BS: 'Embedded media'

Subject: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: greg stephens
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 06:10 PM

Don't you just love Pentagon-speak. I may have led a sheltered life, but today was the first time I've heard the phrase "embedded media"(I hope I heard correctly). I assume from the context it meant "taking a journalist with you to war". Anybody spotted any interesting new phrases knocking around?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 06:13 PM

It might mean taking a journalist to bed with you, I suppose. An interesting way of controlling them, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: DougR
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 06:23 PM

This is the first war in which journalists can report first-hand on the battles, and the behaviour of the troops. Journalist accompany just about every unit involved in the war. I guess embedded is about as good a term for that as any. You hadn't heard it before, because it's never been done before.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 07:09 PM

no?...Doug...you don't remember Ernie Pyle?...and dozens like him?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:28 PM

This is the first war in which journalists can report first-hand on the battles...

Excuse me? complete bullshit.

What this is is the first time tame reporters were taken along in herd controlled by the military, chaperoned by the military and spoon-fed press releases and "information" prepared by the military- which is then regurgitated by these gutless wonders as real "news".

What's 'embedded' are their heads in their arses.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 08:31 PM

There definitely seems a danger to the independence of the media in the practice, espcially if the principle gets extended.

In a way, though, it's analogous to what we used to call "participant reporting", meaning, for example, reporting demonstrations and civil disobedience as a participant in those kind of activities.

As part of a spectrum of reporting techniques, fair enough. But only as part.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: John Hardly
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 09:50 PM

I wish I knew how to ask this without seeming like I'm trying to escalate an arguement. I really want to know though. I grew up surrounded by many who deeply believed in major world conspiracies. As I got older I grew suspicious -- so many things about them just don't resonate with me. They seem too simplistic and they also seem to fly in the face of both human nature and common sense.

Now the internet is rife wid 'em. I have never seen so many well developed, deeply believed, MAJOR conspiracy theories -- so much so that they are even having a paralyzing effect on thought and action. And every one of 'em has any number of well developed websites that prove them to be the gospel truth.

the internet, once the great hope of man by its liberating access to information, is showing the frightening potential of throwing us back to the middle ages of superstition and paranoia. Just like the old joke (old saw?) about power tools -- "Yeah, now I can make twice the mistakes in half the time!". Man how the disinformation can speed 'round the world at light speed.

So, anyway, the short question. What would it take for you to believe the military, those reporting the story (the media), and ultimately the government, if they reported finding weapons of mass destruction? Have we come so far that there is no means by which this could be reported without your doubting it?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 10:16 PM

I posted a tidy little quip that went unnoticed over on the "newspeak" thread that could stand to be repeated here. My suggestion of "newspeak" said:

How about the press "embedded" in various military units? Embedded like a splinter, or embedded like under-the-government's-thumb-so-they-have-to-report-what-the-government-wants-reported?

Sounds like someone's embedded alright. George and Shell and Dick and Exxon.

But maybe that movie goes too far back to spring to mind now.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Troll
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 10:45 PM

Ernie Pyle certainly reported things from the troops point of view and he prefered to be with them rather than with the brass.
But he didn't travel with any specific unit as a part of the unit. He got to the front any way he could; sometimes scrounging a ride with a supply convoy or whatever else was available that was going where he wanted to go.
The "embedded" reporters travel with their unit and are a part of their daily lives.
Whether their reporting will be honest and accurately portray what is happening will become apparent in the days to come.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:10 PM

Embedded media is a very clever concept devised by the defense deparment in response to media (and other) complaints during and after the last gulf war. In 1991, the media were kept out of the loop and their questions went unanswered. Like what happened to the one hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers who apparently disappeared. With no media around, the U.S. forces were free to bury Iraqi soldiers alive in their trenches using armored bull dozers. Have you seen or heard of any Iraqi soldiers in trenches this time?

This time, the media are going along with selected military units. Their reporting is seen in Iraq as well as everywhere else so it can be used as phychological warfare against the Iraqi soldiers and leadership. In addition, since only selected units have embedded media, the other units are free to operate without their actions being reported.

For example, Ted Koppel has been embedded with the third brigade of the third mechanized infantry division reporting everything they do. It seems he's on TV 24 hours a day and no one in that brigade can pass gas without it being reported world wide. But, the other two brigades which make up the third mechanized infantry division have no embedded media so no one even knows where they are let alone what they're up to.

Pretty clever, no?

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:21 PM

Yesterday. The woman reporting from the deck of the aircraft carrier. She kept telling the CNN audience to "Watch, while the fighter pilots WAVE to the camera, before they take off on their bombing runs."

Totally Fucking obscene.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:25 PM

And they're not waving to the camera. That's their signal to the launch crew that they're ready to go.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Troll
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:36 PM

Bev and Jerry, with regard to the 100,000 Iraqi soldiers you claim were buried alive in their trenches, just where was this supposed to have happened and why didn't Saddam exhume them before the cameras of the world.
It would have been the greatest propaganda coup of all time against the coalition forces. I cannot imagine him passing up that kind of opportunity.
Unless, of course, the story is just more anti-American bullshit.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 21 Mar 03 - 11:44 PM

Troll:

We didn't say one hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers were buried alive. We said one hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers were unaccounted for. This came from simple math applied to statements in pentagon press conferences. They gave numbers of enemy soldiers and later gave numbers of prisoners. When asked what happened to the others, they evaded the question numerous times.

As to the burying alive, there have been numerous eye witness accounts which are only now coming out. Step one was to close the trenches with an armored bull dozer and step two was to go over the area with a grader smoothing it out and cutting off anything sticking up like weapons and limbs and leaving no trace. We don't know how many Iraqi's lost their lives that way but the fact that they dug no trenches this time is pretty telling.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: The Pooka
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 01:52 AM

John Hardly - If they report finding WMDs, yeah, I'll believe it. And if they report Saddam (or any one of the surviving cloned Saddams:) USING WMDs, I'll believe that too. (& No, I won't conclude that obviously the US planted them or fired them on our own troops to frame the gentle Ba'athists.)

Now, for you guys who are with me in the tiny Mudcat minority that supports this war: if they report that NO such weapons have been found, used, or destroyed---will *you* believe *that*? / I will. (I'm very Gullibobble, apparently.:) Note that the official Rationale is already redistributing its weight over to the Liberation, Freedom & Democracy side of the justification scale. And, that them wily Eye-rackies haven't lobbed in the ol' nerve gas yet. (Hey, if I were them I'd have hurled all my chem/bio shit into Kuwait while the Americans were all massed there in a tiny area; or coming across the berms in that goddamn little funnel they call a border. What the Hell, y'know? Shoot the works.)

But now as to the Embedded Ones, it seems to me that they are, quite predictably, bonding with the soldiers of what become "their" outfits. There they are, in flak jackets & helmets & gas masks, in Harm's Way (someone should rename a street that somewhere, btw) right alongside our fighting men, rollin' down to old Baghdad (me boys) aboard our armored chariots of unfriendly fire. They identify, they are seduced, they get excited, they get gung ho. They come to unabashedly root for the team. Yes, more so (even) than in past less-embedded reportage. I've seen this repeatedly in the broadcasts.

I think the problem isn't so much the conspiratorial military control; it's more the psychological militarization deriving from the embedment. Isn't It Ironic: perhaps this relative Openness, not to say Transparency, is the Pentagon's best strategy for winning the hearts & minds of the media. Much better than stonewalling at press conferences in Washington.

ON THE OTHER HAND: I *would* think that the media's constant close-in presence on the battlefield should act as a considerable deterrent to the commission of War Crimes by their units. And I doubt that even the hyperefficient General Tommy Franks is good enough to be able to pre-assign all the planned Atrocities to the reporter-free divisions.
**********************
Like I said, I support this thing---reluctantly and after much agonizing---but God I hate it, at the same time. It's necessary but it's effing horrific. Shock & Awe, me arse: Boom & Doom. // I hope to Allah that dumbass Bush, or that brilliant Condoleeza Rice, or somebody, is right about the Liberation outcome. They'd better be.

In conclusion (YAAAAY!!): a friend of mine says the whole solution is an independent Kurdistan. This is consistent with my wife's proclamation of 1991: "I think they should give the Kurds their Whey."
There ya go. (But now, I hear 1,000 Turkish troops have crossed the border in the north. They may beg to differ. Bah. Fie upon all Tribes.)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: katlaughing
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 06:04 AM

John Hardly, you asked So, anyway, the short question. What would it take for you to believe the military, those reporting the story (the media), and ultimately the government, if they reported finding weapons of mass destruction? Have we come so far that there is no means by which this could be reported without your doubting it?

I would just ask the same of thing of Bush. What would it take for him to have believed the UN Weapons Inspectors, the UN Security Council, etc.? That would have meant he didn't get the war he's wanted all along, though.

Don't fault us for following our "leader" in his blatant paranoia and refusal to believe anyone.(Of course, I say that facetiously.)

Rick, ya got that right!

kat

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 06:28 AM

Strikes me that if they've got any weapons of mass destruction on the Iraqi side they'll use them against the invasion.

If it turns out that such weapons aren't actually used, that will be pretty strong evidence that they haven't got them to use. I'd be inclined to be very sceptical about alleged unused stocks of such weapons that turn up afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: greg stephens
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:32 AM

Interesting bit of "logic" McGrath. So the fact that Britain has never dropped an H-bomb on anyone proves we haven't got any? It may prove that to you, but it doesn't to me. What it proves to me is that we have got H-bombs, but various political considerations have, thank God, prevented us from using them.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:41 AM

Greg Stephens-Saddam doesn't care about "political considerations." If Britain had been invaded, while it was controlled by a brutal, homicidal dictator, and it did not use H-bombs even where it was military feasible to do so without harming the troops, I would have a hard time believeing that they existed. Likewise, if Saddam doesn't use NBC weapons, it's because he doesn't have them. He would gladly use them, despite the loss of Iraqi life, if he could.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Peg
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 02:06 PM

"brilliant Condoleezza Rice?"
huh????

She's a smirking, self-satisifed puppet just like Dubya. It makes me physically ill to watch her speak on TV. The smiling, smug way she tries to defend the current administration's illegal and immoral activities. She was chosen very carefully for this job. No one wants to believe an African-American woman would be capable of being such an inhumane monster. But she is. And I believe it is no coincidence that the Bush regime chose her because of her race. (The Bush family--Bush Sr. that is-- used to own a piece of retirement property in Texas which stated in its deed docuemnts it could never be sold or leased to non-whites. I believe they sold it after this information became public knowledge).
I don't think she's brilliant at all. I think she's terrifying. Listen to her and listen to how many times she uses the phrase "the President thinks" or "the President feels" or "what the President is trying to do" or "what the President wants." Pure brainwashing, lap-dog sycophantic manipulation.
We all KNOW he doesn't think; he has others doing it for him.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: John Hardly
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 02:24 PM

hey kat,

So I can take that as a "no"? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Mudlark
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 04:02 PM

John Hardly...while I eschew conspiracy theories on the whole(granted, bassed on intuitive rather than rational lines...most of the people spouting them just "sound weird"), I think we've been living in a climate of managed news, news as entertainment, docudramas passing for real historym for so long it's hard to believe anything heard from the media. I noted this morning in Frank's press conf. that there has been a sudden shift from Getting Saddam, to Getting the Regime. Now that the military (says) it doesn't know where Saddam is, or if he's wounded or dead, the party line is, that's not important. I can still see Bush fulminating against this same Saddam, claiming the world would never be safe until he was dead. Ditto BinLaden. When leaders shift gears, w/o explanation, w/o embarrassment and without question it's pretty hard to believe anything they say. In general, there was so little real information of ANY kind in that press conference, it's of little consequence what was said.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 04:58 PM

If Britain was invaded and "conventional weapons" weren't doing the trick, I imagine the Government would be likely to use anything and everything they'd got.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: greg stephens
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 05:19 PM

I disagree. I've lived and breathed Iraqi politics for years because I work with Iraqi colleagues. mY impression(which I admit may ne wrong, but's it's based on a lot of background knowledge) is that Saddam was quite happy to use weapons of mass destruction on unarmed or lightly armed Kurds, but would be less ready to use them on extremely heavily armed Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: GUEST,Troll Art
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 06:31 PM

McG: I think you have expressed a bit of poor reasoning in furtherance of wish fulfillment. A tremendous bit of propaganda has been dropped on the Iraqis regarding their use of 'weapons of mass destruction'. If they use them at this late date, chances are their effect will badly boomerang. And since it appears the iraqi command and control has been separated from the mass of Iraqi soldiers in the field, lack of use is by no means evidence of lack of such weapons, or the development factories for building more.

Most of your posts have at least had the appearance of being more thought out.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 07:31 PM

Now that is pretty subtle stuff, Troll Art. But where's the wish fulfilment? I don't want to see anybody using chemical or biological weapons or nuclear weapons anywhere, anytime. But I'm absolutely certain that if Saddam has them he'll use them. So obviously I hope he hasn't got them. Is that wish fulfilment? Doesn't every sane person hope that too?

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:50 PM

I agree with McGrath. Since Hussein has shown he is capable of using lethal gases against enemies, why would he hold back when faced with his own imminent capture/death? He doesn't appear to hold any human life in high regard.

If Hussein does have them, I do think that the highest likelihood of chemical weapons being used against the US and its allies is when they close in on him, either in Baghdad or Tikrit.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Troll
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:50 PM

Kevin, I must agree with TrollArt and gregstevens. Saddam will use WMDs only if he thinks he can get away with it or has nothing left to lose. I wouldn't be surprised to see him use them on Baghdad if the war seems totally lost, just to take as many Americans with him as he could without regard to the fact that his own people would die as well.
Bev and Jerry, the reason there are few if any trenches in the south, is that Saddam does not expect to stop the Coalition Forces there. The regiments that have been encountered thus far have been ragged and poorly equipped. The elite Republican Guard are "dug in" around Baghdad and there are trenches in evidence in plenty. As I said before, if what you claim actually happened, Saddam would have been on it like a duck on a junebug. He couldn't BUY that kind of PR.
You say that now, 12 years later and conveniently just in time for the war, "numerous reports" are surfacing.
Please provide links to back up your accusations.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Troll
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 10:58 PM

Bev and Jerry, I just did a quick search on Amnesty Internationals site. They have nothing on the subject of Iraqi soldiers being buried alive in the Gulf War or at any other time for that matter.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Troll
Date: 22 Mar 03 - 11:18 PM

For those who would like to make up your own minds, here is a link to Condoleeza Rice' bio.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/ricebio.html

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 12:33 AM

"has nothing left to lose. I wouldn't be surprised to see him use them on Baghdad if the war seems totally lost, just to take as many Americans with him as he could without regard to the fact that his own people would die as well." It appears to me, troll, that you are agreeing with most of us.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Troll
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 02:32 AM

Ebbie, if most of you are saying that Saddam has WMDs and that he will use them, yes, I agree.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 02:17 PM

Not exactly - I'm saying if he has them, he'll use them, and we'll find out fairly soon. If he doesn't use them, I'll take that to mean he hasn't got them, and I hope that is in fact the case.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 04:11 PM

Troll:

We did not hear about Iraqi soldiers being buried alive in the first gulf war on the internet but rather on a PBS documentary in which several eye-witnesses testified.

But, if you want links, go to Google and search on Gulf War bulldozers and you'll find at least three reports on just the first page.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 04:32 PM

Troll:

We forgot to give you this link to the testimony of a soldier who actually drove one of the bulldozers: horror. Search the site for the word "bulldozer"

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 03 - 06:03 PM

"12 years later and conveniently just in time for the war, "numerous reports" are surfacing."

There's nothing new about these reports - we've had them on the BBC and in the mainstream British press years ago. Nobody has been denying it happened.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 08:39 AM

As an ex-infantryman I'd rather that anyone shooting at me, or anyone who was supposed to be shooting at me, were buried alive (or dead) instead of doing their job. I sort of suspect that the feeling would be mutual.

As a human being, however....

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 09:48 AM

A couple of points about some of the things raised in this thread so far:

I believe that Winston Churchill was an "embedded war-correspondent" with an armoured train in the Boer War when he was captured.

Bev and Jerry, the pilots are waving to let the Catapult Officer know that all hands are clear of controls prior to launch.

Use of chemical/biological weapons against highly mobile columns would not be very effective - as I have said in other threads, such weapons are very unreliable and very unpredictable. My bet is, that if he is going to use them it will be in Baghdad - it will be very much as a last ditch thing as they will be as great an impediment to his own troops as they will to the coalition troops.

On the subject of troops taking part - US, UK, Czechs, Poles & Australians. The former Warsaw Pact contingents are chemical and biological warfare specialists.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Troll
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 09:59 AM

I thought "Why is there nothing on the Amnesty International site? This sort of thing is right up their alley."
Then I read the transcript.
This did not take place after the are was over or after people had surrendered. It took place IN THE MIDDLE OF A BATTLE There is very little difference in being run over by a tank or a truck than by an armored bulldozer and it is well within the rules of engagment. It does not run counter to the Geneva Convention. The troops in those trenches had a choice; run or die. Some chose to die.
Now I know why I couldn't find any mention in Amnesty International.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 10:30 AM

In the circumstances it seems fairly clear that the choice actually wouldn't have been run or die, it would have been die or die.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Willie-O
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 10:34 AM

I think the choice they had was between dying and dying, Troll. Remember the road to Basra?

"Well within the rules of engagement". Now that's obscene. It was what you call a turkey shoot.

John Hardly, here's a simple anwer to a simple question. I'd believe it if they brought the U.N. inspectors in immediately and let them inspect suspected sites, and reported on their findings.

When it's reported by the U.S. military, (disinformation r us) who have already said that they're certain they'll find them, I have to be skeptical. They are slightly less biased and credible than the Iraqi Ministry of Information. Slightly

Willie-O

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Troll
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 10:48 AM

Willie-O I was merely saying what the people on the PBS program said. Since I am sure you won't take my word for it, Bev and Jerry provided a link. Why don't you go there and read it yourself?
Yes, I remember the road to Basra. I also remember that the air strikes were called off to prevent further loss of life. You may have conveniently forgotten that.
Regarding the rules of engagment, in war some pretty nasty things happen, things that give you bad dreams for years sometimes. Theres little difference between running over someone with a tank or a bulldozer and shooting them. In fact, the tank or bulldozer may be quicker and less painful than, say, being shot in the belly.
As far as finding WMD's, apparently the Military has intel that they exist. What information do you have that they do not?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 01:02 PM

MGOH & Willie-O,

The choice they had was stay and definitely die, or make a run for it and maybe die.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 01:25 PM

The fact that someone says something is the case is not evidence unless you have reason to believe what they are saying. There is no particular reason to believe anything "the military" of any country say - this isn't because of them being wicked liars and so forth, it's just part of their job to tell lies sometimes.

There's no need to speculate - if Saddam has chemical and biological or nuclear weapons, he'll use them. What's the point of holding on to them otherwise? So I very much hope it'll turn out he hasn't got them. We should know pretty soon if he uses them.

Scud missiles? To make them go further than the "legal" range he'd have to have reduced the payload and pulled out the guidance systems and so forth. To hit Kuwait with them at a time when the invading forces were hardly into Iraq it would have made much more sense to fire them from relatively close, under the "legal" limit, and with a much bigger payload. Evidence that they were fired from a much longer range would need to be pretty convincing.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 01:59 PM

Kevin,

What is your premise for saying, "if Saddam has chemical and biological or nuclear weapons, he'll use them." - Although he threatened to use them the last time, he didn't.

With respect to Iraqi Scud Missiles:
"The Iraqis had four versions: Scud itself (180-km range), longer-range Scud (half warhead weight, extra range attained by burning all propellant immediately rather than steadily through the flight of the missile), Al Hussein (650-km, attained by reducing warhead weight to 250 kg and increasing the fuel load by 15 percent), and Al Abbas (800-km, achieved by reducing warhead weight to 125 kg, with 30 percent more fuel). Al Abbas could be fired only from static launchers; all of the others could be fired from mobile or static sites. Only the original Scud and the minimally modified version were particularly succesful."

The last missiles to be launched at Kuwait were targeted at oil installations 40 kilometers to the South of Kuwait City, which itself is about 150 kilometers from the Iraqi Border. So if fired on the border Al-Samoud 2 might just make it, but when these things were fired, US & UK forces were already 100 kilometers plus into Iraq. 40 & 42 Commando RM already had the Al-Faw Penninsula, one suggested launching position.

The practice of halving warhead weight (possible for chemical or biological payloads), and boosting the range by burning all propellant immediately rather than steadily through the flight of the missile, has one unfortunate side effect - the missile is liable to go unstable during flight and break-up - that proved to be the case on quite a number of occasions during the Gulf war of 1991.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: DougR
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 04:48 PM

Troll, Teribus, McGrath and others: there was another choice. It's called surrender.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 04:59 PM

For the guys in the trench in that kind of situation? Stick their hands in the air and expect the bulldozer to grind to a halt? Doesn't sound too likely to me.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Mar 03 - 06:07 PM

Speaking of the "Gulf War" from this site click:

"The second component of the attack was the slaughter of Iraqi soldiers in the desert, largely unwilling Shi'ite and Kurdish conscripts it appears, hiding in holes in the sand or fleeing for their lives -- a picture remote from the disinformation relayed by the press about colossal fortifications, artillery powerful beyond our imagining, vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons at the ready, and so on. Pentagon and other sources give estimates in the range of 100,000 defenseless victims killed. "This is not war; it is simply massacre and murderous butchery," to use the words of a British observer of the US conquest of the Philippines at the turn of the century, The desert slaughter was a "turkey shoot," as some US forces described it, borrowing the term used by their forebears butchering Filipinos⁴ -- one of those deeply-rooted themes of the culture that surface at appropriate moments, as if by reflex."

And...

"Months later, US Army officials revealed what the Pentagon expected: not war, but slaughter. The ground attack began with plows mounted on tanks and earthmovers to bulldoze live Iraqi soldiers into trenches in the desert, an "unprecedented tactic" that was "hidden from public view," Patrick Sloyan reported. The commander of one of the three Brigades involved said that thousands of Iraqis might have been killed; the other commanders refused estimates. "Not a single American was killed during the attack that made an Iraqi body count impossible," Sloyan continues. The report elicited little interest or comment. Nor did the "murderous butchery" generally⁵."

4) Luzviminda Francisco and Jonathan Fast, Conspiracy for Empire (Quezon City, 1985), 302, 191.

5) Newsday, Sept. 12, 1991, p. 1. The Boston Globe gave the story a few lines on p. 79, Sept. 13. The Times ran a tepid account a few days later; Eric Schmitt, NYT, Sept. 15.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Troll
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 01:03 AM

Yes kevin. Come out of the trench with your hands up and surrender. Believe it or not, the vast majority of soldiers are not mindless butchers who take delight in killing. But since you've never been there, how would you know that?
Under the rules of war, you do not shoot a man who is trying to surrender. Once the soldiers in the trenches saw what was happening, all they had to do was surrender when they saw the bulldozers headed their way. That they chose to stay in the trenches or to retreat is not the fault of the US Army. they COULD have surrendered.
As Big Mick or Norton1 will tell you, the war lovers and kill-crazy types are not to well liked by the other troops, most of whom simply want to get the job done and go home.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 02:58 AM

katlaughing:

You quote a reporter stating that:

"The ground attack began with plows mounted on tanks and earthmovers to bulldoze live Iraqi soldiers into trenches in the desert, an "unprecedented tactic" that was "hidden from public view," Patrick Sloyan reported."

Watching the news yesterday I saw one of these "plows", I also noted that they are not fitted to all the tanks. The "plows" are arrow shaped (pointed) with teeth arranged along the leading edge of the blade, like those fitted to the blades or buckets of most earth breaking equipment. The blades appear to be only about 50-75 cm in height. The design and number of these plows would suggest that their function was to allow the tank to cut its way through a sand "berm" in such a way as to allow other tanks to follow. The spoil from a trench is naturally piled up in front of the trench, that such plows were used to flatten paths through a trench would be considered sensible, as a tank trying to "climb over" over such an obstruction would momentarily prevent the tanks main armament from being used and expose the underside of the tank to enemy fire. Tank crews are understandably "sensitive" to this sort of thing - 75-80% of everything that has been specifically designed to go bang on a battle-field has been designed to kill tanks and armour. To claim that this was an "unprecedented tactic" is a more than slight exaggeration.

The combat earth movers are assigned to combat engineer units - the ones mentioned in a similar article posted by KarlMarx are crewed by one man, are not heavily armoured and have no self-defence capability - unlikely that such machinery would be used in the middle of a battle - normal useage would be to repair bomb or blast damage to roads and for clearing rubble to allow support elements to move forward.

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 05:52 AM

The PBS link includes this fascinating and possibly prescient statement by General Schwartzkopf:

On the question of going to Baghdad_ if you remember the Vietnam war, we had no international legitimacy for what we did. As a result, we, first of all, lost the battle in world public opinion. Eventually, we lost the battle at home.

In the Gulf war, we had great international legitimacy in the form of eight United Nations resolutions, every one of which said, "Kick Iraq out of Kuwait." Did not say one word about going into Iraq, taking Baghdad, conquering the whole country and- and hanging Saddam Hussein. That's point number one.

Point number two- had we gone on to Baghdad, I don't believe the French would have gone and I'm quite sure that the Arab coalition would not have gone. The coalition would have ruptured and the only people that would have gone would have been the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

And, oh, by the way, I think we'd still be there. We'd be like a dinosaur in a tar pit. We could not have gotten out and we'd still be the occupying power and we'd be paying 100 percent of all the costs to administer all of Iraq.

Now, I'm 98% sure that DougR and a few others will say, "No, we're going to give the country back to the Iraqi people, we won't be staying there." How does he know that? Because the President said so on TV, and the President never lies. Let's just forget about the plans that were made public a few months ago about an American "governor" who would remain for "a year or two." Besides, General Schwartzkopf couldn't possibly know what he's talking about, could he? "A dinosaur in a tar pit" -- no, that couldn't happen. After all, this is Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Well, we can look on the bright side. If there really is going to be Iraqi Freedom, then we'll all have someplace to go when they continue to take away ours.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: 'Embedded media'
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Mar 03 - 06:50 AM

Troll is completely correct: soldiers are NOT unthinking automatons and other soldiers don't care for any kill-crazy fools. In 'Nam and in other wars both sorts were liable to be fragged before they got others killed. (And the incident with the sergeant in the 101 Airborne was NOT fragging -- it was simply murder. Fragging was usually done to eliminate an incompetent commander, a kill-crazy fool, a the-book-says-do-it-this-way martinet, or similar sorts. The media, once again, have gotten it wrong.)

As a former Infantry platoon leader (forced into it, no officer) I can assure you that an automaton will not only end up dead, s/he will kill a bunch of others along the way. One of the few times I ever gripped a .45 pistol and was glad to have it was when I was working a night shift with a crazy who actually LIKED killing and death (he as later taken away for psychiatric are and we all breathed a sigh of relief, for him as well as for ourselves).

Battle changes too rapidly for a rigid thinker -- the WWI commanders are excellent examples of this (as is Vietnam). Battle is and actually always has been "think or die" -- history is written by the generals, battles are won by the grunt on the ground.