Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm pretty sure Saddam have WMDs, but I don't think he will use them unless he starts to lose the battle for Bagdad. Of course, he can always, and probably already did, give some toys to the nuts in Al Qaeda......

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I'm pretty sure Saddam have WMDs, but I don't think he will use them unless he starts to lose the battle for Bagdad. Of course, he can always, and probably already did, give some toys to the nuts in Al Qaeda......</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The "conspiracy of the willing" will take Bagdad. Once they get the supply lines secured - that's what's holding them up. No one is allowed to say, but they have M1s sitting there with no fuel waiting for supplies.

[ March 27, 2003, 20:04: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Mephisto:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It could have. It would have pushed the potential fight into summer, which would make the troop movements more difficult in that part of the world (or so I am told, never having been there in summer.. or at all for that matter http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ). As Geo stated, it's likely that this would have left the threat of force somewhat impotent.

The real threat to me however was the incredible cost of having troops sit for extended periods of time. My friend, Basam, who has lived in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is of the opinion that the Kuwaitis would have gladly paid the US forces upkeep costs. If this is so, then I would definitely change my opinion - yes, the USA should have waited. Now that's a pretty big should! I've not seen any reports of Kuwaiti willingness to pay these costs.

Primitive:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Okay, I've thought on this. Yes, GWB should be willing to give Blix & Co. enough time to complete the inspections. However compliance did not really occur until threat of force was apparent.

If we assume that the positioning and maintenance of "the threat" costs nothing then yes, the USA and UK should have waited for Blix and crew to do their job, that is, give enough time for the job to be done.

If we assume that the positioning and maintenance of "the threat" will cost the USA a whole bundle of cash while other UN security members sit on their duffs, then no, the USA and UK should not have to wait and pay infinitum. If they are the only ones making the Iraqi government cooperate, then they should be allowed to set the expectations.

Finally, Blix is correct that it will take months with full cooperation to complete his job but they had months in which to complete it during which Sadam & Co. did not cooperate. However it was Sadam who did not cooperate, so that is Sadams' "lost time". I don't think that somebody else should have to waste their precious time when Sadam came to the "cooperating table" months, if not years late!

[ March 27, 2003, 20:12: Message edited by: jimbob ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think Bagdad is going to fall that easily. I can perfectly see the Irakis cutting the supplies lines and blitzkrieging 2 or 3 american divisions and forcing them to surrender.
They just need one those sand storms.
I mean, with those brainless generals ordering choppers to take on fixed positions I wouldn't be surprised if they allow their troops to be encircled and overran.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think Bagdad is going to fall that easily. I can perfectly see the Irakis cutting the supplies lines and blitzkrieging 2 or 3 american divisions and forcing them to surrender.
They just need one those sand storms.
I mean, with those brainless generals ordering choppers to take on fixed positions I wouldn't be surprised if they allow their troops to be encircled and overran.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">The scary thing about the whole thing is that there are 5M citizens in bagdad. If even a small % decide to fight then the american forces will be severely outnumbered. I was listening today how Rumsfeld wanted to send in only 50k troops and the military wanted a lot more than they did send. It makes you wonder what they were thinking.

[ March 27, 2003, 20:21: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Saddam’s army is finished; without air support they can not maneuver. Just today they tried to move several companies of mounted infantry, perhaps a brigade. Two BUFF’s and some F-18’s utterly destroyed them, highway of death revisited. This leaves Iraq with a hard choice to make. Do they pull out all of the stops and use Gas and VX? Or do they begin to position themselves for what happens after Baghdad falls?

Guerrilla warfare might cause the US to increase the amount of troops that are in country, and they might prevent the countryside from being fully under allied control. But they can not take on armored unit’s head to head, and they will not prevent Baghdad from falling to the Allies. The lead Allied units are setting up a classic armor battle, one where you have to maneuver or be killed in place. The Guards will have to make a decision in a day or two as to how they will fight. Doctrine would advise closing on the Americans so that the air power would be removed from the battle. Problem with this is that it is very hard to close on an Abrams with a T-72. So given that problem, the doctrine would advise falling back into an urban area. But if that area is not Baghdad, then your forces run the risk of being isolated and bypassed. And a run for Baghdad at this point in time would make the retreat from Kuwait look like a minor skirmish. So, do they go all out? Or position themselves for a diplomatic solution? I don’t have a clue what is in the mind of that madman, but if they use WMD, then there will be no settlement of any type.

Personally, I think that Saddam thinks his four divisions of RG’s can take the one American infantry division out first and then wheel on the Marines, inflicting severe casualties that will force the US to negotiate a settlement. Or, that the slaughter of his troops will be so horrific that the world will force the US and Britain to back off and negotiate. The wildcard here is the Republican Guards they hold the key. If one or two of the four division turn on Saddam, then we have a whole new ball game, and a bunch of staff officers will have just made a place for themselves in the new Iraqi government. This corp of officers has tried to take Saddam out on several past occasions. Also, for them the plan is self-serving, the best of all possible outcomes. The Americans are re-supplying for the drive on Baghdad, and should push off very soon, I think the first big engagement will determine what happens within the RG leadership. A lot could happen this weekend.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't think Bagdad is going to fall that easily. I can perfectly see the Irakis cutting the supplies lines and blitzkrieging 2 or 3 american divisions and forcing them to surrender.
They just need one those sand storms.
I mean, with those brainless generals ordering choppers to take on fixed positions I wouldn't be surprised if they allow their troops to be encircled and overran.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you can really perceive a situation where this could actually happen, then you need to stop Bogart’n and pass that thing around. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

You guys still expecting people switching sides?
Come on, its obvious by now that Saddam is not nearly as hated as the western media said.
The fact that for us he is a bloody dictator doesn't make him such for his own people. Or are you believing what the Iraki opposition in exile says, which of course, they would say anyway?

You got to understand that people from a diferent culture have a diferent view of what's good and what's bad.

And don't forget the effects of propaganda....

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hell no. That's not my problem, not my war.
Why should I be loyal to a country that plans to cut my country in half to please the Arabs?
No way.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Thermodyne is right anything outside of Bagdad is finished, but the real battle will be in Bagdad proper. This might be a stretch, but the only analogy I can think of is Berlin and the Russian took a million casualties with "the gloves taken off". Unless, of course, the media is lying - 1000 militia are holding back the Brits in Basra I don't see how Bagdad can be any better.