War on iraq

[arkadeyevich 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Nov. 11 2002,15:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">simple....just surround it and let them hunger. (old medieval tactic)<span id='postcolor'>

Do you really think the american public will have the stomach for this?

[Jinef 2]

What What, 0600 to 1800 eh? Jolly spiffing chaps, you see the true English gentleman does not fight after six, it's time for a spot of tea you see?

Yeah Balschoiw is right, time is on iraq's side. America is impatient, it wants results immediately and no casualties which is pretty much what hapened in 1991 (apart from removing Saddam from power part lol)

As GB senior said "this will not be another Vietnam". Well GWB is going to have to say if he goes in "uhhhhhh.......well.........remember Vietnam...................it's sort of.......................like that.....sort of.....maybe.......god bless america?"

[5thSFG.Hawkins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Nov. 11 2002,18:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(apart from removing Saddam from power part lol)<span id='postcolor'>

What does that mean?  If you would happen to read the events that occured prior to the Gulf War, you would understand.  The UN Security Council resolution did not provide the authority to remove Saddam from power.  It was simply to remove Iraqi presence from Kuwait. The objectives that were created at the time were met.

[Jinef 2]

Oh for gods sake. That twat George Bush senior was saying the same crap his son is now:

"We are going to go in and remove Saddam."

Everyone calls the Gulf War a success, well you certainly didn't complete all your objectives did you? As we are now talking about going back for another shot at it!

They were calling for a regime change after the war had started and it became a new objective.

[Guest]

Hmm. What part about "no politics in this thread" was unclear?

[5thSFG.Hawkins 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 12 2002,02:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm. What part about "no politics in this thread" was unclear?<span id='postcolor'>

It was crystal clear to me, Denoir.

[NavyEEL 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (5thSFG.Hawkins @ Nov. 12 2002,02:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 12 2002,02:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm. What part about "no politics in this thread" was unclear?<span id='postcolor'>

It was crystal clear to me, Denoir.<span id='postcolor'>

Me too

[sseagle 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Nov. 11 2002,21:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh for gods sake. That twat George Bush senior was saying the same crap his son is now:

"We are going to go in and remove Saddam."

Everyone calls the Gulf War a success, well you certainly didn't complete all your objectives did you? As we are now talking about going back for another shot at it!

They were calling for a regime change after the war had started and it became a new objective.<span id='postcolor'>

Removing Saddam WAS NOT an objective in Storm.....

Jesus Christ....

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Never discussing politics or hot topics gets kind of boring after a while. We could also talk about knitting techniques, it is winter and all of us will need new pullovers.

I already said it a few weeks before and I know a few people did not agree but I would try to move directly into the capital. Such an attack and hold mission would certainly be very intense but I think it is the only solution to destroy the military line of authority. You simply chop off the head and the military headquarters and their masterminds are all in Baghdad. The consequences for the US might be severe in terms of casualties (but hey they want the war) but the war becomes certainly a lot more dirty if they fail to delete the command centre. If Saddam realy owns weapons of mass-destruction then he will be smart enough to do so, if he is given the time.

But I guess it is gonna be a clean fast war (since Saddam hardly has any of those weapons) and th US will celebrate their troops as if they had beaten a Hitler armed with a tremendous USSR-ATOMIC POTENTIAL and tons of Killer viruses. What remains in Iraq will be sand (as usuall) and some american oil companies setting up facilities with their new chosen Iraqi business-partners. Cheers!

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Nov. 11 2002,14:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Never discussing politics or hot topics gets kind of boring after a while. We could also talk about knitting techniques, it is winter and all of us will need new pullovers.<span id='postcolor'>

In Belgium we have shops, you can buy your clothes there. At least if you have money.

[ran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Nov. 12 2002,17:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ Nov. 11 2002,14:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Never discussing politics or hot topics gets kind of boring after a while. We could also talk about knitting techniques, it is winter and all of us will need new pullovers.<span id='postcolor'>

In Belgium we have shops, you can buy your clothes there.  At least if you have money.<span id='postcolor'>

still fun to knit your own pullovers , i remember a girlfriend who had great skills at pullover knitting and who made a few really styly ones

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

yes I know, but I cant afford to go to shops, I am investing all into building my little home-nuclear-bomb!

[Placebo 29]

You want this thread to be closed? If so carry on talking about things not related to the title and it can be closed.

[Jinef 2]

Okay then for the good of the thread!

The main problem in attacking iraq will be all the new AA stuff he got from the Ukraine. which is funny cause the Americans are vexed at a few countries that have recently been selling stuff to him.

But the new (i think they were SA11s) can be concealed and directed from ground stations and also switch to IR mode if radar acqusition (spelling) is lost which will take down low and slow aircraft like helis easily.

And the problem is they are hard for anti radiation missiles to get because of their very short time between aquiring and firing.

it's basically the eastern version of a hawk.

[Guest]

The SA-11 is good against low speed low altitude targets. Yugoslavia had a whole lot of them and it didn't do them any good.

Soviet AA systems are excellent, but the US air power is better still. Yugoslavia had one of the biggest AA defense grids in the world; sure they bagged an F117 and a bunch of F-16's, but it was nowhere enough.

[FSPilot 0]

I'm still shocked they got an F-117.

Must of had his bay doors open or something.

Anyway, the F-117 and other stealth bombers are pretty good at taking out SAM and AAA sites, so they shouldn't be a problem. If they turn out to be, we could always lob a few cruise missiles at it.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Nov. 13 2002,00:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm still shocked they got an F-117.

Must of had his bay doors open or something.<span id='postcolor'>

Nah, the F-117 are far from invisible when you have a dense radar grid. Sure the signal bounces the wrong way, but if there is a radar station to pick it up where it goes, then there is no stealth. The Swedish military announced a couple of years ago that all current radarstations in Sweden have been upgraded with new software that allowed for cooperation and synch between different radar sites making stealth detection fairly easy.

Yugoslavia had a similar system. Their problem was that their military was down on their knees after 10 years of warmaking. The hardware wasn't being maintained as it should and the people operating the stuff was far less competent then before the war. Combine that with the insanely high-altitude of the NATO bombings it made it very difficult for them to make the whole thing work.

I am however surprised that they downed so few aircraft. I don't have the figures in my head but it was something like 15 F-16's a couple of Tornados two Awacs birds some F-15's (don't remember how many) and of course the famed F-117. These are of course numbers given by NATO. The Serbs claimed something like 300 planes downed, which should be regarded with great scepticism.

[FSPilot 0]

Makes sense. Kind of scary to know that one of our best aircraft has a pretty exploitable flaw.

[ale2999 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Nov. 13 2002,01:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Makes sense.  Kind of scary to know that one of our best aircraft has a pretty exploitable flaw.<span id='postcolor'>

it is not the best aircraft anymore, it is a rather old one . Fyi it came in service in 1982 and only in the 90's its excitence was confirmed. U dont wanna know what stuff they have now....

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (arkadeyevich @ Nov. 11 2002,11:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Nov. 11 2002,15:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">simple....just surround it and let them hunger. (old medieval tactic)<span id='postcolor'>

Do you really think the american public will have the stomach for this?<span id='postcolor'>

Actually, it would take a god damn long time... and only once all private citizens starve/die will the army start dying. They would take everything for themselves in that situation, what's left goes to civvies.

Maybe the US pop. would not even find out about it until it was long over.

Anyway, I agree; bring the fighting to the cities for sure... but the whole idea of another war is sick to me.

[Badgerboy 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am however surprised that they downed so few aircraft. I don't have the figures in my head but it was something like 15 F-16's a couple of Tornados two Awacs birds some F-15's (don't remember how many) and of course the famed F-117. These are of course numbers given by NATO. The Serbs claimed something like 300 planes downed, which should be regarded with great scepticism. <span id='postcolor'>

Where did you get those numbers Denoir? The context your using makes it look as if they were all shot down in the Yugoslav attacks, and I know we lost no Tornado's there. However, if your refering to Iraqi, they didn't loose any F117's there.

Confusing...

[red oct 2]

does anybody know which friday is the deadline for the new UN arms inspection? is it this coming friday?

[Badgerboy 0]

Yes this Friday. The Iraqi parliment rejected it, but Saddam will probably accept it.

[red oct 2]

i hope he does...

[ralphwiggum 6]

seems like he will. from news, it says that Saddam's eldest son, Uday, sent letter with views that is aligned more with accepting inspectors.