Would Iraqi citizens be right to mount an armed defence

[iain]

In this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16126) Fool, asked :

Many Gun nuts on this board will tell you that an armed civilian population is a legitimate last line of defence against an invading enemy. I wonder what they think of this current application of thier principles? I think this is a good question and deserves its own thread.

If the US were to be invaded, many Americans would see it as their right and, indeed, duty to fight the invaders in any way they could, either within or outside the military. That doesn't sound unreasonable either. I'm sure I would feel the same if my country were invaded. Indeed, the outcome of many wars might have been different otherwise. For example, the French Resistance in WWII and the Spanish guerillas in the (Napoleonic) Peninsula wars.

Do Iraqis have the same right or duty now their country is being invaded (assuming, of course, that they are loyal to Saddam and do not want him overthrown by the US/UK)?

[Tmy]

I think we've been propagandized to believe that Iraqi's hate Saddam and will welcome the US troops. This is foolish. Its human nature to resent occupation. Its not like we're expelling him from Kuwait. We are going into his country. Im sure the place has been swelling with pre war patriotism, just as in the US. Perhaps more so.

Imagine a foriegn army coming into your town with the motive of tosssing Bush out of office. Even if you hate Bush, wouldnt you still fight off the invaders?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by iain
Do Iraqis have the same right or duty now their country is being invaded (assuming, of course, that they are loyal to Saddam and do not want him overthrown by the US/UK)?

Of course.

Yeah....so much for the Iraqis welcoming the US as liberators. What actually happened was a bunch of Iraqi peasants brought down two Apaches by shooting at them. The US should stop believing its own propaganda.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Yeah....so much for the Iraqis welcoming the US as liberators. What actually happened was a bunch of Iraqi peasants brought down two Apaches by shooting at them. The US should stop believing its own propaganda.

yer funny

[iain]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Of course. Iguess a follow up question would be that if the Iraqi people do have this right; should the allies treat those that exercise it as if they were legitimate combatants or not?

Obviously someone who takes up arms can hardly claim to be a non-combatant civilian, but should they be accorded the standard Geneva Convention rights or not?

And how would pro-war people feel about such people? Would they be seen as brave citizens defending their country from invasion or as supporters of terrorism/evil?

[crackmonkey]

I think your sig is particularly appropriate to you, UE.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Yeah....so much for the Iraqis welcoming the US as liberators. What actually happened was a bunch of Iraqi peasants brought down two Apaches by shooting at them. The US should stop believing its own propaganda.

...you really KNOW propaganda when you see it.

:rolleyes:

Barkhorn.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by iain
Iguess a follow up question would be that if the Iraqi people do have this right; should the allies treat those that exercise it as if they were legitimate combatants or not?

One would think that if you wanted to discuss this intelligently, you would first peruse the Third Geneva Convention (http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/gst/KVR/e/e-GC%20III.htm).


Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

...

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Please note the requirement to carry arms openly. All citizens of Iraq who fight according to the Geneva Conventions' stipulations fall under it's protections.

Originally posted by iain
Obviously someone who takes up arms can hardly claim to be a non-combatant civilian, but should they be accorded the standard Geneva Convention rights or not?

Yes.

Originally posted by iain
And how would pro-war people feel about such people? Would they be seen as brave citizens defending their country from invasion or as supporters of terrorism/evil?

This war advocate thinks they qualify as both. Is there some reason why being one excludes being the other?

MattJ

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


...you really KNOW propaganda when you see it.

:rolleyes:

Barkhorn.

It is becoming more and more transparent all the time.

One of the best example in recent years is the tally of aircraft claimed as lost by NATO over Kosovo. I think the official figure is 1, which was unavoidable because it was a Stealth bomber that the Serbs had bits of. Then there was a whole series of 'training accidents' and 'mechanical failures' - the Serbs didn't shoot any of them down - oh no. But even more ridiculously of all was the four harriers the Serbs claimed to have shot down one evening - strenuously denied by NATO. And then 4 months later when it was all over I heard a radio report from the airbase as the Harriers returned. "But the day was tinged with sadness....", said the reporter, "....because of the four harriers still out in the Balkans." Still out there? :eek: In bits, spread over the Serbian countryside. How many brainwashed Americans still believe NATO only lost one aircraft over Kosovo? Most of them, I'd wager. The true figure is closer to 30.

[Tmy]

War crimes are for losers. I mean that literally. The losers gets charged with the crimes.

[Barkhorn1x]

...I do believe that the Apache's were downed.

I just doubt it was by Iraq peasant's armed w/ AK-47's. The A-64 is armored and moves pretty fast. Therefore these peasants must have been;
1. Skilled marsksmen
2. Familiar w/ the A-64's weak points
3. Damn lucky
4. All of the above.

A more likely scenario is that they were downed by AAA controlled by the Iraqi army - and the "peasants" bit is Iraqi propaganda.

BTW, I don't disagree on Kosovo either. Losses happen in a war. I don't know why the military sometimes feels it has to withhold the truth when there is no compelling military reason to do so.

Barkhorn.

[LTC8K6]

Many times the folks firing at your aircraft are unaware/unsure that/if they have been successful.

If you don't admit that you've lost an aircraft for a while, you might just rescue the pilots before the enemy figures anything out. At the very least, you can buy your downed pilots more time to get away or to get hidden. Perhaps the very, very, least would be to recover the bodies before they are paraded on TV......

There are good reasons for keeping the enemy in the dark if you can. Just on GP, it's a good idea.

Of course, if they are so barbaric as to shoot into the water to see if the dead body of your pilot pops up on live TV so they can collect their reward........well then you have an idea of who you're dealing with when it comes to POW's.

[LTC8K6]

Why didn't anyone take any pictures of all of these aircraft downed over bosnia? A few tail numbers or serial numbers would prove lots? No matter how bad the wreckage, a few numbers would remain.

The minute that they downed the F-117, cameras were all over it. We knew immediately it was real, where it was based, who the pilot was, all from the tail numbers. Seems odd that no one took the trouble to photograph any/all of the others.......

The wreckage is still there, right? Still no pics?

One would certainly think they'd at least take pictures of the wreckage of the mighty B-2 Spirit that they shot down. I know I would if I had conquered such a beast!

[tedly]

Barthonix:
In the mid '60s our college hosted a conference of R&D workers from NATO. A civilian from the UK's ARDE was sitting at our table of cadets and told us this.

One of his co-workers was an Army colonel who was extremely keen on photography and the helicopter as the embodiment of modern war. He could and did launch into exhausting detail on his favourite topics at the drop of a hat, or the lighting of a cigar. Then he was sent on a quick liason tour to the Congo. Flying low, his party passed over a pygmy, stalking something in a clearing. Seeing the perfect photo-op, he had the helicopter circle around to get a better angle. Coming over the clearing they found one very irate, gameless and dinnerless, hunter shaking his fist at them and firing an arrow in their direction. Shortly after they lost power and had to descend in another clearing, where they found a fuel line cut by a wooden, bone tipped arrow. Apparently for many weeks the topic of conversation in the mess was the economy and efficacy of the bow as "the epitome of modern warfare."

I don't care if that's true(see tag line), it's what was told to me and it's too good a story.

That said, a helicopter can be armoured, but the rotating joint that holds the blades on, and the drives and hubs of the rear rotor are very difficult to protect. Anti aircraft machine guns can direct a huge amount of fire on these targets in the hope that one gets through. But random chance can direct one arrow to the fuel line.

[Troll]

To answer the question without a lot of redunancy, I'll say ditto to what aerocontrols said in his 2 posts

[Advocate]

I would say they certainly have the right to do so, but not necessarily the duty, although some may feel it to be their duty. I don't know if anyone questions their right to do so, what they question is how many of them will choose to exercise that right. IMHO very few will. Saddam is very unpopular.

Originally posted by LTC8K6
[B]Why didn't anyone take any pictures of all of these aircraft downed over bosnia? A few tail numbers or serial numbers would prove lots? No matter how bad the wreckage, a few numbers would remain.


They did. Most of them were extremely high up and by the time the wreckage hit the ground there was very little left of it.


The minute that they downed the F-117, cameras were all over it. We knew immediately it was real, where it was based, who the pilot was, all from the tail numbers. Seems odd that no one took the trouble to photograph any/all of the others.......


The F-117 flies low to avoid enemy radar. That's why enough wreckage was left to be identifiable as a plane.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


One would think that if you wanted to discuss this intelligently, you would first peruse the Third Geneva Convention (http://www.vbs.admin.ch/internet/gst/KVR/e/e-GC%20III.htm).





Thankyou aerocontrols

[John Bryce]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
The F-117 flies low to avoid enemy radar.

That is incorrect.

F-117A NIGHTHAWK (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/f117/index.html)

The surfaces and edge profiles are optimised to reflect hostile radar into narrow beam signals, directed away from the enemy radar detector. All the doors and opening panels on the aircraft have saw-toothed forward and trailing edges to reflect radar. The aircraft is mainly constructed of aluminum, with titanium for areas of the engine and exhaust systems. The outer surface of the aircraft is coated with a radar-absorbent material (RAM). The radar cross-section of the F-117 has been estimated at between 10-100cm2.

[Alaric]

Dear god. F117 flies low? Pilots say its like flying a quiet pig. I HIGHLY doubt it flies low. Otherwise we would have another F104 Starfighter scenario with lots of crashes(meant for high level..used for low)

[c0rbin]

Dude! Sign me up to fight for these guys!


Link to Uday Olympic Article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam)

Of course the propaganda department at Sports Illustrated is so busy covering up for big oil companies that it might have fudged some of these facts.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Dude! Sign me up to fight for these guys!
Link to Uday Olympic Article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2003/03/24/son_of_saddam)
That's one of the most disturbing things I've read about Iraq. Here's an excerpt, just in case the link stops working:

THE BUTCHER'S BOY , as he is sometimes called, is reputed to be the most brutal member of Iraq's notorious ruling family. As an infant he reportedly played with disarmed grenades. By 10 he was accompanying his father to the torture chamber at Qasr-al-Nihayyah (the Palace of the End, where many political enemies, including deposed King Faisal II, were killed) to watch Saddam deal with dissidents. By 16 he bragged of committing his first murder, telling classmates he had killed a teacher who had upbraided him in front of a girlfriend.

For nearly 20 years Uday Hussein has been the most powerful force in Iraq's athletic hierarchy. In 1984, when Uday was 20, Saddam handed his son the reins of both the country's Olympic committee and its soccer federation, hoping Uday could help rebuild the spirit of the nation's youth while also proving himself a worthy successor to his father. The Iran-Iraq war, which would drag on for eight years and lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of young Iraqis, was demoralizing Iraqi youth. Success in sports, Saddam thought, could lift their spirits and restore national pride.

"Saddam's plan didn't work," says Issam Thamer al-Diwan, a former Iraqi volleyball player who now lives in the United States and carries a list of 52 athletes he claims have been murdered by the Hussein family. "Iraqi sports are worse today than ever. Our teams used to win. There was much pride in playing for your country. But Uday never understood pride, only fear. He was never an athlete. He thought he could use his father's sadistic approach to improve performance. He has failed."

In fact Iraq, once an Asian sports force that sent 46 athletes to the 1980 Summer Olympics, now rivals Liechtenstein in terms of athletic insignificance. Iraq sent just four athletes to the 2000 Games in Sydney. "People don't want to play because they [are afraid] to lose," says Sabah Mohammed, Iraq's former national basketball coach, who fled to London in 1999 and claims that nine members of his wife's family have been executed by the Hussein regime. "Can you blame them? No one wants to speak out against Uday." (SI's attempts to reach Uday for comment through the Iraqi permanent mission to the United Nations were unsuccessful.)

Uday's penchant for violence has long been an open secret among international athletic officials. Amnesty International reported in 2001 that Uday had ordered the hand of a security officer at his Olympic headquarters to be chopped off five years earlier, after the man was accused of stealing sports equipment that was missing (but later turned up). In 1997 FIFA, the governing body of world soccer, sent two investigators to Baghdad to question members of the Iraqi national team who'd allegedly had their feet caned by Uday's henchmen after losing a World Cup qualifying match to Kazakhstan. The investigators spoke only to people whom Uday had selected. The result: a report exonerating Uday.

[Roadtoad]

UE, if you can't be civil, at least be amusing.

Of course the Iraqis are going to take up arms against any invader! Of course they would have that right! Why in God's name is this even a question? Rightly or wrongly, we're invading their nation. Of course they're going to defend their country against us!

All discussion of Psyops aside, let's face a critical fact: It would have to be a prime idiot who would think that any force would walk into a nation and take over and not face opposition, armed and unarmed. Anyone who thought this war would be over quick and easy has been smoking rope. This is going to go on for years. This is only the first wave. Wait until the next wave comes; it will involve our grandkids.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Yeah....so much for the Iraqis welcoming the US as liberators. What actually happened was a bunch of Iraqi peasants brought down two Apaches by shooting at them. The US should stop believing its own propaganda.

Well, I'll bet Saddam is happy that SOMEBODY still believes the claims made on Iraqi TV...

The copter in the footage was obviously not seriously damaged, and made a perfect landing--rather odd for a "shot down" helicopter. And the pilots were nowhere to be seen, leaving only their helmets. A far more likely scenario is that the helicopter had to make an emergency landing due to some mechanical failure, and the pilots naturally left to attempt to rejoin coalition forces, naturally leaving their helmets behind, since they are just so much more to carry once you leave the copter.

[Skeptic]

They did. Most of them were extremely high up and by the time the wreckage hit the ground there was very little left of it.

Hey UE, I just shot down an american spy satellite with a pop gun!

Unfortunately, it fell from so high up there is nothing left for me to show you as evidence, since it disintegrated on reentry...

Sure, the evil Americans will deny it, but hey--it's all propaganda. TRUST me.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Skeptic
They did. Most of them were extremely high up and by the time the wreckage hit the ground there was very little left of it.

Hey UE, I just shot down an american spy satellite with a pop gun!

Unfortunately, it fell from so high up there is nothing left for me to show you as evidence, since it disintegrated on reentry...

Sure, the evil Americans will deny it, but hey--it's all propaganda. TRUST me.

And for a cash donation of $39.95, we'll even throw in a glow in the dark statue of the Holy Family. :D

[VernorsRush]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


They did. Most of them were extremely high up and by the time the wreckage hit the ground there was very little left of it.Eh? What would the altitude have to do with anything? In 1962 (doing the year from memory) the Soviet Union shot down Gary Powers' U-2 at 70,000 feet and seemed to have no trouble identifying it afterwards. Columbia disintegrated at 200,000 feet and enough has been recovered that NASA could have positively identified it if they didn't already know it was missing.