The Dogs of War

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Mar. 24 2003,23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WTF do ICBM's have to do with war in Iraq  <span id='postcolor'>

Missile interception systems like the Patriot is the obvious link

[interstat 0]

Yeah, the Patriot is dodgy, remmebr a few years nack seeing an indepth documentary about it, how the report they presented to the committe reporting on their effectivity was 'enhanced' in certain respects.

Do big business, who is involved in the military contracting, and the financial stakes all play a part in what weapons are bought and re-commisioned?

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,23:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 24 2003,23:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Showing the dead U.S. kids has enraged most Americans.  It seems the opinion has become, "Well, we are involved in it now, and since its turned out to be a real war, we ae committed to winning it."  I think most Americans realize it would be disastrous for us to pull out now.  <span id='postcolor'>

Mhm, right. And the US near zero casualty policy is because the military can't stand seeing blood, not the politicians and the public. Please. I know you want to give the impression of a united front behind a just cause blah blah blah, but you can't change the facts. The facts are that there is a near-zero casualty policy for a reason. There is a reason why Rumsfeld is commenting on the fate of individual soldiers.

So all the talk about making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of a just cause isn't really compatible with the reality.<span id='postcolor'>

Again, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this point. We'll see what happens with Baghdad. I think the Defense Departments posture is to counter the over-hyped reports of a giddy, liberal, weak media. I think they are hedging their bets. The media is extremely averse to casualties, but they have always had an extremely liberal slant here in the U.S. Your average American is going to be way more tolerant of losses. That being said however, there is a limit to the will of the American people. I just don't think it will be reached unless the casualties start surpassing the 10,000 mark. Let's hope Iraq gives up before then.

[Guest]

It's possible that you are right, but I don't think so. We'll just wait and see and I hope that we won't see. Last time America took heavey casualties was in the Vietnam war. You rolled with the punches for almost 10 years. It led however to a 20-year long trauma. I'm not sure how eager and willing you are to repeat that experience. On the other hand a long time has passed and the current generation does not remember Vietnam...

Switching back to the actual war, does anybody have any ideas of how Baghdad could be taken?

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,14:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mhm, right. And the US near zero casualty policy is because the military can't stand seeing blood, not the politicians and the public. Please. I know you want to give the impression of a united front behind a just cause blah blah blah, but you can't change the facts. The facts are that there is a near-zero casualty policy for a reason. There is a reason why Rumsfeld is commenting on the fate of individual soldiers.

So all the talk about making the ultimate sacrifice in the name of a just cause isn't really compatible with the reality.<span id='postcolor'>

Please, I know you want to give the impression that Americans are cowards and will run from a fight blah blah blah.

It works both ways. As Schoeler pointed out Somolia is a terrible example. Public support wasn't behind that. The majority of people are firmly behind the military and are starting to understand that we're going to take losses. They also understand that we're invested in this now, and that we HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN AT WAR A WEEK. That we haven't taken more combat losses at this point is a testament to the abilities of the coalition forces.

As far as your insinuation that the Military can't stand seeing blood, history proves you wrong. There is nothing placed higher in the U.S. military then the lives of its soldiers, but we also understand that we are a military and we're going to take losses. But I encourage you to continue to underestimate us as everyone has in the past.

Your assertations about NORAD and the missle defense industry are also laughable as well as completely off. The majority of funding and research for that is done on the black side and thus isn't in the spotlight, nor should it be. PACIII is the tip of the iceberg...

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Mar. 24 2003,17:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Oh come on! What do you think the Geneva conventions purpose is?<span id='postcolor'>

It establishes clear guidelines for rules between conventional military forces.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If you fight a "war" you should also follow the rules!

But your country is doing it in an even worse way - you are denying them ANY judicial rights!<span id='postcolor'>

I'm looking through the geneva convention which you claim applies to them (questionable, at best) and I'm not seeing anything about "judicial rights".  Could you please point it out to me?  Methinks you are confused.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, I hope you see the dubious and immoral way of treating human beings <span id='postcolor'>

How are we mistreating these prisoners?

[PitViper 0]

Here is liunk with poll results

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18075-2003Mar24.html

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 25 2003,00:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Switching back to the actual war, does anybody have any ideas of how Baghdad could be taken?<span id='postcolor'>

Surround it, cut off ALL supplies, then have giant food deliveries sitting outside. If anyone wants food and water, they can come outside, but are not allowed back inside Saddam loses if he tries to keep them in. If he lets them go, Baghdad can be entered

*they, them etc.: Iraqi civilians in Baghdad

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 25 2003,00:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It works both ways.  As Schoeler pointed out Somolia is a terrible example.  Public support wasn't behind that.  <span id='postcolor'>

There was actually a lot more support for Somalia then it is for Iraq. BBC showed the numbers today of popular support of US wars. This is the low point since WW1 and they pointed out that the statistics from that time wasn't reliable so that the support could have been more then now. I don't remember the exact number for Somalia, but it was well over the 90% mark. Support for this war is 70%.

These numbers can I am sure be easily verified.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as your insinuation that the Military can't stand seeing blood, history proves you wrong. There is nothing placed higher in the U.S. military then the lives of its soldiers, but we also understand that we are a military and we're going to take losses. But I encourage you to continue to underestimate us as everyone has in the past.

<span id='postcolor'>

Read my post again. I wasn't saying that the military can't stand seeing blood but that the politicains and the public can't.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Your assertations about NORAD and the missle defense industry are also laughable as well as completely off.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, it's good that you feel safe. That's the whole point. I'll leave it at that since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

[Schoeler 0]

Patriot sucks, but its getting better. There is actually a PAC4 version that is supposed to be significantly improved, but it wasn't ready for this war. My dad was an engineer on SM2, so I have an inside track on that system. It rocks! Its actually capable of a true ICBM intercept, and has no trouble with theatre missiles. My dad has no faith in Patriot, though he has a wait and see attitude about the PAC4.

Here's a link to an article about a recent successful test of EKV.

EKV Article

[interstat 0]

'US President George W Bush has complained directly to his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, that Russian companies have been selling military equipment to Iraq in breach of UN sanctions.

The White House says it has "credible evidence" that Russian companies had sold military equipment such as satellite-jamming devices, anti-tank missiles and night-vision goggles to Iraq, despite Russian denials.

In a phone conversation with Mr Bush, the Russian president said he would look into the allegations immediately, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov denied the claims, saying that relevant agencies had investigated the allegations and found them unwarranted.

"Russia strictly fulfils all its international obligations and has not supplied any equipment, including military, to Iraq in violation of the sanctions regime," he said.

Relations strain

On Sunday the Washington Post newspaper reported, citing sources within the Bush administration, that one Russian company was aiding the Iraqi regime in efforts to jam satellite signals that could guide bombs and military aircraft used by the US-led coalition.

A further two companies, it said, had sold night-vision goggles and anti-tank missiles to the regime in contravention of United Nations sanctions.

Officials within the Bush administration have long been frustrated by Russia's perceived failure to crack down on arms sales to countries the US considers sponsors of terrorism.

However a Russian deputy, Andrei Kokoshin, suggested that Iraq could have obtained Soviet-era weapons through a former Soviet republic such as the Ukraine, Russia's Interfax news agency quoted him as saying.

BBC Washington correspondent Rob Watson says the incident could worsen relations between the two countries, already soured by Russia's continuing opposition to the war in Iraq./

Hmmm, like calling the keetle black. Like us British, who sold the Iraqis a super-gun.

Yeah, anyone else remember the supergun. Surely, that would have been taken out if Iraq had one.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 25 2003,00:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as your insinuation that the Military can't stand seeing blood, history proves you wrong.  There is nothing placed higher in the U.S. military then the lives of its soldiers, but we also understand that we are a military and we're going to take losses.  But I encourage you to continue to underestimate us as everyone has in the past.  <span id='postcolor'>

LOL! Actually, I think if you reread Denoirs comment you'll see that his comment that the army cant handle casualties was meant in a sarcastic/ironic sort of way.

I think he know as well as anyone that it isnt the military that gets squeamish when there is casualties. They are professionals and know that death is a part of their profession.

What I read in Denoir's post is that it is the post Vietnam generations that remembers all too well the bloody quagmire that was Vietnam, and arent all that willing to see Americans come home in body bags. And what we are all speculating on is the point at which the American public will say that enough is enough.

A telling point is that over the weekend public support slipped from 74% to 70%. And that was with what could be considered relatively light casualties.

In the end, I just hope that things are as optomistic as General Franks seems to be and there WONT be a lot of casualties period.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ex-RoNiN @ Mar. 25 2003,00:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 25 2003,005)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Switching back to the actual war, does anybody have any ideas of how Baghdad could be taken?<span id='postcolor'>

Surround it, cut off ALL supplies, then have giant food deliveries sitting outside. If anyone wants food and water, they can come outside, but are not allowed back inside Saddam loses if he tries to keep them in. If he lets them go, Baghdad can be entered <span id='postcolor'>

That won't work for two reasons.

1) Baghdad is to big to be entirely surrounded. You can't cover that kind of perimeter with 100,000 men.

2) You would kill all the civilians before you even start hurting the military. The military has its own supplies and when they run out they could grab the rest from the civilians.

So, sorry, that's not a plausible solution.

Anybody else?

[Othin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,15:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, it's good that you feel safe. That's the whole point. I'll leave it at that since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. <span id='postcolor'>

Nice try, but I have a "pretty" good clue what's going on. I've worked in that world for the last two years.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (interstat @ Mar. 25 2003,00:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmmm, like calling the keetle black.  Like us British, who sold the Iraqis a super-gun.

Yeah, anyone else remember the supergun.  Surely, that would have been taken out if Iraq had one.<span id='postcolor'>

The super gun never actually got completed. And actually, it was the British Govt. (customs) that intercepted the last few sections of the super gun's barrel, which was being shipped under the cover of oilfield piping. Of course, oilfield pipes don't taper lol. That, and the man who was designing it for Iraq was knocked off courtesy of the Mossad.

[Schoeler 0]

Just like they are doing in Um Qasr, slow and methodical, isolate pockets of resistance block by block, flush them out with tank support and kill them. At the same time, take over Iraqi media and get the humanitarian aid rolling and convince the Iraqis that its better if Saddam's regime collapses. It going to be a long, hard, costly, ugly fight.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Othin @ Mar. 25 2003,00:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 24 2003,15:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, it's good that you feel safe. That's the whole point. I'll leave it at that since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. <span id='postcolor'>

Nice try, but I have a "pretty" good clue what's going on.  I've worked in that world for the last two years.<span id='postcolor'>

Good for you. As I said, I'm not going to discuss it, partly because most of the things I do know are classified and partly because I don't want you to start feeling unsafe

[interstat 0]

Well seeing as were fighting a toucy-feely war in some respects it's gonna be tricky, so no comparison to tactics in Berlin in 1945 can be made. Its heavily civilianised, so as we have seen civilian casulaties are a touchy subject, so that will be a big problem

Could split the city up into quadrents and do it that way? Securing areas step by step. But you have the problem of counter-attack, civilan's used as human shields, etc, etc

We've seen what happened in Israel with the street fighting that has taken place, especially the church of the nativity incident.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ Mar. 25 2003,00:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just like they are doing in Um Qasr, slow and methodical, isolate pockets of resistance block by block, flush them out with tank support and kill them.  At the same time, take over Iraqi media and get the humanitarian aid rolling and convince the Iraqis that its better if Saddam's regime collapses.  It going to be a long, hard, costly, ugly fight.<span id='postcolor'>

Not a good example, since I hear reports that there's still fighting now in Umm Qasr. Doesn't look like it's going to stop anytime soon either.

For Baghdad, it wouldn't work. A DoD report (se earlier in this thread) form 2000 (2001?) estimated a 25-40% casualty rate for a 10 times larger attacking force then the defending one.

The best hope is for Saddam to die and hope that the rest of the resistance stops with that.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ Mar. 25 2003,00:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It establishes clear guidelines for rules between conventional military forces.<span id='postcolor'>

To my knowlegde a few of the captives at Guantanamo Bay are Talibans! Do you mean they are not to be considered as a conventional military force?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm looking through the geneva convention which you claim applies to them (questionable, at best) and I'm not seeing anything about "judicial rights". Could you please point it out to me? Methinks you are confused.

<span id='postcolor'>

Hate to tell you but you are the one who is confused!

Judicial rights are basic rights for all prisoners. Doesn't matter if they are POW or ordinary criminals! My point is that they are also denied judicial rights as potential criminals! See for yourself if you bother - that US high court ruled out the the Guantanamo Bay-prisoners claim to be treated under US court system.

So, they are basically without any right and any accepted standard as to what kind of prisoners they are.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How are we mistreating these prisoners?<span id='postcolor'>

Jesus - are you kidding?

[Guest]

Ok, that's enough. If you wish to discuss previous US treatement of POWs, do it in the politics thread. I'll just delete future posts on the subject without any notification.

[interstat 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The super gun never actually got completed. And actually, it was the British Govt. (customs) that intercepted the last few sections of the super gun's barrel, which was being shipped under the cover of oilfield piping. Of course, oilfield pipes don't taper lol. That, and the man who was designing it for Iraq was knocked off courtesy of the Mossad.<span id='postcolor'>

Matrix-churchill were given the go-ahead by the British government, from what I read and heard when the Scott report got published. Just those slimey consevatives got away with it. Anyway, the Brits are experts at selling arms.

O.K it wasn't finished, but I'm imagining that it would be.

As to Baghdad, what would you do if you were in the Iraqi army, how would you defend?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Mar. 25 2003,00:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Switching back to the actual war, does anybody have any ideas of how Baghdad could be taken?<span id='postcolor'>

Tough nut to crack. Best chance is to draw out and destroy as much of the garrison as possible, and it looks like that is already being accomplished with the upcoming engagement of the Medina, Nebudchanezzar(sp?), and Hammurabi RG divisions in the Karbala/Babil area. Also, encircling the city encourages a certain measure of aggression from a garrison force, which doesn't want to be completely cut off, and will probably try to establish a link to their buddies up north. After that engagement, the idea is to encircle the city as quickly as possible, to keep Iraqi's out as much as to keep them in. That will be a problem. According to the map, there's only one real highway from Karbala over the Tigris south of Baghdad, and the area northeast of Baghdad itself is fairly desolate desert terrain. The most solid strategy is to send the 3ID up between the Tigris and Euphrates, sealing off the west bank of the Tigris, while sending the 1st Marines over the Tigris to roll up the east bank. If you do it quickly, the Baghdad will be wide open from the northwest and east. Beyond that, it's either a siege or a house to house fight, Hue-style. The key is to not allow your forces to get strung out, fighting ragtag bunches of irregulars. And for that you need reserves, which we do not currently have. If I were Franks, I'd keep the 3ID still for a few days, allowing the Marines and Royal Marines to the south wrap up Basra and Nasiryah and march up the opposite bank of the Euphrates. Then, you do it right. You envelop and destroy the RG divisions south of Baghdad, and then roll up Baghdad itself and then play it by ear from there on in.

[FallenPaladin 0]

As Iraqi I`d do it the guerilla way. Making it impossible for vehicles to drive through the streets with rubble and destroyed houses, bridges and so on. Laying ambushes, leading my enemies into house-on-house-combat, preparing hotspots with explosives so I can blow up houses with enemies in it, all kind of nasty stuff: grenades with tripwires in that little thing coca cola comes in (cant remember the right expression now. tiny metal thing with cola in it. makes "pssssssh" when you open it by a ring). I`d give them the dirtiest war inside Baghdad you could imagine. Outside I`d kill the support units which are left unguarded with little mobile groups.

The scary thing is, even with me who had some training for the Kosovo in anti-guerilla tactics (to prevent me from getting in such traps and ambushs ) , I can come up with a list of a dozen pages if I want to bring terror and death onto an attacker of a large town like Baghdad. And guess what Saddam Hussein could have planned for the last months, because it`ll have been very obvious for him that he would be attacked by Bush & Co. at all rates, no matter what he did.

[PitViper 0]

In case anyone missed it, Iran has determined that the missiles that hit its territory are actually Iraqi and not U.S.