Bushs comments really slump with time. Well, I guess were celebrating the death of Jesus and his resurrection thus because his death was unjustified. I think these attacks crash morally thru the bottom and are principally rooted in Mekka and not Teheran. Bushs total fuck-up in starting the Iraq war- instead of hunting down Saufdi born Oussama- and this total fuck up when asked about involuntary death -is clear proof Bush is nothing but involved in oil. I dont know which heavyweight gave Saddam the advice to attack Kuwait, but for me, I can only see some overweights in Riad.
The other thing is that Saddam heard it obviously thru the grapewine to attack Iran in 80. the second tip was obviously better when it came in in 91. I guess the OLD movie was to protect Scheichs from moolahs.
the third thing is why was Bush so eager to get Saddams head. Fahd died a short while after the Iraq invasion.
Good ah I dont want to overemphazize a Saudi involvement. But someone simply has to blow the whistle on Americans. I simply cant figure out how the Iranians should ever get such informations.
Its been a long way from 91 to today when American troops are obviously under fire because eastern is obviously a feast of Christianity. I have no doubt as well that the Iranians would do so without any foreign input. But the magnitude and the efficiency of these attacks is simply to high.
The religious motivation of the attacks is simply mounting. And Bush ignores this fact completly. Its his occupation that makes the relation between the religions simply absurd. And Bush ignores this case completly thru his comments. Whoever had the idea in Riad (or maybe Theeran) to get might and religion more woven, he got cash day since 5 years. The best proof is the number of casualties each day. Bush is totally unable to sustain public order.
So its a sober moment? Wanted to call the Iranians krankee or white for blowing up defenseless Iraqis under an US occupation? I guess they wash too often. I mean they are definetely rotten. Despite, I wanted to congratulate Bush on his shit-brain.
The U.S. military blamed Iranian-backed Shiite militia factions on Monday for a spate of rocket attacks that struck the Green Zone and surrounding areas, a day after the overall U.S. death toll in the five-year conflict rose to 4,000.
The White House called the grim milestone "a sober [sic] moment" and said President Bush spends time every day thinking about those who have lost their lives in battle.
"He bears the responsibility for the decisions that he made," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Monday. "He also bears the responsibility to continue to focus on succeeding."
The American deaths came Sunday, the same day rockets pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top US military commander in Iraq, "said he has evidence that Iran was behind Sunday's bombardment of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone," the BBC reports, adding that Petraeus told the British news network that "he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets."
What I wanted to get rid of is another thing: these arent rocket attacks, these are mortar attacks. A mortar works like this: you take the grenade, let it drop into the tube, and then its flung out or pumped out out again. These things get 3-4 kilometers far. I mean if Bush had ever had the idea to disarm Iraq, people would surely notice someone positioning such a thing on an open street. So now, lets get back to the green zone. Like I got it, if u fire a stinger from 4 kilometers distance u cant hit the green zone because houses are in between. So there cannot occur DIRECT MISSILE FIRE. SO YOU NEED MORTARS. U need to fire up in the air and the projectile has to come down again. So, from my point of view, you need pickups or whatsoever to go round in circles around the green zone in 3-4 kilometers distance to check whether someones building up a mortar position there. Due to the fact that I suspect that US commanders get a hint about this a Westpoint, Im totally befuddled by the fact, that this occurs over and over again.
Again: the base amounts to 50 kilos at least so the tube isnt moved off during start. the basis could be pulled backwards and the whole thing would clap down changing the angle of the tube. Life of firing ones would be endangered. You need to have 1 guy carry the base and another one carry the pipe. the pipe is out of metal and weighs most of the time sth also, because of the ignition when the grenade is fired. Plastic would melt.
The greneade is no lightweight also because it has to shoot up in the air (and defy gravitation) so theres some propellant in it despite the explosives. It is consisting out of metal because the propellant for movement has to be seperated from the explosives of course. So its of course not really the propellant alone thats weighing lot but its alot diffrent from shooting arrows in the air. So you need at least two people to build up a mortar position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortar_(weapon)
A mortar is a muzzle-loading indirect fire weapon that fires shells at low velocities, short ranges, and high-arcing ballistic trajectories. It typically has a barrel length less than 15 times its caliber.
A mortar is relatively simple and easy to operate. A modern mortar consists of a tube which gunners drop a shell into. A firing pin at the base of the tube detonates the propellant and fires the shell.
These attributes contrast with the mortar's larger siblings, howitzers and field guns, which fire at higher velocities, longer ranges, flatter arcs, and sometimes, direct fire.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries very heavy immobile siege mortars were used, of up to one metre calibre.
A mortar can also be a launcher for fireworks, a hand-held or vehicle-mounted projector for smoke shells or flares, or a large grenade launcher.
Light and medium mortars are portable, and usually used by infantry units. The chief advantage a mortar section has over an artillery battery is its small numbers, mobility and the ability to engage targets in the defilade with plunging fires. It is able to fire from the protection of a trench or defilade. In these aspects the mortar is an excellent infantry support weapon, as it can be transported over any terrain and is not burdened by the logistical support needed for artillery.
There are also heavy mortars of 120mm to 300mm caliber[1]. These weapons are usually towed or vehicle-mounted, sometimes breech-loaded, and normally employed by infantry units attached to battalion through division level. Even at this size, mortars are simpler and less expensive than comparable howitzers or field guns.
A mortar can be carried by one or more men (larger mortars can usually be broken down into components), or transported in a vehicle. An infantry mortar can usually also be mounted and fired from a mortar-carrier, a purpose-built or modified armoured vehicle with a large roof hatch.
A heavy mortar can be mounted on a towed carriage, or permanently vehicle-mounted as a self-propelled mortar. Twin-barreled self-loading mortars — such as the Patria AMOS PT1 — are the latest evolution of these heavy mortars and are mounted on platforms such as armored personnel carriers, tank chassis, and coastal patrol boats.[2]
0 comments:
Post a Comment