Defensive ring around baghdad

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Jan. 08 2003,00:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It'd just make it that much easier to take the rest of the country.  We didn't occupy Baghdad in the first war and they surrendered, why would we need to do it this time?<span id='postcolor'>

Because we were fighting in Kuwait before!

[cam0flage 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 08 2003,00:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA recently stated that they will use nukes if they are forced to. Does that mean that USA would use them if they were being invaded by an other country?

I believe Saddam is pretty aware of the consequences that would follow a chemical attack. He is not that stupid.<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't there a treaty which bans the use of nuclear weapons against a nation which doesn't have them that the United States has signed? Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cam0flage @ Jan. 08 2003,00:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 08 2003,00:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA recently stated that they will use nukes if they are forced to. Does that mean that USA would use them if they were being invaded by an other country?

I believe Saddam is pretty aware of the consequences that would follow a chemical attack. He is not that stupid.<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't there a treaty which bans the use of nuclear weapons against a nation which doesn't have them that the United States has signed? Correct me if I'm wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Nations are bound to the Geneva convention in war, but thats about it.

[Harnu 0]

To sustain our Ego's of crouse FSPilot

As denior said, saddam does have the tactical advantage. However it won't work.

Taking the rest of the country would make it easy on America. Just wait, they can't hold out forever. But then that poses the problem of 'what if'. Does saddam have WMD that he would use if he truly sees loss. Taking him down, but he brings a lot of us with him.

I truly feel sorry for those civilians that must stay. However, they probably know what they are getting themselves into. It doesn't take a lot to know that you could most likely die from this. When I say "civilian" I mean the ones who aren't holding weapons and shooting back. Even if they are forced to fight, we have to do what we have to do in event of a war.

SF and CIA operatives that are already in IRAQ as spies/civilians would probably be issued orders to locate assets, and what not.

Saddam would not hold out. A final desperate act of cornering yourself and surrounding yourself with your defence is obviously not a good move.

As far as how we would go about attacking them, well Urban Warfare hasn't really been a main battlefield for the US quite yet. So we are at a disadvantage. Apaches would be extremely voulnerable. However the M1A1's and M1A2's do stand a chance. Unelss the roads are packed to the brimm with mines.

In the end, the US will win. The war in Iraq wont be easy, but we can do it. Probably without extreme casualties. However Saddam in the final acts of the war will kill the moral of the US somehow. Wether it be with Scuds on bases, WMD to surrounding places, something will happen. The US won't regret the war till the bitter end.

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 08 2003,05:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Because we were fighting in Kuwait before!<span id='postcolor'>

Exactly.  We didn't touch Baghdad and they still surrendered.

edit - didnt touch with ground troops

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Necromancer- @ Jan. 07 2003,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well... I would use a massive amount of sleeping gas while having Bagdad in siege.

You will catch the most of the remaining opposition in sleep. Civillians will be sleeping in their beds, thus resulting in a more minimal civillian loss.

I doubt you could hold a sleeping person as a human shield.

By the time Iraqi intelligence read this.... they're too late to adapt.<span id='postcolor'>

Did you already forget what happened in the Moscow Theatre hostage situation when sleeping gas was used? That stuff is not something to play with. Sure the majority made it out, but it was far from safe.

[bn880 5]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tovarish @ Jan. 07 2003,19:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did you already forget what happened in the Moscow Theatre hostage situation when sleeping gas was used? That stuff is not something to play with. Sure the majority made it out, but it was far from safe.<span id='postcolor'>

Now that's a convincing point if I ever read one.

[Supah 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,22:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for after the war, the US actually has a good record for rebuilding defeated nations, Germany, Japan, Afganistan.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah with leaders as Roosevelt, Churchill and men like George Catlett Marshall around everything went fine. These were intelligent men who honestly wanted to create a stable europe through making europe prosperious. GWB however is think along the terms of a laughable 1,5 years to rebuild iraq or atleast install a government .... common he has to be kidding. Afghanistan is not much better off then under the taliban as GWB and cohorts have made no attempt to oust the warlords who are destroying the country again and the aid supplied has been half hearted. But offcourse you dont have much time if you have over a dozen countries left on daddies hitlist. GWB is doing america allot more harm then Osama ever could. The mood towards the USA has changed in europe. When GWB was elected most europeans felt that this was wrong. The elections were botched and he befrauded the american electorate live on CNN. Most europeans were of the opinion that it wasnt right but ok .... then the september 11 attacks. Most of us on the other side of the big pond sympathize with the USA. But now after seeing bush break down everything clinton did in all those years, annuling treaties allready signed just to satisfy people who gave him money for his campaign, Being two faced about the whole WMD story, attacking iraq with questionable motives and not giving them an honest chance at all to comply, pushing North korea to the brink of war ...... GWB and the USA in general has little or no support left in europe. The country i live in (the netherlands) has always been an allie of the USA and a member of NATO who pulled their weight. Last few months sentiments have arisen here to pull out of nato as it has come to not much more then GWB his private war machine. People are not happy about the US anymore and even its oldest allies are losing allot of their sympathy towards the USA in large due to GWB .... its sad but its the way it is.

[cam0flage 0]

I don't think the rebuilding operations of post-WWII Europe and Japan can be compared to Afghanistan. Supah brought up the issue of local warlords roaming around Afghanistan in the previous post, this was something the post-war Europe and Japan didn't have. I don't know what would happen after a war in Iraq and the fall of Saddam's regime, but I guess the Kurd minority in northern Iraq would try to attempt to benefit from the situation.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 08 2003,00:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cam0flage @ Jan. 08 2003,00:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Llauma @ Jan. 08 2003,00:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">USA recently stated that they will use nukes if they are forced to. Does that mean that USA would use them if they were being invaded by an other country?

I believe Saddam is pretty aware of the consequences that would follow a chemical attack. He is not that stupid.<span id='postcolor'>

Isn't there a treaty which bans the use of nuclear weapons against a nation which doesn't have them that the United States has signed? Correct me if I'm wrong.<span id='postcolor'>

Nations are bound to the Geneva convention in war, but thats about it.<span id='postcolor'>

Only if you regard your oponent as a military force. However you define them as terorist you can do whatever you want. So since the war on Iraq is called a "preventive step against terorism" I would rather die than ending up Guantanamo bay. On the other hand they got nice wheather there and a beach and stuff!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

As for after the war, the US actually has a good record for rebuilding defeated nations, Germany, Japan, Afganistan

As far as Germany is concerned I totally agree with you. And the Germans will always be greatful for that. Especially those in the Eastern sector. Of course a strong germany was considered as a good barrier to stand against the sowjet union and so the US had more in mind than just saving lifes. But to beat that argument you can say that the Americans neither raped german women nor did they commit great crime against humanity. And this considering the fact what germany had done to the world. Also was Germany quickly given back its independance. It wasnt only Germanies success to be World Power 3 allready 30 years after the war.

Ich bin ein Berliner and please Mr. Gorbatchow tear down that wall!

[ralphwiggum 6]

one outcome that i hope for, is that IF war actually happens, US will let Saddam runaway to other country seeking refuge with his cohorts. than he'll be a lion without claws. and we can take him to international court if we can prove that he did something that warants international court's attention.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Jan. 07 2003,21:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">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.<span id='postcolor'>

You were not that wrong about Afganistan. Back in their day, soviets stormed Afganistan in a short time and took Kabul. So did US troops. The rest of the war the soviets tried to pacify the rest of Afganistan by rooting out the roving bands of mujahedin, without a success. US troops may have eliminated Taliban as a coherent, identifiable entity and installed a puppet ruler who now sits in Kabul pretending he is in charge, but in reality the warlords are still ruling their little domains, Osama is free and there has even been news about Al-Qaeda re-establishing their terror training camps. With their heritage of eternal warfare, the Afghans have learned to bend with the wind and then just go on with their business as usual. The war in Afghanistan is is no way over and at the moment it does not look too good for the U.S. (especially when their troops are harassing the civilian population and thus instilling hatred towards yanks).

[Chill 0]

I hope saddams defences work! USA need a kick in the ass

[Necromancer- 0]

Hmn..

Better start investing stock in Texas Instruments and Raytheon.

[Supah 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ Jan. 08 2003,04:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and we can take him to international court if we can prove that he did something that warants international court's attention.<span id='postcolor'>

Which wont be hard at all knowing saddam

*edit* It might be interresting to see if the USA does use the ICC if its an enemy ..... though i doubt they will just seize him and take him to the USA. I think the ICC will look more "impartial". Offcourse there will always be people who will say it wasnt a fair trail no matter what .....

[Longinius 1]

"though i doubt they will just seize him and take him to the USA. I think the ICC will look more "impartial". Offcourse there will always be people who will say it wasnt a fair trail no matter what ....."

What gives the US any rights to sentence Saddam?

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ Jan. 08 2003,12:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">What gives the US any rights to sentence Saddam?<span id='postcolor'>

Not any other, but the right of force. History is written by the victors.

[FallenPaladin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 08 2003,12:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">History is written by the victors.<span id='postcolor'>

My favourite Braveheart quote

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FallenPaladin @ Jan. 08 2003,13:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Jan. 08 2003,12:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">History is written by the victors.<span id='postcolor'>

My favourite Braveheart quote  <span id='postcolor'>

I thought it was Hugo.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supah @ Jan. 07 2003,03:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 07 2003,22:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for after the war, the US actually has a good record for rebuilding defeated nations, Germany, Japan, Afganistan.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah with leaders as Roosevelt, Churchill and men like George Catlett Marshall around everything went fine. These were intelligent men who honestly wanted to create a stable europe through making europe prosperious. GWB however is think along the terms of a laughable 1,5 years to rebuild iraq or atleast install a government .... common he has to be kidding.  Afghanistan is not much better off then under the taliban as GWB and cohorts have made no attempt to oust the warlords who are destroying the country again and the aid supplied has been half hearted. But offcourse you dont have much time if you have over a dozen countries left on daddies hitlist. GWB is doing america allot more harm then Osama ever could. The mood towards the USA has changed in europe. When GWB was elected most europeans felt that this was wrong. The elections were botched and he befrauded the american electorate live on CNN. Most europeans were of the opinion that it wasnt right but ok .... then the september 11 attacks.  Most of us on the other side of the big pond sympathize with the USA. But now after seeing bush break down everything clinton did in all those years, annuling treaties allready signed just to satisfy people who gave him money for his campaign, Being two faced about the whole WMD story, attacking iraq with questionable motives and not giving them an honest chance at all to comply, pushing North korea to the brink of war ...... GWB and the USA in general has little or no support left in europe. The country i live in (the netherlands) has always been an allie of the USA and a member of NATO who pulled their weight. Last few months sentiments have arisen here to pull out of nato as it has come to not much more then GWB his private war machine. People are not happy about the US anymore and even its oldest allies are losing allot of their sympathy towards the USA in large due to GWB .... its sad but its the way it is.<span id='postcolor'>

True, same here in Belgium...

[Blake 0]

At the time, I was pretty firm about the Afganistan incursion and certain that Taliban would fall as it had just recently come to power, still fought against the northern alliance and was very much disliked by ordinary Afgans. Also their will to fight was quite questionable.

The Soviets had a vastly different situation as they practically couped legal government, killed the prime minister and installed a communist puppet government. It was more like a brutal invasion than intervention-like operation that US conducted. Unsurprisingly, Soviet invaders alienated the people with the ruthless invasion while US could exploit the hatred towards Taleban regime and could rely on Northern Alliance - there was no need for such large-scale (and costly) ground invasion as Soviets had to launch in 1979.

Now, in the probable war with Iraq I think it all depends on the fighting spirit of Iraqi troops and people. It also depends on the level of casualties US is able to withstand. If the operation leads to heavy urban fighting around Baghdad and other major cities, casualties will be high despite the training and technology. Situation is more difficult than in 1991 when Iraqi Army was on the verge of collapse and people in north and south of Iraq made an uprising against Saddam's regime.

But US stalled the attack and the cease-fire allowed Saddam to regain his position and defeat the uprisings without the fear of reprisals. US was acting according to UN mandate on ejecting Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, nothing more.

Today Saddam has much better position than he had at the end of Gulf War, but in the end his position will depend on the loalty of his army which is a big question mark. It all might be a hollow shell. The loyalty to Saddam might just be theatretical act, based on fear and with proper covert diplomacy Iraqi regime could collapse as Saddam's officers would turn against him.

But we just have to wait and see what will happen...

However IF we assume Saddam is toppled successfully, I wouldn't say Iraq would instantly fall into chaos and brink of civil war. In fact it has much better infastructure, natural resources and integrity than countries like Afganistan. UN sanctions would be instantly lifted, elections could be held on some time span, heavy investment on military budget would cease and tight censorship would stop. All of it should please the ordinary Iraqi taxpayer. Some kind of autonomy-federation agreement with Kurds in the north would please them and rebels in the south as neither of them has demanded full independence from Iraq.

I think postwar Iraq is not the main concern, main issue is how the possible war will be fought.

[RMATICH 0]

U.S. will pulverize ANY significant forces with cruise missles and smart bombs. Then Apaches, A-10s etc will probably do "clean up" operations. Then tanks, Bradlys, M113s, etc with troops will move in to "fan" [control] the city. Before any of that takes place though the communications, transit, military command & control, and other "vital" areas will be smart bombed back to the stone age. Republican Guard troops will give up in mass quantities just as they did in the Gulf War. Its all just a matter of time. No Somolia will happen because we have learned our lssons from that. Lots of light armor and attack helos [Apaches & Cobras etc.] will provide any sniper cover for ground ops. Thats the way I think it will go. I could be wrong and it could be a bloody stalemate but I don't think so.

[Wick_105 0]

FIRST OF ALL (and I like saying this) George "W" Bush is a little off his rocker...no offence to any americans.

a point to somthing I read...the republican gaurd was put in reserve in the first gulf war...it didnt surrender, I read this from an article from sandhearst military collage in england...a cuple of days ago I was watching the news and it was army day in Iraq...the republican gaurd put on a drill display that would put any american unit to shame...yes I know that cerimonial drill does'nt mean crap on the battlefield, but it shows that they are well trained and well equipt. also I would like to point out that AS A FACT... you never face the same adversary on the same battlefield...and this, the U.S. army docterine is on the internet, so all sadam has to do is read it and watch C.N.N. and wait.

GWB as I have seen him refered to as...is no more a military leader as I am.

I hate to see soldiers die because of lack of compitence in the leadership of a country.

sorry for any trouble.

[Blake 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wick_105 @ Jan. 09 2003,11:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">GWB as I have seen him refered to as...is no more a military leader as I am.<span id='postcolor'>

We'll he is not going to lead US armed forces HIMSELF, joint-chiefs-of-staff, generals do that you know. He has simply to say 'yes' or 'no' and his military staff will do the rest.

Did you think his father was the military genius behind the plan when Iraqis were ejected from Kuwait in the Gulf War?

But as you stated he's not (and shouldn't) be any better military reader than average citizen.

As Saddam I wouldn't put too much weight on his Republican Guards as their performance in the Gulf War was very poor.

Never make judgement of an army by the look of their parades...