Anything suprise you so far?

[epicstruggle]

Id like to know if anything has suprised you so far about the war in the Iraq?

Id like to request that everybody stay on topic. Please do not post things like "I expected millions to be dead", lets be reasonable here. Also please keep in mind that in a war there are casualties on both sides, so keep that in mind when you post in this thread. Thank you.

Ill start off with some of the things that have suprised me so far:

-Turkey not allowing air rights over their country.
-Lack of some big actions in the northern part of Iraq. Mainly due to above point.
-The fact that the air campaign did not last a couple of days before the troops went in.

These are just some of the things that have suprised me so far.

Again stay on topic. Please
later,

[MrsSkywalker]

I am surprised that the forces got through 200+ miles of land with very little resistence. I mean, they (they being the news, the gov, the analysts) have said that the soldiers don't want to fight and predicted mass surrendering. While it's true we have had around 1500 soldiers surrender to us, I have to wonder where the rest of them are. Estimates were that Saddam had between 1/2-3/4 million troops. I figured we'd be seeing more of them by now.

[Neutrality]

Estimates were that Saddam had between 1/2-3/4 million troops.

Actually the true number is around 400 thousand troops at the most.

-Neutrality-

[volkodav]

2 MrsSkywalker:

I am surprised that the forces got through 200+ miles of land with very little resistence.
It is logical, because without domination in the air tanks are only a good targets for enemy's aircrafts and helicopters. I think now Saddam waits for sand-storm, during which his tanks army will counter-attack aggressors.

[Neutrality]

I think now Saddam waits for sand-storm, during which his tanks army will counter-attack aggressors.

The problem with that is that the coalition tanks can knock out the Iraqi tanks with them knowing what hit them. Considering it has been 12 years since the first war and that the Coalitions target systems have evolved since then and the fact that the Iraqi systems are just as obsolete as they were then its highly unlikely that the Iraqi armour will be any serious threat to the coalition.

-Neutrality-

[RM. Andersson]

It looks like Saddam prefer to fight inside citys and to attack supply lines.
That is a surprise I guess.

[volkodav]

Coalitions target systems have evolved
Here on russian TV our military men said that in conditions of sand-storm americans laser-system doesn't work, so Iraqi and USA tanks will be in equal condition. And T-72 has a gun enouth to destroy M1.

[Neutrality]

It looks like Saddam prefer to fight inside citys and to attack supply lines.
That is a surprise I guess.

Well its not that surprising. Its his only real chance since the coalition cannot take advantage of their superior air power in the cities without killing thousands upon thousands of civilians. If it comes to fighting in the cities the Iraqi forces are on more equl terms with the coalition. It will result in huge casualties on both sides and although the outcome of the war is already clear its remains to be seen if even those for a war will tolerate such heavy losses. Only other option is to bomb the crap out of Bagdad if it comes to that but the potentially huge civilians losses wont really be tolerable either.

Its a very grim situation to be in indeed. Lets just hope it doesnt come to that.


(note : im for the war but trying to be realistic here)


-Neutrality-

[Neutrality]

Coalitions target systems have evolved
Here on russian TV our military men said that in conditions of sand-storm americans laser-system doesn't work, so Iraqi and USA tanks will be in equal condition. And T-72 has a gun enouth to destroy M1.

Whoops, you might have a point there. :)´

-Neutrality-

[epicstruggle]

Another suprise:

Russians in Iraq supplying anti air weapons, gps jammers, and assistance setting/deploying this eq.

I guess now I understand why they did not want to help out, they might have to kill their own citizens.

Thanks for staying on topic, or close to it. :wink:

later,

[RM. Andersson]

It looks like Saddam prefer to fight inside citys and to attack supply lines.
That is a surprise I guess.

Well its not that surprising. Its his only real chance since the coalition cannot take advantage of their superior air power in the cities without killing thousands upon thousands of civilians. If it comes to fighting in the cities the Iraqi forces are on more equl terms with the coalition. It will result in huge casualties on both sides and although the outcome of the war is already clear its remains to be seen if even those for a war will tolerate such heavy losses. Only other option is to bomb the crap out of Bagdad if it comes to that but the potentially huge civilians losses wont really be tolerable either.

Its a very grim situation to be in indeed. Lets just hope it doesnt come to that.


(note : im for the war but trying to be realistic here)


-Neutrality-

To put Bagdad under siege will probably also work eventually.
After a while there will be no more food and medicine inside Bagdad.
Under such conditions the soldiers inside the city will have to give up sooner or later. And the coalition forces can wait outside with plenty of food and everything they need.
That would of course be cruel in a way and civilians might die. But perhaps more will die if they fight in the streets or use heavy bombing?
The best thing with a long siege would be that very few coalition soldiers would get hurt or killed.

[Neutrality]

To put Bagdad under siege will probably also work eventually.

A siege is probably the best option however its highly unlikely that the civilian population will approve of it.

Basically, if Saddam really refuses to give up and takes the fighting into the cities the Coalition will be screwed no matter what it does.

-Neutrality-

[Heathen]

Here on russian TV our military men said that in conditions of sand-storm americans laser-system doesn't work, so Iraqi and USA tanks will be in equal condition. And T-72 has a gun enouth to destroy M1.

Not saying you're wrong or anything but are you sure? The M1's a pretty tough tank and a mate of mine was a Challenger pilot in the first, his tank got hit six times by a couple of T-72s and the only repair needed was a new paint job and a cracked viewing lense on the Cuppola

My surprise so far

- Lack of involvement of the 82nd & 101st US airborne and the 16 UK Air Asault

[RussSchultz]

From what I understand, the 101 airlifted into Northern Iraq today/yesterday.

[Natoma]

Call me crazy, but why do I get the feeling that perhaps we've been drawn deeper into Iraq, faster than we really expected, for a purpose? I was watching TV last night and apparently there are 3 major dams that we don't have control over yet, that if blown up by the Iraqis, would flood practically all of Southern Iraq, taking pretty much most of our forces out.

And even if they don't do that, there are thousands of soldiers that have been falling back, maybe to Baghdad, to prepare for the 'last stand'. I dunno. You know what they say about things being 'too quiet' right? Well, right now things seem too easy, and it's making the region sound too quiet.

[volkodav]

2 epicstruggle:

Russians in Iraq supplying anti air weapons, gps jammers, and assistance setting/deploying this eq.
It is a bullshit. Simply Washington is looking for justification of low effectiveness of bombing and lots of civillians deaths in Bagdad, nothing more.

Our companeis denyes these charges, there is a lot of ways how this equipment could went to Saddam.

[RussSchultz]

I was watching TV last night and apparently there are 3 major dams that we don't have control over yet, that if blown up by the Iraqis, would flood practically all of Southern Iraq, taking pretty much most of our forces out.

That would be quite a feat if those dam's held enough water to flood all of southern Iraq!

However, if those dams were breached, the floodwaters would rush down the Tigris and Euphrates and destroy all of Iraqi civilization south of Bagdad, or at least Basra and Umm Kasr. Presumably, however, we're not travelling along the river, but out in the desert to the east and west of the river valley, so our troops would be "relatively" safe.

[nutball]

Call me crazy, but why do I get the feeling that perhaps we've been drawn deeper into Iraq, faster than we really expected, for a purpose? I was watching TV last night and apparently there are 3 major dams that we don't have control over yet, that if blown up by the Iraqis, would flood practically all of Southern Iraq, taking pretty much most of our forces out.

Yes I've been wondering about those dams. Remember the marsh Arabs that Saddam displaced by damming the river(s) and draining their marshland? Hope the miltary haven't forgotten about them!

[volkodav]

2 Heathen:

Not saying you're wrong or anything but are you sure? The M1's a pretty tough tank and a mate of mine was a Challenger pilot in the first, his tank got hit six times by a couple of T-72s and the only repair needed was a new paint job and a cracked viewing lense on the Cuppola
No, I'm not sure. But I'll be surprised if defence of tanks became better than attack. Also, guns shells also improves, so, if Saddam really was buying weapon on black market, he can have now last-gen commulative shells for his tanks. And as far as I know Saddam has ~2000 tanks against ~250 coalition's. And M1 turbins could stop (and stop tank) in sand-storm condition without any damage (It was said on russian TV).

Ok, lets see what happen.

Buy the way, could you ask you mate in which part of Challenger those six hits were taken? I mean, gun-tower is much harder armoured than others parts of tank.

[epicstruggle]

It is a bullshit. Simply Washington is looking for justification of low effectiveness of bombing and lots of civillians deaths in Bagdad, nothing more.

Our companeis denyes these charges, there is a lot of ways how this equipment could went to Saddam.
First where do you get low effectiveness. Second according to aljazeere there have only been a cople of civilian deaths. Third the news broke in the media and then they went to the pentagon which comfirmed it. Fourth, I would expect the companies to deny proof, but has the russian government denied that there are russians in Iraq. Ill trust the russian government before I trust the companies there.

later,

[volkodav]

2 epicstruggle:
First where do you get low effectiveness.
Bush promised that war will be very shot - one weak, 10 days maximum. Now it is clear, that he was mistaken.

2nd, I don't think that Siriya's bus with civillians and Iran's oil shaft is very precise bombing.

3rd, situation is very simular to Serbiya, when 2000 civillians were murdered under bombs, but without any significant damage to military forces.

Open you eyers: you bomb a CITY, and your aims are BUILDINGS. Tell me, what is a aim to bomb Saddam village and museum of him? From military point of view?


I would expect the companies to deny proof
If your have some russian to english dictionary read this:
http://www.gazeta.ru/firstplace.shtml
It is a interview with firms directors, main idea: USA are blamed them 1st in 2000, introduced sanctions, but after NO PROOFS were found sanctions were removed.

but has the russian government denied that there are russians in Iraq.
If so, why we should deny this? Iraq under ugly agression, it is a good thing if our instructers help Iraqes people to defend there sovereignty. By the way, there is no regular russians militaries in Iraq so far, this is only mercenaries.

[Joe DeFuria]

Bush promised that war will be very shot - one weak, 10 days maximum. Now it is clear, that he was mistaken.

Bush never promised ANY SUCH THING, and in fact, CAUTIONED against such thinking.

[RussSchultz]

By the way, the missile that hit Iran was of Iraqi origin, or so says IRNA (the Iranian news agency). Go see for yourself at www.irna.com


USWAR/Iran summons Iraqi diplomat over missile attack

Tehran, March 23, IRNA -- Iraq's charge d'affaires to Tehran has been
summoned to the Iranian Foreign Ministry in connection with a missile
attack which is thought to have been carried out by the Iraqis.
Interior Minister Abdolvahed Moussavi Lari has cited expert
examinations indicating that the missile, which had hit the western
region of Sardasht, was Iraqi-made.
BH/AR
End


edit: added the short news blurb because IRNA is slow

[volkodav]

Bush never promised ANY SUCH THING, and in fact, CAUTIONED against such thinking.
well, maybe I'm mistaking, but before war journalists were talking that Iraqes army will not be fighting and surrender as soon as war begin... And that all you have to do is go to Bagdad and kill or capture Saddam and his sons.

Now it's clear that Iraqes people don't want to surrender, they want to fight.

[volkodav]

By the way, the missile that hit Iran was of Iraqi origin, or so says IRNA (the Iranian news agency). Go see for yourself at
Sorry for that, it wasn't noted in russian mass-media.

[Joe DeFuria]

well, maybe I'm mistaking,

Not maybe...ARE mistaken.

but before war journalists were talking that Iraqes army will not be fighting and surrender as soon as war begin...

That's the trouble with people like you. Mistaking "war journalists" comments for those of the adminstration.

And that all you have to do is go to Bagdad and kill or capture Saddam and his sons.

Oddly, in the first official address to the press from the coalition command, Franks exactly said that even if we knew Saddam and his sons were DEAD, that wouldn't change anything. The goal is ousting the REGIME, not ousting Sadam.

Of course, getting rid of Sadam is part of that.

Now it's clear that Iraqes people don't want to surrender, they want to fight.

Not clear at all. If we knew, and everyone else was convinced, that in fact that Sadam was dead, then we would know if they want to surrender or fight.

All we know right now is that Iraq is telling everyone Sadam is in fact "alive and well".

[Heathen]

No, I'm not sure. But I'll be surprised if defence of tanks became better than attack. Also, guns shells also improves, so, if Saddam really was buying weapon on black market, he can have now last-gen commulative shells for his tanks. And as far as I know Saddam has ~2000 tanks against ~250 coalition's. And M1 turbins could stop (and stop tank) in sand-storm condition without any damage (It was said on russian TV).

Ok, lets see what happen.

Buy the way, could you ask you mate in which part of Challenger those six hits were taken? I mean, gun-tower is much harder armoured than others parts of tank.

Well he's only got about 700 T62s and T72s with the rest being M-48s, M-60s, AMX-30s, Centurions, Chieftains and other more obsolete kit. Oh he was buying them on the 'grey' market I suspect most likely via N. Korea, China and France (Yes you're right in thinking I don't like them).

Still it should be interesting but on any open field engagement with even partial visibility in excess of a thousand yards the Iraqis are toast.

My mate was the tank pilot. Hits? Hmm three on the turret front facing facis. With two more on the right hand hull and one on the nose, I could double check but he's bit busy at the mo if you get my drfit.

[John Reynolds]

Now it's clear that Iraqes people don't want to surrender, they want to fight.

Are we talking a military based on Saddam's Sunni political party or the people themselves? Big difference.

[epicstruggle]

The problem with all the coverage is that you only see part of the picture. You see massive bombs going off and assume that there must have been civilian deaths, heres how you tell if there are mass casualties. PEOPLE DONT GO BACK TO THEIR ROUTINES RIGHT AWAY. when you see day shots of life in bhagdad, you see people taking the bus, shopping, walking around, doing everyday kinda stuff. The buildings hit are not full of civilians at night, plus these building are where the government works/stores stuff. so you wont get casulties there.

Please keep in mind that we only see what happens in front of the camera, most of the action happens outside of that.

later,

ps keep staying on topic. :)

[pascal]

Yeah people are going to the shoping, movies, theather, etc...
Nothing is happening, just a mass bombing :roll:

[epicstruggle]

yes, people are going about their lives, they have realized that the US has only bombed at night in certain locations. Watch the news, youll see people in the streets in bhagdad doing what ever they do in their normal lives. Ill take your :roll: and put down :roll: :roll: :wink: which always beats one :roll:

later,

[PurplePigeon]

yes, people are going about their lives, they have realized that the US has only bombed at night in certain locations.

That is very interesting isn't it? It does seem that when you watch those live cameras in Baghdad during the daytime, there is a lot of normal activity going on (and I'm getting sick of seeing that same two story office building all the time, let me tell you). For all the talk of "shock and awe", if the massive bombardment always hits government buildings, it wouldn't take much for all of the Iraqi military personnel to just move into civilian locations... Of course equipment and documentation will be destroyed in the bombing targets, which is useful in disrupting command and control, but as far as "shock and awe", is it a big "so what"? Should the campaign be renamed "Sound and Fury"?

[Himself]

I would think that Iraq would be sure that the obvious military targets were going to go and would have left them deserted long before the US even arrived.

[Vince]

Here on russian TV our military men said that in conditions of sand-storm americans laser-system doesn't work, so Iraqi and USA tanks will be in equal condition. And T-72 has a gun enouth to destroy M1.

HA! What do you expect your country and experts to say? Our primary MBT sucks and won't even stand a chance against a M1A2-HA?

Where you get this amazes me as you have the power of the web to check how wrong this is. The M1A1's in '91 outranged your Soviet T-72s, even in the dense particulate and blocking matter from the burning Oil Wells - it was later stated (fas.org) that the M1A1s had over 1,000meters in target aquisition and destruction over the T-72. Because even without the Lazer rangefinder (which is BS anyways), the M1A2's Optical and IR systems are decades advanced of the T-72. There goes that sandstorm BS.

Infact, the M1A1 (we have M1A2s now with vastly improved optics, targeting and battlefield info sharing) is in a class above the T-72s. FAS stated that the T-72 is more comparable to the decade old M60A3.

And T-72 has a gun enouth to destroy M1.

A M1A2's Chobham composite armor, especially the -HA versions with a DU screen over vital areas, can withstand the discarding sabot, KKV from a T-72 depending on situations. HEAT is debatable.

"They disclosed that Soviet-made 125mm guns were unable to penetrate the M1A1 frontal armor, even a close ranges. Their tungsten penetrators stuck into the armor like arrows." - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671791656/102-5394237-9288142


But, thats if the T-72 can get past the M1A2's superior IR and Optical systems, and the interconnected Battfield management system in which Info from other systems (eg. Air, Space, Land) are shared and presented to the Commander - which it can't.

And as far as I know Saddam has ~2000 tanks against ~250 coalition's. And M1 turbins could stop (and stop tank) in sand-storm condition without any damage (It was said on russian TV).

Since the M1's turbines stopped in '91 and allowed the shitty T-72s to hit them. :roll: This borders on propaganda.

I mean, back 12 years go the M1A1's were raping the T-72s. Now add an electronic warfare system thats bleeding-edge and an improved powersource and it's not even a fight.

Americans have more to worry about from Iraqi's in Civilian cloths and other assorted "low-tech" ways to kill

[Vince]

Sorry for that, it wasn't noted in russian mass-media.

It would appear that Russian mass-media doesn't report alot. Not that this is anything new.. I love how so many Russians (and Europeans in general) are against the war, yet they're listning to total BS and have so little substantive information.

Ignorance is Bliss indeed.

[Heathen]

HEAT is debatable.

Er not really, Chobham's designed with HAET rounds in mind. Without going into specifics of how the armour works, ahh the wonders of the official secrets act, I'm certain it will stop any HEAT round the T-72 can chuck out even close up.

The only chance a T-72 has got is to try and lodge a shell in the gap between the hull and the turret.

The T-72 wasn't a bad tank for it's day but against the M1A2 and Challenger IIs the Coalition are driving around in it's little more than a dangerous toy.

Waiting on the arrival of Dorchester...

[Vince]

3rd, situation is very simular to Serbiya, when 2000 civillians were murdered under bombs, but without any significant damage to military forces.

"The troops made a rapid advance under heavy allied air protection that wiped out a column of charging Iraqi armor and sent some of Saddam's outer defenses withdrawing toward the capital..."

"To get here, the troops drove north through flat, desert terrain, passing bombed trucks that had anti-aircraft guns mounted on them, empty foxholes and berms dug for tanks that had been abandoned by Iraqi forces. Cabs of the anti-aircraft trucks were peeled back missile blasts, which scorched the ground around the trucks. Some had bodies still inside, burned beyond recognition."

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAR_BATTLEFIELDSITE=ILJOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

PS. Thanks Heathen

[nutball]

One comment I will make on the T-72 v. M1/Challenger debate is that the US do have the benefit of air superiority in the current campaign. So even if the Iraqi tanks do outnumber those of the coalition and are equal in capability (at least one of those assumptions you guys are debating), you need to add the air-based units into the mix to work out who is going to win.

For example, post D-Day in WW2 the bulk of German armour was destroyed by aircraft, not by Allied armour. The rules haven't changed that drastically since then (certainly not since Gulf War 1, where that was the case too).

[Heathen]

For background info

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/abrams/index.html

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/index.html

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/t72-pr.cfm

However when it comes to capability the T-72s used by the Iraqis are badly outmatched, add in the relatively crude training even the republican guards gets and any staright fight is gonna turn into a turkey shoot. There are numerous instances during the first gulf war of US armoured forces basically obliterating any Iraqi armoured formation which came into range.

Check the write ups here.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/rg.htm

[pax]

I think the biggest surprise is how few surrenders have been seen so far. I expected about half the iraqi to drop its guns by now. Its clear that the iraqi army us virtually all compposed of sunnis and most of it is in baghad. The behavior of the civvies tells me this is looking a little vietnamish already... soon itll be only a guerrilla type war.

But I still expect only a few weeks more of war. The only real concern is afterwards... probly some longterm guerilla skirmishes in occupied Iraq.

Ive been reading about how kinetic energy weapons will soon render any tank vehicles obsolete for years... youd think they would be cheap and mass produced by now. I wonder if tank guns can be adapted to those kinds of munitions... The t72 has a good gun is what a military bud told me whose seen it in action but the tank itself is shit... its basically just a platform for the gun...

[epicstruggle]

pax, Im also suprised that there have only been about 10k surrenders. However, Im not sure whether thats any indication about the Iraqi armies willingness to fight. I think/hope the reason for so few surrenders is that the soldies are just leaving to go home, instead of waiting to get picked up by the coalition.

later,

[Heathen]

I expected about half the iraqi to drop its guns by now.

Resistance is pretty much as I expected really, I think it's the fault of the press for pushing the line so hard that the Iraqis were a pushover. Ok some comments by the military didn't help overly, but only a fool would honestly believe the Iraqis would lay down and surrender

Practically the bulk of the opposition is from the SRG and Saddam Fedayeen, from the look of general civvies they seem rather relieved that we're going in..

[Gunhead]

For example, post D-Day in WW2 the bulk of German armour was destroyed by aircraft, not by Allied armour. The rules haven't changed that drastically since then (certainly not since Gulf War 1, where that was the case too).

Well, in the Western front it was also because the Allied tanks of the day simply couldn't beat the far superior German tanks in face to face encounters. (In the Eastern front it was more even.) But of course air superiority was and is important in tank warfare. Except when you have a sandstorm, I guess.

[covermye]

How bout the effectiveness of the newer generation Patriots? I know there have been some hateful arguments about Patriot accuracy in the past, but it looks like they're 6/6 on the Kuwait border so far...

[pascal]

yes, people are going about their lives, they have realized that the US has only bombed at night in certain locations. Watch the news, youll see people in the streets in bhagdad doing what ever they do in their normal lives. Ill take your :roll: and put down :roll: :roll: :wink: which always beats one :roll:
Hey, I am not here to beat anyone because it is not a competition.
This is a WAR with nasty effects. See this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2881491.stmSalam has written that Baghdad has almost come to a halt with many shops closed, some foodstuffs in short supply and prices are rising steeply.

"I have never seen Baghdad like this", he writes.

Again, this is a war with mass bombing, not a picnic. Maybe you would like to think that it is not too bad but human beings are dieing there everyday.

[nutball]

How bout the effectiveness of the newer generation Patriots? I know there have been some hateful arguments about Patriot accuracy in the past, but it looks like they're 6/6 on the Kuwait border so far...

Are you counting an RAF Tornado as one of those six, or is that bonus points?

[epicstruggle]

cnn has reported that baghdad still operates much as it usually does, the bus service still runs, people shop, do whatever people there do. Yes some stores are closed, many people did leave the city. The way you talk it sounds like every other person is either dead or dying. This is clearly not the case, and if you take a look at the day shots of bhagdad youll see people going about their business.

later,

[Sxotty]

I saw an Iraqi who stated that the Fedayeen were going around towns and forcing people over the age of 15 to fight for them, so they are not exactly human sheilds because they arm them with ak47's and then tell them they will shoot them if they don't fight the coalition, or kill their family. He has family in Basara and Baghdad he had been talking to.

Of course you don't have to believe it as there is little verification, but it seems like it would work to confuse the coalition, and it would preserve the number of Saddam's loyalists for as long as possible.

[nutball]

As I said in a previous thread, people get very loyal very quickly if you point a gun at their head.

[volkodav]

2 Heathen, Vince:

I have no doubt that M1 is generations ahead of T-72, I was talking about a very specific conditions: low visibility (no more than 100 meters) and without air support. And about IR systems, I have a very fun article of serbians as they effectively masked real tanks and create models which your aircafts with IR systems accepted as aims. I post it if you want lately, cause I'm not eager to translate a big text.

2 vince:

"The troops made a rapid advance under heavy allied air protection that wiped out a column of charging Iraqi armor and sent some of Saddam's outer defenses withdrawing toward the capital..."

"To get here, the troops drove north through flat, desert terrain, passing bombed trucks that had anti-aircraft guns mounted on them, empty foxholes and berms dug for tanks that had been abandoned by Iraqi forces. Cabs of the anti-aircraft trucks were peeled back missile blasts, which scorched the ground around the trucks. Some had bodies still inside, burned beyond recognition."
I was talking about effectivness of bombing Baghdad and Basra.


It would appear that Russian mass-media doesn't report alot. Not that this is anything new.. I love how so many Russians (and Europeans in general) are against the war, yet they're listning to total BS and have so little substantive information.

Ignorance is Bliss indeed.
Russian mass-media report all, from Al-Jazeera to CNN, and almost each channel have reporters in Iraq, both on argessors and defenders side. It is not our war, so there is no a any necessity to lie. Can't sayl the same about american Gebels's style propaganda.

About Iraq's missile it was my mistake, IRNA message counted evrywhere.

Just for experiment, did you here these facts:

1. 2 correspondents of aljazeera lost there journalist's badges (? "accreditation" on russian) in USA for "not right describing of war".
The specially opened english site
http://english.aljazeera.net
is shutted down (at least right now).


2. Over 5000 Iraq's people went into there motherland from Iordaniya to fight against agressors during last weak. (About 350 000 Iraqis left Iraq in 1991 after 1st war. What is intresting, that though some of them were persecuted by Saddam's regime, they despite of this "must take part in jihad against agressors")

3. As witnesses assert, american pilot intentionally shot into bus with Siries civillians. (In our media it presented with reference to IRNA).

p.s. Europeans and Russians against war simply because we understand that the real reasons for war is economical interests of USA. With such kind of wars you support your currency, and we understand that the day when the Dollar fail to Euro in a competition for being a standard currency for international deals, will be the last they of America's hegemony.

Of cource I can't say for Europeans, but in Russia majority think in such way.

p.s. At least europeans now are not so stupid as they were in Serbia's war when they paid for operation, which result became weakening of Euro :D

[volkodav]

Well, http://english.aljazeera.net/ is alive again, start reading.

[epicstruggle]

I laugh sometimes when i see what other medias state their point of view. What happened to the Aljazeera reports that no longer have accredidation(sp?) is that the NYSE (stock exchange) decided to cut back on the number of reporters, and so they cut, now that was the decision of NYSE not the US government. Why they cut is their business, if they said they have too many reporters thats their right to cut. It was said that about a dozen reporters where cut, including us reporters too.

I guess because the decision came after the showing of the dead americans it looked like the two things looked like they were related. Might or might not be related. But again its their right to do that.

later,