Akira 0 Posted January 7, 2003 Saddam's Defense Looks like Saddam is setting up for a defensive war of attrition, planning on drawing the US forces into a prolonged, urban warfare situation. Looks like his main plan is to concentrate around Baghdad. What about civilians? If you wanted to leave the city do you think Saddam would allow it? Or do you think he hands them a gun and says "Defend or else"? Hopefully this won't get closed. The other Iraq thread was getting cluttered and thrown off on tangents. So I decided to make seperate N. Korea and Iraq threads. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallenPaladin 0 Posted January 7, 2003 I think he would mobilize all civilians around. And they would follow him, because they would suffer if they didn`t join the fight. But over 50% of them would surely be volunteers, because the people in the arabic countries don`t want to live the american dream. They see the world from a different point of view and because of that they`ll defend their country and fight. Their thoughts may be that a ruling dictator is a bad thing, but the invasion and taking over by a foreign force is even worse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkLight 0 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Jan. 06 2003,16:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think he would mobilize all civilians around. And they would follow him, because they would suffer if they didn`t join the fight. But over 50% of them would surely be volunteers, because the people in the arabic countries don`t want to live the american dream. They see the world from a different point of view and because of that they`ll defend their country and fight. Their thoughts may be that a ruling dictator is a bad thing, but the invasion and taking over by a foreign force is even worse.<span id='postcolor'> Indeed... probable the same as what might happen in Iraq. But let's not talk about that in this thread... Most of the people will defend their country while not being forced to do so... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (DarkLight @ Jan. 07 2003,16:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Indeed... probable the same as what might happen in Iraq. But let's not talk about that in this thread...<span id='postcolor'> Umm...why not? This IS the/a Iraq thread Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DarkLight 0 Posted January 7, 2003 Darn, just returned from school, i'm tired as hell... Guess i made a mistake, actually, i dunno why i even said that Perhaps i should live a bit healthier... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Necromancer- 0 Posted January 7, 2003 Sounds like a good defense. But i wonder how the Iraqi's would cope with the M1A2 MBT's supported by AH-64 gunships. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sadico 1 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sounds like a good defense. But i wonder how the Iraqi's would cope with the M1A2 MBT's supported by AH-64 gunships.<span id='postcolor'> Maybe the same way the Chechens destroyed T-80's and Mi-24's in Grozny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
llauma 0 Posted January 7, 2003 Iraq is to be slaughtered by a far superior military force so what are they supposed to do? Saddam has done what he can and what should be expected of him to avoid a war but Mr Bush has made up his mind. He will finish what his father started, and nothing wont stop him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Jan. 07 2003,17:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sounds like a good defense. But i wonder how the Iraqi's would cope with the M1A2 MBT's supported by AH-64 gunships.<span id='postcolor'> Maybe the same way the Chechens destroyed T-80's and Mi-24's in Grozny.<span id='postcolor'> What of long range artillery and airstrikes designed to pulvarize the Inner Ring? Would it stand against that? How long would the troops retain fighting positions if such an onslaught was put against them? This is the vaunted Republican Guard, but they crumbled almost as quickly as "regular" troops in the first Desert Storm. And I think to compare Chechens and Iraqis is to oversimplify and to draw comparisons where none can be made. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 07 2003,17:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Iraq is to be slaughtered by a far superior military force so what are they supposed to do? Saddam has done what he can and what should be expected of him to avoid a war but Mr Bush has made up his mind. He will finish what his father started, and nothing wont stop him.<span id='postcolor'> create the maximum of civilian casualties , make the impossible to hide and show picture everywhere in international medias and kick the american sf's ass with the help of the number a m1a2 and an ah64 is more vulnerble and lost of its use in urban environnement i think that saddm's strategy is pretty good , i would have done the same ... desperate case , desperate solution Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,18:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Jan. 07 2003,17:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sounds like a good defense. But i wonder how the Iraqi's would cope with the M1A2 MBT's supported by AH-64 gunships.<span id='postcolor'> Maybe the same way the Chechens destroyed T-80's and Mi-24's in Grozny.<span id='postcolor'> What of long range artillery and airstrikes designed to pulvarize the Inner Ring? Would it stand against that? How long would the troops retain fighting positions if such an onslaught was put against them? This is the vaunted Republican Guard, but they crumbled almost as quickly as "regular" troops in the first Desert Storm. And I think to compare Chechens and Iraqis is to oversimplify and to draw comparisons where none can be made.<span id='postcolor'> i thinkthat a lot of the bahgdad's inhabitants will fight for their houses .... and if not , they'll get slaughtered by the US artillery ...... and what you'll have done will be (i mean in proportions) worst than what saddam did on the kurds Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Jan. 07 2003,18:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">7--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,187)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Jan. 07 2003,17:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sounds like a good defense. But i wonder how the Iraqi's would cope with the M1A2 MBT's supported by AH-64 gunships.<span id='postcolor'> Maybe the same way the Chechens destroyed T-80's and Mi-24's in Grozny.<span id='postcolor'> What of long range artillery and airstrikes designed to pulvarize the Inner Ring? Would it stand against that? How long would the troops retain fighting positions if such an onslaught was put against them? This is the vaunted Republican Guard, but they crumbled almost as quickly as "regular" troops in the first Desert Storm. And I think to compare Chechens and Iraqis is to oversimplify and to draw comparisons where none can be made.<span id='postcolor'> i thinkthat a lot of the bahgdad's inhabitants will fight for their houses .... and if not , they'll get slaughtered by the US artillery ...... and what you'll have done will be (i mean in proportions) worst than what saddam did on the kurds<span id='postcolor'> Let us not forget that this ring is outside of Baghdad, and manned by Saddams personal Republican Guard, not civilians. If civilians were to take up arms and join these troops they become combatants and would be subject to military force whether that is right or wrong. Fighting block by block will destroy houses. Not fighting will not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,18:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Jan. 07 2003,18:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,18<!--emo&)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ Jan. 07 2003,17:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sounds like a good defense. But i wonder how the Iraqi's would cope with the M1A2 MBT's supported by AH-64 gunships.<span id='postcolor'> Maybe the same way the Chechens destroyed T-80's and Mi-24's in Grozny.<span id='postcolor'> What of long range artillery and airstrikes designed to pulvarize the Inner Ring? Would it stand against that? How long would the troops retain fighting positions if such an onslaught was put against them? This is the vaunted Republican Guard, but they crumbled almost as quickly as "regular" troops in the first Desert Storm. And I think to compare Chechens and Iraqis is to oversimplify and to draw comparisons where none can be made.<span id='postcolor'> i thinkthat a lot of the bahgdad's inhabitants will fight for their houses .... and if not , they'll get slaughtered by the US artillery ...... and what you'll have done will be (i mean in proportions) worst than what saddam did on the kurds<span id='postcolor'> Let us not forget that this ring is outside of Baghdad, and manned by Saddams personal Republican Guard, not civilians. If civilians were to take up arms and join these troops they become combatants and would be subject to military force whether that is right or wrong. Fighting block by block will destroy houses. Not fighting will not.<span id='postcolor'> what's the goal of US army in Iraq precisely ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted January 7, 2003 I would say the ousting of one Saddam Hussein. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted January 7, 2003 didn't itpass through your mind that the republican guard could retreat in bahgdad ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,18:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would say the ousting of one Saddam Hussein.<span id='postcolor'> and after ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Jan. 07 2003,18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">didn't itpass through your mind that the republican guard could retreat in bahgdad ?<span id='postcolor'> While at the same time acknowledging that that would be the "smart play" for the Special Republican Guards to do, I don't see how the US can be held accountable for bringing the fighting into the city. One thing is for sure...if war happens it has the potential to get REAL ugly. And as for after...I know I report just came out that said the US was prepared to stay in Iraq for UP TO a year and a half to stablize the country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Die Alive 0 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ran @ Jan. 07 2003,12:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,18:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would say the ousting of one Saddam Hussein.<span id='postcolor'> and after ?<span id='postcolor'> Rebuilding Iraq? -=Die Alive=- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Assault (CAN) 1 Posted January 7, 2003 No matter what the strategy, it all depends on public opinion. If U.S. casualties are too excessive (ie: more than one person) people at home will bitch about it. When Iraqi civilians die, then more people will bitch and moan about civilian casualties. If either of these things happen, then the U.S. might pull out, even though it is possible to conquer Iraq. Tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
llauma 0 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,18:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And as for after...I know I report just came out that said the US was prepared to stay in Iraq for UP TO a year and a half to stablize the country.<span id='postcolor'> So USA will occupy Iraq until they get a pro american goverment? Don't you honestly see the problem with that? You keep asking for terrorist attacks... Just as Israel have today due to their actions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 07 2003,18:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,18:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And as for after...I know I report just came out that said the US was prepared to stay in Iraq for UP TO a year and a half to stablize the country.<span id='postcolor'> So USA will occupy Iraq until they get a pro american goverment? Don't you honestly see the problem with that? You keep asking for terrorist attacks... Just as Israel have today due to their actions.<span id='postcolor'> I see a problem with ousting a leader and then just pulling out. Naturally we would put someone in that likes us...should we install the next Khomini? Where's the logic of that? In the ideal world Iraqi's will get to choose, and that just might be the case, observers and administrators are suppose to head to Baghdad after. If we stick around for stabilization we are lambasted. If we pull out we are lambasted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
llauma 0 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ Jan. 07 2003,18:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would say the ousting of one Saddam Hussein.<span id='postcolor'> Alot of people do not like G.W. Bush and think he is a threat against them. Does this give them the right to bomb Washington D.C. just to eliminate Mr Bush? There are no difference! We western people might think Bush is the good guy and Saddam is the bad, but arabic people think the opposite.. Edit: Spelling Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Othin 0 Posted January 7, 2003 IF a coalition including the United States enters Iraq to bring about a regime change, then there is no chance of success for the military of Iraq. That is a fact. They do not have the manpower, the morale, or the weapons to counter an invasion from a coalition force. They simply cannot win unless the opposing forces withdraw. The only tactic they've come up with is to withdraw within the city of Baghdad and somehow inflict "great losses" upon the "invaders". Please. Their defense boils down to hiding in shelters and hoping enough of their fellow (unarmed) countrymen die that "world opinion" will cause the opposing forces to quit. Sadaam needs to act on the supposed great love he feels for his country and step down (along with his sons) and pave the way for a new government. I also don't neccisarily think that the "dissidents" in the U.S. should have anything to do with the government. It should be decided by the people of Iraq. Please don't tell me that the people of Iraq would or have chosen Sadaam because that election was a farce... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 7, 2003 From a strategic viewpoint, there is no discussion. Saddam doesn't stand a chance. From a tactical point of view, I would say he has an advantage. As several people mentioned, urban warfare could be a problem for the US. Not military, but politically. Even small losses (say 1000 soldiers) would damage the political will to keep fighting. I can see many reasons why it could become a very shitty situation for US forces. I'm however not willing to make any predictions. I thought Afganistan would be a disaster, considering what problems the Soviets had two decades earlier. I was obviously wrong. Now the situation in Iraq is very different, but I am also sure that the US military command is perfectly aware of that. So I don't know. There are too many unknown factors to deal with for me to make a meaningful prediction or analysis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted January 7, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 07 2003,12:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No matter what the strategy, it all depends on public opinion. If U.S. casualties are too excessive (ie: more than one person) people at home will bitch about it. When Iraqi civilians die, then more people will bitch and moan about civilian casualties.<span id='postcolor'> You know, from time to time I do agree with you. EDIT: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">When Iraqi civilians die, then more people will bitch and moan about civilian casualties.<span id='postcolor'> That is if people were to find out the truth as it is happening. (ultimate example:Our soldiers were subjects of friendly fire and still we were not told the truth about the pilots being on narcotics and uninformed) Denoir: There are always many factors in a fight of any kind, when I watch two guys step into the ring in (insert brutal finghting organization name here) I know there are various things that can happen, but I could bet my savings after the first few seconds on one opponent. I suppose you would need to have some serious knowledge of everything involved to predict the outcome of a war, especially the political status... that's what's missing. I don't think anyone here has all the required information about both sides, and the unknowns make it nearly impossible to guess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
