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

[Wardad]

Originally posted by rextorres:
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.

Yes, Cities have some defense advantages.
There are ways to counter the advantages, BUT... you can not do that and preserve civilian homes and lives.

Using concusion bombs, flame throwers, and flooding basements and tunnels with water can be quick and very effective.

To clear a city surgically with minimal loss of troops requires intel (native cooperation) and time to play a patient game cat and mouse.

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by rextorres:
we're obviously not liberating anyone except the kurds

And what a about the Kurds in Turkey? The US forces will liberate them too?

[rextorres]

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rextorres:
we're obviously not liberating anyone except the kurds

And what a about the Kurds in Turkey? The US forces will liberate them too?

---

No . . . the Turks are on our side so it's O.K. for them to mistreat their Kurds. It's only the Iraqi Kurds that need liberating.

[Some1]

Originally posted by Wardad:
Yes, Cities have some defense advantages.
There are ways to counter the advantages, BUT... you can not do that and preserve civilian homes and lives.

Thats the problem . When GWB starts killing civilians.... where does it end?

Originally posted by Wardad:
Using concusion bombs, flame throwers, and flooding basements and tunnels with water can be quick and very effective.

Russia tried the destroy-way in Grosney (or how do you spell it) and after years, they still are there. Thats not an option for Bush.

Originally posted by Wardad:
To clear a city surgically with minimal loss of troops requires intel (native cooperation) and time to play a patient game cat and mouse.

There is no way to play it with few losses. City war cancels out all technoligy. Big guns and tanks just won't work in cities.

Patient? Thats the problem Bush has. He is in a hurry.... He has to have fast results, few losses and do it before the elections, else he is gone.

Its a loose-loose position GWB is in right now. If he is cornered to much, who know what will happen??? Maybe nuking Bagdad? cuz the war took to long and to many soldiers???
But this is a horror senario that is possible! Dick C. said before (and the neo-conservatives) "We will use "Tactical nuke" when needed". *shudders*

R.

[Askan Nightbringer]

Originally posted by primitive:
On a side note, has there even been a formal declaration of war against Iraq ?

This was in the Australian press, as Australia did not officially declare war. The Prime Minister said there was no reason to declare war as there was enough justification through the Last million or so resolutions. As our PM seems to parrot Washington's argument I assume the US has taken the same stance.

Askan
Oh, I understand the Ratings systems is silly, but after my small whine I noticed a got a few good Ratings. I feel like a little beggar boy now.

[Krsqk]

Patient? Thats the problem Bush has. He is in a hurry.... He has to have fast results, few losses and do it before the elections, else he is gone.

Yeah, that's why he refuses to put a timeframe on the war, instead saying that we'll fight "as long as it takes."

RE: casualties--Right now, the PR problem with casualties is that there are too few of them. The media can take time to cover each one in graphic, mind-numbing detail and still not have enough news to fill up their 24-hour coverage. They would still report it if there had been hundreds so far, but they would be limited to just one or two stories, instead of forty. I'm not saying that I want casualties, just commenting on the coverage of them.

RE: civilian casualties--There will be civilian casualties in any war. That is part of the cost of waging war. The US is pussyfooting to prevent any civilian casualties, perhaps too much to wage an effective war. When the fight gets to Baghdad, there will be hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilian casualties. If the US is too aggressive, they will be perceived as uncaring. If they are too passive, though, hundreds or thousands more US troops will die (aren't their lives worth something, too?), as well as far greater numbers of Iraqis who die from the side-effects of having a drawn-out war fought in your city. [edit] Oh, and there is the technology to negate the defensive advantages of city fighting, but it's not ready for widespread use yet. Probably in 2-3 years, though, it will be standard equipment at the division level, at least.

RE: WMDs--My guess is that Saddam will use them at some time against the US troops, provided he gets the chance. I also have a suspicion that he has several mobile launchers sitting out in the desert, just in range of...the coalition POW camp. Yep, let's finish off the infidels and the cowardly traitors at the same time. Just a guess.

[ March 28, 2003, 00:19: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[dogscoff]

Very few that have entered any opinions (on any side) in this thread still have a 5 star rating.

I started with my 4 stars (that's a deliberate 4, by the way) and I still have 4 stars- no-one listens to me, obviously

[Askan Nightbringer]

Listens to who?

Askan

[tesco samoa]

Today a US Command centre was attacked by artie. 37 injured. IT did return fire. Only problem was that it was an artie marine base that lobbed the shells over.

The Iraq army should pull back and let the British and US attack each other. This friendly fire is brutal... Where is the inquries to remove these blunders.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by jimbob:
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 ). 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.

Granted, there was not much time left but I think at least one or two more weeks would have been possible. One could argue that they even could have waited over the summer and attack – if needed – in autumn. I see that this would have been very cost intensive. However, maybe an arrangement would have been possible to collect the money from the UN member states. I think after France and Germany could hardly said “no” to this after they demanded more time. Don’t know about Kuwait, maybe they too would have given money. Finally, this war will cost at least 70 to 80 billion dollars. If you used this money to support the troops over summer and maybe avoid the war altogether, it would be worth it and maybe it would even be a cheaper way. But we’ll never know…