouldn't be pretty.

Yep. I don't think Spain would want to risk diplomatic setbacks for this. A military inquiry already said that it was justified. The attack on the hotel that is.

Hey, they did the same thing to Canadians in Afghanistan, who were there helping THEM! They were told not to fire, but they were so wired on drugs they did it anyway and we had dead kids come home, it never should of happened. But if memory serves me correct, not much came of it in the USA. Because as we all know the US can do no wrong. :rolleyes:

Actually STeph, your memory is flawed in what you just said. I'll let you figure out which part is flawed if you can.

The USA declaring war on Spain? :D

If you can't even make a stand against a group of AK's in the desert!

Ok, I'm confused about this statement. What the hell are you talking about?

Save the donkey that sounds about right. At least that is all we've been seeing since 2003. I'm sure there are many in the military that are trying to do good, I don't dispute that. However, when you go into a battle that was poorly planed and executed, I guess one is to expect these things. On that you will get no argument out of me. I don't per se blame the soldiers, I blame the civilian leadership. But that incident in Afghanistan with the Canadians was inexcusable, they didn't follower proper orders and they were high. Big difference.

It wouldn't have mattered what anyone planned or executed - insurgents would have sprung up in any case - and would have been just as effective as they are.

Yes, the Canadian thing is idiocy, but we had a saying in the infantry, "No Pilot Has Any Brains Below 1000 ft". Obviously, this, and not policy, was the case. Plenty of pilots seem to do just fine (if we take this incident and compare it to the total number of sorties, the ratio of successful sorties to friendly fire incidents is probably over 10,000 to 1). Everyone else in the situation seemed to be telling the pilot not to do it - he went ahead on his own and did it anyway. Does that mean that the civilian leadership should say, "well, drugs or no, we have that odd 1 in 10,000 times that someone is going to make a mistake, so we should just disband the military, and while we're at it, the government".

Are you saying that no Canadian soldiers have ever made a mistake in history? No friendly fire incidents? No abuse of prisoners?

Actually STeph, your memory is flawed in what you just said. I'll let you figure out which part is flawed if you can.

Well, I suppose the only thing that you might see as a flaw was it was investigated and I believe one of them did get demoted and they did go in front of a Court Marshall, but they got off. Not one of them went to jail. That's just wrong, whoever dropped the bomb should of went to jail.

Well, I suppose the only thing that you might see as a flaw was it was investigated and I believe one of them did get demoted and they did go in front of a Court Marshall, but they got off. Not one of them went to jail. That's just wrong, whoever dropped the bomb should of went to jail.

Well, we don't do things the way they do in Canada. In Canada, if a few people in a unit screw up, even if no one gets killed, they eliminate the unit at as high a level as possible without eliminating the entire Army.

So, the Canadian solution would not only have been to sentence everyone involved to prison (including the AWACS crew who told the pilot to stop), but they would have dissolved several air wings, amounting to throwing out 10,000 or so personnel.

Just the solution imposed on the Canadian Airborne, as I recall...

Are you saying that no Canadian soldiers have ever made a mistake in history? No friendly fire incidents? No abuse of prisoners?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Of course Canada has made mistakes, there is no such thing as "perfect" I can't recall the last time we had a friendly fire incident, I don't believe it's been in any recent wars. I would have to look it up, however I'm pretty sure we haven't. Probably in WWII, maybe Korea.

As for abuse, yup, Canada has been guilty. In Somalia, and their unit was disband for it and some of them even went to jail.

No one is perfect. But the Americans just seem to shrug it off and take little to no action, if the other country makes a stink about it, which is what we had to do in the case of Afghanistan, they finally investigated, yet no one paid for what happened. Except for the innocent Canadian soldiers who died and their families. I've never understood why they call it friendly fire either, doesn't seem too friendly to me.

I've never understood why they call it friendly fire either, doesn't seem too friendly to me.

It has always been called that - even before the Americans used the term.

I hear nowadays that some Europeans call it "own goal".

If you americans are so certain that your soldiers reacted the right way, why not send them to Spain? Logically, they will be aquited, or is Spain an enemy now, too?

It wouldn't be an all-out conflict, but there would definitely be attempts to forcefully extract the individuals from the country they are in. It's a pretty big tradition/belief in the US military that one doesn't leave their comrades behind, and if someone has 'em, you'll try your hardest to get them back.

If Spain actually got its hands on some soldiers and wouldn't let them go, it wouldn't be pretty.
Lets just say Spain wouldn't fuck with us again. You would likely have special forces like the USAF's PJs coming in.

If you americans are so certain that your soldiers reacted the right way, why not send them to Spain? Logically, they will be aquited, or is Spain an enemy now, too?

Courts are notoriously illogical, even in the US. Acquittal would also be politically impossible for any judge or jury in Spain.

If you americans are so certain that your soldiers reacted the right way, why not send them to Spain? Logically, they will be aquited, or is Spain an enemy now, too?

Of course they are, don't forget what Bush said and I quote.

You are either with us or you're with the terrorists

Lets just say Spain wouldn't fuck with us again. You would likely have special forces like the USAF's PJs coming in.
Don't the PJs only come in to patch up wounded soldiers and evac them from extremely dangerous places?

Lets just say Spain wouldn't fuck with us again. You would likely have special forces like the USAF's PJs coming in.

And you wonder why the majority of the world dislikes Americans, I give you IDF.

Well, I suppose the only thing that you might see as a flaw was it was investigated and I believe one of them did get demoted and they did go in front of a Court Marshall, but they got off. Not one of them went to jail. That's just wrong, whoever dropped the bomb should of went to jail.

Welcome to the United States Court of Military Justice. We do things differently here steph. We actually have this thing of Innocent until Proven Guilty. Even in a military trial. Have a nice day.

Don't the PJs only come in to patch up wounded soldiers and evac them from extremely dangerous places?

No! That is the USAF Special Forces Team. One of the best next to Delta and the Seals.

Don't the PJs only come in to patch up wounded soldiers and evac them from extremely dangerous places?

Yes. It would appear that IDF is a poser.

Lets just say Spain wouldn't fuck with us again. You would likely have special forces like the USAF's PJs coming in.


....

PAHAHAHAAHHAHA! OHOHOHOHOHOHO!

Jeeeeesus, you can't handle Iraq, you would be made into minced meat by the spanish.

And i assure you, I ain't no spanish lover lol.

No! That is the USAF Special Forces Team. One of the best next to Delta and the Seals.

PJs are primarily intended for armed search and rescue behind the lines.

....

PAHAHAHAAHHAHA! OHOHOHOHOHOHO!

Jeeeeesus, you can't handle Iraq, you would be made into minced meat by the spanish.

And i assure you, I ain't no spanish lover lol.
Um, what do you mean we can't handle Iraq? Our boys fucked the Iraqi military up so completely that the actual war took only a matter of days.

The problem is that there are so many AKs, RPGs, and explosives floating around that country that some private citizens decided to start taking potshots and laying IEDs for the occupying forces. How many Spaniards have AKs, let alone RPGs?

Oh, BTW, this is hypothetical. We're not going to war with Spain.

PJs are primarily intended for armed search and rescue behind the lines.

Yep and they are damn good too. I still wouldn't want to cross their path though. They are just as deadly as any other special force unit we have.

Um, what do you mean we can't handle Iraq? Our boys fucked the Iraqi military up so completely that the actual war took only a matter of days.

The problem is that there are so many AKs, RPGs, and explosives floating around that country that some private citizens decided to start taking potshots and laying IEDs for the occupying forces. How many Spaniards have AKs, let alone RPGs?

Probably not a lot of privately owned firearms, and if it's got the typical European gun laws, we won't have any trouble finding the lists of owners and their addresses and the number and types of guns they own.

Probably not a lot of privately owned firearms, and if it's got the typical European gun laws, we won't have any trouble finding the lists of owners and their addresses and the number and types of guns they own.

Unfortunately an accurate statement. Can't do that in the States that's for sure :D

Unfortunately an accurate statement. Can't do that in the States that's for sure :D

Go to every gun store and Wal Mart.

Obtain the Form 4473 (the record of each purchase and purchaser). They are required to keep these on the premises until the business is out of business.

Might not be as up to date as a European system, and it's not on a computer, but it's something to work with.

You are a moron. DO some real reading about the USS VINCENNES incident. She was IN combat during that time. She was being engaged by Iranian gunboats and taking fire. If you weren't a moron and had a fucking clue about the incident, you would know about the USS STARK attack a few months prior, but I bet you don't know about that. The VINCENNES tried to contact the aircraft on radio but got no response. The CO waited until the last possible safe moment to fire his SM-2s. Don't bash the armed force. People like you just make me sick. You ought to move to Cuba.

COOL IT, IDF.

The problem is that there are so many AKs, RPGs, and explosives floating around that country that some private citizens decided to start taking potshots and laying IEDs for the occupying forces. How many Spaniards have AKs, let alone RPGs?


After decades of Soviet opression, how many AK's and RPG's did you think that existed in private citizens hands in Chechenya?

Go to every gun store and Wal Mart.

Obtain the Form 4473 (the record of each purchase and purchaser). They are required to keep these on the premises until the business is out of business.

Might not be as up to date as a European system, and it's not on a computer, but it's something to work with.

Yea true but still.....there are way to many guns here not to mention those that are not legally obtained too so we at least have a defensive ability if we are ever invaded again.

Lets just say Spain wouldn't fuck with us again. You would likely have special forces like the USAF's PJs coming in.

So, whenever someone does something the US don't like, you send your military forces? You are proud of democracy and act like a world dictator?

The sad truth is that a simple apology by the US in the right time recognizing the error, would have been sufficient. And nobody is going to mock the US for doing that. On the contrary, it would have been a great act of sincerity....

After decades of Soviet opression, how many AK's and RPG's did you think that existed in private citizens hands in Chechenya?

Considering that when Chechnya first got into trouble, many of the Chechens were military officers and soldiers in that area. The local armories were emptied - the contents became property of the local insurgents - who were led by former generals.

Spain, on the other hand, does not have a history of stocking up on huge amounts of munitions - they don't have the defense spending mania that the former USSR and the current US have.

I probably have more firearms and far more ammunition in my house right now than you have in your local police station. Even an American police station.

After decades of Soviet opression, how many AK's and RPG's did you think that existed in private citizens hands in Chechenya?
Chechens are notorious for smuggling among other illegal activities and Russian soldiers are notoriously easy to bribe.

Considering that when Chechnya first got into trouble, many of the Chechens were military officers and soldiers in that area. The local armories were emptied - the contents became property of the local insurgents - who were led by former generals.

Spain, on the other hand, does not have a history of stocking up on huge amounts of munitions - they don't have the defense spending mania that the former USSR and the current US have.

I probably have more firearms and far more ammunition in my house right now than you have in your local police station. Even an American police station.


If you sincerely believe in that, i advise you to make lots of research.

http://www.ejercito.mde.es/inicio.htm

http://www.armada.mde.es/

http://www.ejercitodelaire.mde.es/(G)Publicaciones/Paginas_Web_Internet/web.nsf/

If you sincerely believe in that, i advise you to make lots of research.

http://www.ejercito.mde.es/inicio.htm

http://www.armada.mde.es/

http://www.ejercitodelaire.mde.es/(G)Publicaciones/Paginas_Web_Internet/web.nsf/

I don't recall there being any Spanish suicide bombers, either.

Go down to your local police station. Ask them if they have nearly a quarter of a million rounds in their lockers.

If Spain were smart and instead of facing the American military head on, they'd tell their soilders to disperse themselves amongst the local population, hide/erase all records of their military personal, distribute all arms to them and anyone who would want to join the resistance and tell them to simply fight a war of attrition, killing as many soilders as possible

Since America is pretty poorly regarded already and the fact it would be an unjust war, almost all the population would support the resistance, making it hard for the Americans to make real headway.

Trust me - the Spanish guerillas killed thousands upon thousands of French during the Peninsular war, eventually driving them out with British help. They didn't even need guns - many simply slit throats. They'd be more than willing to do it again.

If Spain were smart and instead of facing the American military head on, they'd tell their soilders to disperse themselves amongst the local population, hide/erase all records of their military personal, distribute all arms to them and anyone who would want to join the resistance and tell them to simply fight a war of attrition, killing as many soilders as possible

Since America is pretty poorly regarded already and the fact it would be an unjust war, almost all the population would support the resistance, making it hard for the Americans to make real headway.

Trust me - the Spanish guerillas killed thousands upon thousands of French during the Peninsular war, eventually driving them out with British help. They'd be more than willing to do it again.
So we never invade, just destroy the airforce and air defenses, spray all the crops with defoliants, "accidentally" spray some in the rivers and lakes as well, and bomb the hell out of every city, town and village.

Of course we're too nice to do something like that, but it's a good plan for getting around an insurgency, ain't it?

So we never invade, just destroy the airforce and air defenses, spray all the crops with defoliants, "accidentally" spray some in the rivers and lakes as well, and bomb the hell out of every city, town and village.

Of course we're too nice to do something like that, but it's a good plan for getting around an insurgency, ain't it?

Damn straight.

Enough with precision guided weaponry. Its time to bring the horrors of war back. Carbet bomb everything in sight.

Trust me - the Spanish guerillas killed thousands upon thousands of French during the Peninsular war, eventually driving them out with British help. They'd be more than willing to do it again.

Good knowing on Spanish history, but trust me, we are not willing to make a war. We rather resolve differences talking, but sadly there are people who only know the word "destroy".

So we never invade, just destroy the airforce and air defenses, spray all the crops with defoliants, "accidentally" spray some in the rivers and lakes as well, and bomb the hell out of every city, town and village.

Of course we're too nice to do something like that, but it's a good plan for getting around an insurgency, ain't it?

What would be the benefit of that though? Massive waste of money on expensive munitions, no country left to conquer/set up puppet government in and besides if America did anything like that there'd probably be a mutual exchange of nukes between Europe and the US and everyone looses.

What would be the benefit of that though? <snipped>
It would make for some interesting threads on NS General.

It would make for some interesting threads on NS General.

HAHA! So very true.

I don't recall there being any Spanish suicide bombers, either.

Go down to your local police station. Ask them if they have nearly a quarter of a million rounds in their lockers.

Life as a funny way of turning things around, i never thought i'd be defending spanish but...

a) There is a growing muslim population in Spain. Some kamikaze could be arranged.

b) Sniping is a better tactic to kill Interceptor-body-armor-protected-americans, and Spanish have a shit load of special forces personell capable of doing such tasks.

c) I ain't spanish, don't know if they store ammo in lockers. In Portugal, our police does not carry such amounts of amunition, we have a low crime rate; The army has the weapons, what is the difference? In Spain, it should be the same thing.

What would be the benefit of that though? Massive waste of money on expensive munitions, no country left to conquer/set up puppet government in and besides if America did anything like that there'd probably be a mutual exchange of nukes between Europe and the US and everyone looses.


Europe has nukes?
jaysus,news to me.

Europe has nukes?
jaysus,news to me.
France and UK do. I'm not sure about any of the others.

Europe has nukes?
jaysus,news to me.
Britain has 'em.

France has 'em.

Russia wants to be part of Europe, and they've got 'em up the wazzoo.

Britain has 'em.

France has 'em.

Russia wants to be part of Europe, and they've got 'em up the wazzoo.

jaysus.well thats it ireland fucked.someone will try to nuke england to destroy them before they can go a nukin,and ireland will get pwned by the radiation.

anyone else from ireland remember those iodine tablets we got from the government to protect us if sellafield explodes?

jaysus.well thats it ireland fucked.someone will try to nuke england to destroy them before they can go a nukin,and ireland will get pwned by the radiation.

anyone else from ireland remember those iodine tablets we got from the government to protect us if sellafield explodes?
I'm told that our modern nuclear weapons are actually very clean unless we add certain metals to them to boost the radioactivity.

jaysus.well thats it ireland fucked.someone will try to nuke england to destroy them before they can go a nukin,and ireland will get pwned by the radiation.


Most people in Ireland would probably survive I would have thought. Even if you are unluckely with the wind and get a ton of fallout, it wouldn't be near as bad as it would be like in Britain. It would have a ton of nasty long term consequence, but don't think many would flat out die from radiation poisioning that far away from an epi centre.

anyone else from ireland remember those iodine tablets we got from the government to protect us if sellafield explodes?
I get the feeling the Irish must've gone shopping at the same drugstore as the Canadian gov. We've got those same iodine tablets stocked at our nuke reactors.

No-one's been able to explain just how they're supposed to be dispensed from the glowing hole-in-the-ground that'll be left after the inevitable meltdown, never mind whether they'll be at all effective in any case.

'My teeth are falling out! Damn it!'

'Go 'round to the hole in the ground and see if you can find some iodine tablets, dear.'

'What, to use as teeth?'

I'm told that our modern nuclear weapons are actually very clean unless we add certain metals to them to boost the radioactivity.

Really? Last I heard they were trying to make them more radioactive by reducing the size, which is seen as just as effective as the larger bombs as it spreads more radiation.

That's really just being mean though I reckon. I mean, once a nuke has being launched, who cares how many people you can kill after it? It's not as if it's gonna help your cause any more for people to die of radiation.

Really? Last I heard they were trying to make them more radioactive by reducing the size, which is seen as just as effective as the larger bombs as it spreads more radiation.

That's really just being mean though I reckon. I mean, once a nuke has being launched, who cares how many people you can kill after it? It's not as if it's gonna help your cause any more for people to die of radiation.
This is how radiation is boosted. Just making them smaller doesn't make them more radioacive as far as I know.

1.6 Cobalt Bombs and other Salted Bombs

A "salted" nuclear weapon is reminiscent of fission-fusion-fission weapons, but instead of a fissionable jacket around the secondary stage fusion fuel, a non-fissionable blanket of a specially chosen salting isotope is used (cobalt-59 in the case of the cobalt bomb). This blanket captures the escaping fusion neutrons to breed a radioactive isotope that maximizes the fallout hazard from the weapon rather than generating additional explosive force (and dangerous fission fallout) from fast fission of U-238.

Variable fallout effects can be obtained by using different salting isotopes. Gold has been proposed for short-term fallout (days), tantalum and zinc for fallout of intermediate duration (months), and cobalt for long term contamination (years). To be useful for salting, the parent isotopes must be abundant in the natural element, and the neutron-bred radioactive product must be a strong emitter of penetrating gamma rays.



Table 1.6-1 Candidate Salting Agents

Parent Natural Radioactive Half-Life
Isotope Abundance Product

Cobalt-59 100% Co-60 5.26 years
Gold-197 100% Au-198 2.697 days
Tantalum-181 99.99% Ta-182 115 days
Zinc-64 48.89% Zn-65 244 days

The idea of the cobalt bomb originated with Leo Szilard who publicized it in Feb. 1950, not as a serious proposal for weapon, but to point out that it would soon be possible in principle to build a weapon that could kill everybody on earth (see Doomsday Device in Questions and Answers). To design such a theoretical weapon a radioactive isotope is needed that can be dispersed world wide before it decays. Such dispersal takes many months to a few years so the half-life of Co-60 is ideal.

The Co-60 fallout hazard is greater than the fission products from a U-238 blanket because

many fission-produced isotopes have half-lives that are very short, and thus decay before the fallout settles or can be protected against by short-term sheltering;
many fission-produced isotopes have very long half-lives and thus do not produce very intense radiation;
the fission products are not radioactive at all.
The half-life of Co-60 on the other hand is long enough to settle out before significant decay has occurred, and to make it impractical to wait out in shelters, yet is short enough that intense radiation is produced.
Initially gamma radiation fission products from an equivalent size fission-fusion-fission bomb are much more intense than Co-60: 15,000 times more intense at 1 hour; 35 times more intense at 1 week; 5 times more intense at 1 month; and about equal at 6 months. Thereafter fission drops off rapidly so that Co-60 fallout is 8 times more intense than fission at 1 year and 150 times more intense at 5 years. The very long lived isotopes produced by fission would overtake the again Co-60 after about 75 years.

Zinc has been proposed as an alternate candidate for the "doomsday role". The advantage of Zn-64 is that its faster decay leads to greater initial intensity. Disadvantages are that since it makes up only half of natural zinc, it must either be isotopically enriched or the yield will be cut in half; that it is a weaker gamma emitter than Co-60, putting out only one-fourth as many gammas for the same molar quantity; and that substantially amounts will decay during the world-wide dispersal process. Assuming pure Zn-64 is used, the radiation intensity of Zn-65 would initially be twice as much as Co-60. This would decline to being equal in 8 months, in 5 years Co-60 would be 110 times as intense.

Militarily useful radiological weapons would use local (as opposed to world-wide) contamination, and high initial intensities for rapid effects. Prolonged contamination is also undesirable. In this light Zn-64 is possibly better suited to military applications than cobalt, but probably inferior to tantalum or gold. As noted above ordinary "dirty" fusion-fission bombs have very high initial radiation intensities and must also be considered radiological weapons.

No cobalt or other salted bomb has ever been atmospherically tested, and as far as is publicly known none have ever been built. In light of the ready availability of fission-fusion-fission bombs, it is unlikely any special-purpose fallout contamination weapon will ever be developed.

The British did test a bomb that incorporated cobalt as an experimental radiochemical tracer (Antler/Round 1, 14 September 1957). This 1 kt device was exploded at the Tadje site, Maralinga range, Australia. The experiment was regarded as a failure and not repeated.

from http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html#nfaq1.6

I get the feeling the Irish must've gone shopping at the same drugstore as the Canadian gov. We've got those same iodine tablets stocked at our nuke reactors.

No-one's been able to explain just how they're supposed to be dispensed from the glowing hole-in-the-ground that'll be left after the inevitable meltdown, never mind whether they'll be at all effective in any case.

'My teeth are falling out! Damn it!'

'Go 'round to the hole in the ground and see if you can find some iodine tablets, dear.'

'What, to use as teeth?'


well i know what they're for,but id rather just dismantle sellafield and put it somewhere where it wont bother anyone.like wales

How about the submarine captain who, using outdated maps, slammed his boat into an underwater mountain at 30 knots, tearing up the hull, injuring much of his crew and killing one? (Okay, it was the people at the helm that did it, but he told them where to go.)

Google "USS San Francisco" and "crash" if you don't already know about this goof...

Edit: I don't know enough war history to conclusively state that Patton was or wasn't a good tactical or strategic planner, but I do know from talking with veterans that he was generally well-liked. Empathy and camaraderie with your men is not crucial to being a good officer, but it helps. (Among other things, you have more of a feeling you're not being sent off to die uselessly. And your superior officer won't be using a fucking rubber stamp to sign the note to your family, in the event of your death.)

The USS San Fransico is nothing.

The USS Miami has the distinction of having found every single uncharted sea-mounting in the north-atlantic (The hard way... after one such encounter, in the early 90's, after returning to port 1 week after the collision; the Miami still had 5 feet of mud caked along the bottom of the bow...)

And the old, and now decommisioned Sturgeon class USS William H. Bates (with it's very cute an acurate nick-name of the "Bouncin' Billy Bates"), has set a record on the amount of times a submarine has collided with the sea-floor and survived.

Luckily, however, my old boat, Flight 4 Los Angeles Class (USS Hampton) only ever had the distinction of being the quitest hunter-killer in the Atlantic... [Though I could have ended up on the USS Greenville as a pre-comm, you'll remember her from the Japanese fishing-trawler incident near Pearl; luckily I grabbed the Hampton; having first pick of billets comming out of Tactics school... and opted for a boat ported in Norfolk (odd that I'm from Virginia Beach, next door), not one comming out of Newport News Shipbuilding, and schedueled for Hawaii...]

[Re: submarine crash.] The interesting question is : Where on earth did he find a map old enough not to list a mountain???
Presumably, from whatever office of the government is responsible for providing oceanic maps.

The mountain was listed on his map, it was just listed in the wrong place. Now, if you want to ask how the Navy managed to misplace a mountain, I can't answer that question.

Edit: USS Miami stories make this taxpayer sad :(

Yes. It would appear that IDF is a poser.I was reading that with an "L"
...
:D

Hey, while we're at shouting our Anti-Americanism out in the world, have you heard of the issue with the "desecration" of dead bodies in Afghanistan, as caught on tape and shown on prime time TV here in Oz three days ago?

http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/index.php?page=archive&daysum=2005-10-19#
Here you can find the whole transcript of the interesting article. The reporter is a bit of an idol of mine, he always puts his life on the line, and he was kidnapped in Iraq (and subsequently abused by our government: "He shouldn't have been there in the first place!").

Here's what the US Army says in response:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/20/AR2005102002074.html
"Alleged"...Well, it was caught on tape - how much of an allegation is there left to make?

Presumably, from whatever office of the government is responsible for providing oceanic maps.

The mountain was listed on his map, it was just listed in the wrong place. Now, if you want to ask how the Navy managed to misplace a mountain, I can't answer that question.

Edit: USS Miami stories make this taxpayer sad :(

1. Not that odd, actually... Sea Mountains are actually known to "move"...

2. Not sure why it makes you sad, involving the Miami... The mountains were not even on any charts (though they are now).

I'd also like to point out the sheer audacity of a reporter who expects to go into a warzone, and be safe, especially when we are fighting an enemy that doesn't fight according to the geneva convention.
I think that the US is in a very poor position to go crying about the Geneva Convention given their treatment of prisoners of war and redefining them as "illegal combatants".

I do not think the killing was deliberate but the US Army is very trigger happpy and is not noted for checking if they are actually shooting the right people.
The journalists, the chinese embassy, in the first Gulf War the US was the largest cause of allied casualties IIRC with numerous attacks on allied positions and vehicles that were clearly identified by uniform and markings.

I do not think the killing was deliberate but the US Army is very trigger happpy and is not noted for checking if they are actually shooting the right people.

As I said before, it's impossible to identify someone as an insurgent or reporter at over 1000 yards. When fire is definitely coming from a particular direction, ALL soldiers regardless of what Army they are in are taught something called, "immediate action".

Immediate action is taught to infantrymen and armor crews alike. It means to turn in the direction of the incoming fire and open fire.

Soldiers that do not do "immediate action" quickly end up dead.

Are you saying that at that distance, it was possible to determine that the reporter was a reporter, and not an insurgent? There were other insurgents in the area dressed identically. Carrying no weapons, carrying binoculars and cell phones, and directing fire at US troops from the tops of other high buildings. You're saying he looked nothing like a spotter for the insurgents?

It is the height of stupidity to expose yourself by standing up in an area where people are shooting. The best that a reporter could do under the circumstances is take cover deep inside a building.

Short of that, reporters should wear bright orange jumpsuits with large white roundels centered with huge red crosses, indicating that they are truly non-combatants - if they dress in ordinary civilian clothes, like any insurgent, and carry binoculars, they should expect that accidents will happen.

And no Army on earth is going to abandon the tactic of "immediate action".

I think that the US is in a very poor position to go crying about the Geneva Convention given their treatment of prisoners of war and redefining them as "illegal combatants".

I do not think the killing was deliberate but the US Army is very trigger happpy and is not noted for checking if they are actually shooting the right people.
The journalists, the chinese embassy, in the first Gulf War the US was the largest cause of allied casualties IIRC with numerous attacks on allied positions and vehicles that were clearly identified by uniform and markings.
Isn't the Geneva Convention concerned with uniformed armies that act like armies? I don't think any POWs that fit that category have been relabeled as illegal combatants, have they?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4357684.stm

Does anyone know what exactly happened there?
How can you think the Palestine Hotel, of all places in Bagdhad, was an enemy position?
And even if you do think so and kill someone by accident, aren't you still liable?
Because at a distance the cameras they use look like RPG's. especially when obscured by a window.

And even if you do think so and kill someone by accident, aren't you still liable?

That depends on the nature of the accident.

If, say, you could demonstrate sheer negligence (i.e., the reporter was not doing what other insurgent spotters were doing - standing on a high building watching US forces with binoculars and using a cell phone in the very same clothing) you could argue for some sort of punishment.

But as the US forces were over 1000 meters away, target identification is difficult. Especially when a lot of people are shooting at you from that direction. The standard military tactic is to immediately shoot back - you ask questions later. If the soldiers had failed to immediately shoot back in that direction, I can guarantee you that the officers would have been court-martialed.

Don't the PJs only come in to patch up wounded soldiers and evac them from extremely dangerous places?
They specialize in rescure missions. They are well trained special forces soldiers in addition to being paramedics. Their primary job is to land in enemy territory (usually by means of HALO jump). Most of their missions would be rescuing airmen who have been shot down. In the hypothetical situation of breaking prisoners out of a prison, they would be best in a situation with Spain. I respect the SEALs a lot. They are IMO the best in the world, but they aren't paratroopers. That is what you would need for this mission. I can see Delta Force being sent in for something like this though.

The USS San Fransico is nothing.

The USS Miami has the distinction of having found every single uncharted sea-mounting in the north-atlantic (The hard way... after one such encounter, in the early 90's, after returning to port 1 week after the collision; the Miami still had 5 feet of mud caked along the bottom of the bow...)

And the old, and now decommisioned Sturgeon class USS William H. Bates (with it's very cute an acurate nick-name of the "Bouncin' Billy Bates"), has set a record on the amount of times a submarine has collided with the sea-floor and survived.

Luckily, however, my old boat, Flight 4 Los Angeles Class (USS Hampton) only ever had the distinction of being the quitest hunter-killer in the Atlantic... [Though I could have ended up on the USS Greenville as a pre-comm, you'll remember her from the Japanese fishing-trawler incident near Pearl; luckily I grabbed the Hampton; having first pick of billets comming out of Tactics school... and opted for a boat ported in Norfolk (odd that I'm from Virginia Beach, next door), not one comming out of Newport News Shipbuilding, and schedueled for Hawaii...]

Old SSN-575 (that's the old USS SEAWOLF, building 575 or pier puppy) had some incidents with undersea mountains. One of them meant she was unable to participate in an exercise. The result was that the USS SCORPION (SSN-589) was sent in her place. The SCORPION was lost and her 99 brave crewmembers have gone on eternal patrol.

The SAN FRANCISCO is a weird case. From what I've read, some of the charts aboard had the mountain charted others didn't. They convened a Captain's Mast (but not a full Court Martial for some reason) they ruled that if proper procedures were followed, the acciden't wouldn't have occured and MM2 Ashely would still be alive today.

I respect the SEALs a lot. They are IMO the best in the world, but they aren't paratroopers.
Yes, they most certainly are.

Welcome to the United States Court of Military Justice. We do things differently here steph. We actually have this thing of Innocent until Proven Guilty. Even in a military trial. Have a nice day.

In other words, no justice at all.

In other words, no justice at all.

Justice means that there was an investigation. And there was a hearing.

Just because you don't find anyone guilty of shooting at a target over 1000 yards away (a range at which is is nearly impossible to identify individuals, even through weapon sights) doesn't mean there isn't any justice.

You and some BBC reporters I know need to get off the idea that somehow, in a war zone, in the middle of a firefight, that reporters are sacrosanct and inviolate.

If you want that, then dress EVERY reporter in a heavy armo EOD suit, and paint the whole thing Day-Glo orange, and put flashing strobes on them.

Justice means that there was an investigation. And there was a hearing.

Just because you don't find anyone guilty of shooting at a target over 1000 yards away (a range at which is is nearly impossible to identify individuals, even through weapon sights) doesn't mean there isn't any justice.

You and some BBC reporters I know need to get off the idea that somehow, in a war zone, in the middle of a firefight, that reporters are sacrosanct and inviolate.

If you want that, then dress EVERY reporter in a heavy armo EOD suit, and paint the whole thing Day-Glo orange, and put flashing strobes on them.

Even though they knew for a fact they were wired on drugs, even though they ignored a direct order to stand down.. whatever.

Even though they knew for a fact they were wired on drugs, even though they ignored a direct order to stand down.. whatever.

The soldiers involved in the shooting of the reporters were not on drugs, neither were they ordered to stand down.

You're mixing in the facts about the Air Force bombing of the Canadian unit.

Not the same thing at all. But go ahead and distort the truth and muddle everything together.

The soldiers involved in the shooting of the reporters were not on drugs, neither were they ordered to stand down.

You're mixing in the facts about the Air Force bombing of the Canadian unit.

Not the same thing at all. But go ahead and distort the truth and muddle everything together.

Oh, yes, I was talking about the Canadian incident, but so was Corneliu when he responded to me, thus I responded to him. Not my fault you got the two confused.

In other words, no justice at all.

Oh there's justice alright.

The SAN FRANCISCO is a weird case. From what I've read, some of the charts aboard had the mountain charted others didn't. They convened a Captain's Mast (but not a full Court Martial for some reason) they ruled that if proper procedures were followed, the acciden't wouldn't have occured and MM2 Ashely would still be alive today.

Actually, not. Unless the Commanding Officer (CO, or "Captain"; though on a Fast Attack the CO's rank is Commander; in the Fast Attack world Submarine Squadrons are commanded by full birds [Captains]) himself is in question; it is up to the discresion of the CO on whether or not to convene a Captain's Mast or hand it over to NIS (Naval Investigative Service) for Court's Martial. Generally if there was no direct evidence of a UCMJ violation; the CO will convene a Mast [Which has very limited potential as compared to a Court's Martial; being that a Captain's Mast cannot penalize by discharge; and only can provide for limited confinement]... Chances are, they merely suspected negligence... Submarine QM's (now NavET's [Electronics Technicians(Navigation)]) are not responsible for the accuracy of their own Charts... only their upkeep. While the Nav department will have a PubPO (Publications Petty Officer, who is responsible for updating and cycling charts, and other materials so as to be up to date), the actual materials are sent to them, they don't order them... There are desk-jockies who are responsible of ensuring that all the boats have up-to-date charts sent to the ships.

Chances are, someone, at some desk, somewhere at SUBPAC or SUBRON7 fucked up.

The point is not that friendly fire accidents are not hard to have on a battlefield, it is that the American army is particuarly noted for the amount of friendly fire they do.

The point is not that friendly fire accidents are not hard to have on a battlefield, it is that the American army is particuarly noted for the amount of friendly fire they do.

Historically, all militaries (especially during WW II) have had roughly the same rate of friendly fire incidents.

The rate today is far, far lower than it used to be.

Imagine you're in Vietnam. The CEP (circular error probable, the circle in which 50 percent of bombs dropped will fall) for fighter aircraft in close air support at the time was 750 meters.

Now imagine that you're an infantryman calling for close air support. Obviously, the Viet Cong are much closer to you than 750 meters.

So, when the Air Force fighter comes in and drops its bombs, it's just as likely to drop them on you as on the enemy. This happened A LOT.

With smart munitions, the odds of this happenning drop by orders of magnitude. So the only reason that it happens from aircraft is that the pilot misidentifies the target and proceeds to attack it.

On the ground, confusion still reigns. Unless your targets are in standard uniforms (and insurgents NEVER are), you can't tell who to shoot at (at least you know not to shoot at your own vehicles - they have special IR recognition panels). Reporters, unfortunately, are dressed JUST LIKE THE INSURGENTS. In civilian clothes. Using binoculars and shoulder mounted cameras - looking all the world like spotters or men holding shoulder fired rockets - when seen from 1000 meters away.

Walking around in a combat zone dressed like insurgents, fitting the visual profile of insurgents, in an area where insurgents are firing on US troops is a recipe for suicide. I am actually surprised that more have not been shot.

...Reporters, unfortunately, are dressed JUST LIKE THE INSURGENTS. In civilian clothes...
Just a qualifying point here: As far as I know, this was during the war, so the spotters would have been Iraqi Military Personell.
Whether they would've been in uniform though I don't know.

All the Journalists in the building were sure though that there weren't any people in there they didn't know.
And even if there had been people in there, we know from the report I posted earlier that the US Military had instructed its people not to fire at the Palestine Hotel, and seeing how big the writing is on the thing, this seems to be a friendly fire incident if anything.

While I can see the point of view of these few Spaniards, I fail to see what grounds there were for a case. This was a war zone, and things happen. Worse yet, the confusion of battle probably means that no one knows what happened.

I was part of an armored division in the first gulf war. Specifically a tank. I can see how this could have happened. They probably thought it was a sniper. How it was described we may have done the same thing. So the Spanish saying it was done intentionally is bs. I say try and come and get them.

While I can see the point of view of these few Spaniards, I fail to see what grounds there were for a case. This was a war zone, and things happen. Worse yet, the confusion of battle probably means that no one knows what happened.

Considering the Military Board of Inquiry already decided that the attack was justified, there isn't even a case here.

Considering the Military Board of Inquiry already decided that the attack was justified, there isn't even a case here.
And you don't think the military would have a vested interest in finding just that?

Anyways, here again the link about what happened - I don't expect people to go that far back just to find a link.
http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2003/pa...ine_hotel.html

And you don't think the military would have a vested interest in finding just that?

Anyways, here again the link about what happened - I don't expect people to go that far back just to find a link.
http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2003/pa...ine_hotel.html

I already know what happened and I already know what the Military Board of inquiry said in regards to the incident in question.

Let me get this straight.

A tank is rolling around in baghdad, under sporadic fire. Ok, it gets bunkered down and is as watchful as careful.

It is looking for people attacking it. At over 1,000 yards away, the crew see's a small flash from a window.

Seeing this flash, they fire a tank round at it.

Im sorry, but assuming this is all true, it doesn;t fly. For starters, the risk was too great.

If they really were being fired upon, what would be the threat? If it was gunfire, the bunkered down M1a2 would have not been in danger, defidentally not immediate danger. It could have taken its time, using its scopes to watch the area for more flashes, etc.

If it was an RPG, it would have exploded at 900m(just before the Abrams), so they wouldn't have been in danger, and would have known it was an RPG.

ATGM? Smuggled into a baghdad hotel, set up in a window, fired, and no rocket seen/heard/etc? Should have known better.

The tank was not in danger from the flash, regardless of what they thought it was. While it could have been dangerous to others, or dangerous to them soon, they could have taken the time to watch the window, see if more flashes, etc came from it. When you are planning on firing a tank shell at a civilian hotel, where many reporters are known to be, you should be more careful. I don't care if there's adreniline, etc. The tank wasn't in immediate danger from the supposed enemy, real or not. It should have shown more caution, and didn't.

The US army should have punished the crewmembers(not too harshly, but rank reduction and/or some time without pay), and apologized. This isn't excusable.

Let me get this straight.

A tank is rolling around in baghdad, under sporadic fire. Ok, it gets bunkered down and is as watchful as careful.

It is looking for people attacking it. At over 1,000 yards away, the crew see's a small flash from a window.

Seeing this flash, they fire a tank round at it.

Im sorry, but assuming this is all true, it doesn;t fly. For starters, the risk was too great.

If they really were being fired upon, what would be the threat? If it was gunfire, the bunkered down M1a2 would have not been in danger, defidentally not immediate danger. It could have taken its time, using its scopes to watch the area for more flashes, etc.

If it was an RPG, it would have exploded at 900m(just before the Abrams), so they wouldn't have been in danger, and would have known it was an RPG.

ATGM? Smuggled into a baghdad hotel, set up in a window, fired, and no rocket seen/heard/etc? Should have known better.

The tank was not in danger from the flash, regardless of what they thought it was. While it could have been dangerous to others, or dangerous to them soon, they could have taken the time to watch the window, see if more flashes, etc came from it. When you are planning on firing a tank shell at a civilian hotel, where many reporters are known to be, you should be more careful. I don't care if there's adreniline, etc. The tank wasn't in immediate danger from the supposed enemy, real or not. It should have shown more caution, and didn't.

The US army should have punished the crewmembers(not too harshly, but rank reduction and/or some time without pay), and apologized. This isn't excusable.
Understand what your saying. But under your assuption this maybe plausible if that the tank was the only unit around and there were no infantry units close by within range of a sniper,rpg. What we all dont know if the tank was supporting an infantry unit. Which in urban warfare it is most likely the case. If it were me I may have well fired on that position to protect my men. Also the tank crew could have had orders from an infantry unit to take that position out because they thought it was a threat. However it was a mistake. It is a combat zone and things get mistaken.

Marrakech, I only looked at your post long enough to see whether it was to me or not.

I have you on my ignore list, so there is no point replying to me. Just for future reference.

Marrakech, I only looked at your post long enough to see whether it was to me or not.

I have you on my ignore list, so there is no point replying to me. Just for future reference.

Hehe cmon French lover. Your still mad about a little fun made of the French? However I'm on your ignore list. Maybe you will read this with another puppet nation. Cheerio!