The Battle of Baghdad

Lancer · January 31, 2003, 10:46

I'm very concerned about this upcoming battle. This is where the coalition tech edge will be the least. Basicly an army is going to have to dig another army out of a major city. In short, imagine you and a bunch of other guys with guns being sent in to a city to attack another bunch of guys with guns who have had months to dig in deep. Multiple lines of defense, hidden fire traps, mines, booby traps...and a population of unknown loyalties, many of whom will no doubt be sypathetic to their countrymen. Last I heard there are three republican guard divisions dug in within Baghdad, likely more.

If the Iraqis fight, and the republican guard will fight, it will be...horrific.

What really pisses me off is that in '91 George Bush Sr had an open road right into Baghdad. He apologised to Jr about leaving the job undone, but he can't feel sorry enough in my book. Now I know the politics at the time. The UN mandate was to throw the Iraqis out of Kuwait, but screw the UN. Now our young men have to go in there...

May God help them.

Be tough for them please, it's a rough fight that will happen, so support our troops. They're going to need it.

Thoughts on the coming battle of Baghdad?

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 10:50

helicopter borne invasion of the government areas. They won't go in like Stalingrad and Berlin

SlowwHand · January 31, 2003, 10:51

I last longer in bed than the Iraqii army will last in battle.

Wittlich · January 31, 2003, 10:51

I concur, we should have not stopped at the Iraqi/Kuwaiti border in 91, but gone all the way to Baghdad and physically removed Saddam from power...now we're going to (most likely) have an uphill battle on our hands. (house-to-house searches)

Dauphin · January 31, 2003, 10:53

In best Megalomania voice. "We've Nuked them!".

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 11:01

Isn't it actually normal for people to die in war ? Wait, only foreigners do, that's right

I will not be sympathetic to US soldiers during the battle of Baghdad. The US government and most of the US population wants to go to war, so American mothers should be prepared to mourn their children, as much as Iraqi mothers.

War is ugly. When you'll suffer from it in your family, maybe you'll understand why so many people are opposed to it.

Sorry if I sound rude, but I hate the whole "land of the brave" speech, when the land of the brave is attacking defenseless countries with no losses. If the "land of the brave" loses thousands of young men who had a great potential in the future, maybe it'll understand what war is about.
(Well, it understood for more than 15 years after Vietnam. Aren't Vietnam veterans opposed to the upcoming slaughter btw ?)

Barley · January 31, 2003, 11:03

Helicopter borne invasion, hmm doesn’t that sound a bit aka Somalia.

Personaly I don’t think you yanks should be there and neither should us Brits. I like so many others have yet to hear any plausible shred of realistic evidence to support the so called WOMD or links with Al whatever they are called. Lets just hope your typical gun-ho red-neck attitude doesn’t end in 000’s of sons daughters, dads and moms coming back in body bags. Not to mention the civilian casualties! How many lives is your unilateral over-bearing self appointed, self serving foreign policy worth.

The greatest risk to world peace is G W Bush.

Kropotkin · January 31, 2003, 11:04

It will be the civilians that will have to take the punch as usual. The Iraqi regime will not give a rats ass about their own population and the US forces will be to preocupied keeping down their own body count for PR purposes.

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 11:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Barley
Helicopter borne invasion, hmm doesn’t that sound a bit aka Somalia.

Personaly I don’t think you yanks should be there and neither should us Brits. I like so many others have yet to hear any plausible shred of realistic evidence to support the so called WOMD or links with Al whatever they are called. Lets just hope your typical gun-ho red-neck attitude doesn’t end in 000’s of sons daughters, dads and moms coming back in body bags. Not to mention the civilian casualties! How many lives is your unilateral over-bearing self appointed, self serving foreign policy worth.

The greatest risk to world peace is G W Bush.

It wouldn't be like Somalia. They would send in a divisons worth( or more) of troops in. It would be more like Op Market Garden, which very nearly worked against much superior opposition and without nearly the same amount of support available to the Americans

Oerdin · January 31, 2003, 11:11

We'll probably use the AirCav to take key points which we can easily defend and then we seige the city and starve out the resisters. Failing that I would rather see carpet bombing then house to house fighting.

I think this could occur in certain "hard points" in Baghdad like so: Psyop units start dropping leftlets saying "Surrender or you will get carpet bombed".
Those that surrender are treated well and those that don't surrender get carpet bombed. The next day Psyop sends the same message again and we repeat until the last hold outs surrender. This was the single most effective Psyop message in the Gulf war and ussually after the first round of bombing Iraqi soldiers got tired of seeing their friends killed and not being able to fight back.

Harovan · January 31, 2003, 11:12

You want war? Besides your guns, planes and missiles, don't forget body bags. A lot of it. That simple. War is ugly, face it.

Barley · January 31, 2003, 11:13

Just remember this... For sure if you go into this unnecessary war we will all reap the wirlwind.

You didnt learn a thing from 9/11. I remember you Americans asking yourselves why other countries and people hated you so much that they would fly planes into your buildings.

Are you blind, cant you read? You have millions of Europeans, Brits (like me) telling you, you are wrong but you still dont listen.

Next time it will be a nuke in NY not a plane! and youll wonder why, well your about to start the biggest recruitment campaign for Al-Quieda so just think before you act! Why not embrace the world instead of trying to dictate its path?

MrBaggins · January 31, 2003, 11:18

Tactically, the Iraqi's are in problems.

1) They won't have ANY air cover or resupply. Any plane or helo is going to be Allied.

2) They are at an insanely bad disadvantage in terms of armor... because of training, equipment and the effectiveness of Allied Anti-Material weaponry... like Hellfires from Apaches.

3) They cannot effectively utilize hardened cover... again... due to Allied ordinance.

4) The allies have effective night fighting equipment.

5) The allies will be able to resupply and reinforce.

Somalia was only Somalia, because the US troops were not permitted to use armor and their choice of air cover.

Bagdad will not be as fast as the desert... but it won't be *that* tough.

Kropotkin · January 31, 2003, 11:19

While barley might be overdoing it, carpet bombings will not be good PR in the ME region. Well, it's not easy choice.

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 11:21

The war will be over within 7 days, then all the anti war brigade will have to explain why they were wrong about evrything.

Dauphin · January 31, 2003, 11:21

I hope the US wins with the least amount of bloodshed on both sides.

Other than that I hope the war drags on, and brings other despondencies in the US such that Bush is out of office at the next election.

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 11:25

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
The war will be over within 7 days, then all the anti war brigade will have to explain why they were wrong about evrything.

Wasn't the war in Kosovo planned to last 3 days ?

Underestimate the enemy, and you're sure to have very bad suprises.

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 11:27

The amount of force they are putting together shows they are not underestimating. Most Iraqi units willl give up

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 11:30

Stinger : if you're sure, it is fine. I wonder why the war didn't start yet, as it will be so easy.

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 11:31

Because (I hope) they are going to get the UN to back it.

Dauphin · January 31, 2003, 11:32

IOW, because the PR war is still being fought.

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 11:33

if you like

Kropotkin · January 31, 2003, 11:34

Yeah, most Iraqi units will probably give up but one shouldn't count on it as some of them will probably think of it as defending their home if the US et al. strikes at Baghdad. That misstake has been done before, like during the Gallipoli-campaign.

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 11:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
IOW, because the PR war is still being fought.

Isn't it being lost, with less and less people supporting the war ?

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 11:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Isn't it being lost, with less and less people supporting the war ?

When the UN backs the war, the majority of people will back it.

MrBaggins · January 31, 2003, 11:37

When push comes to shove... and victory is won... the ney-sayers will be noticably silent.

Barley · January 31, 2003, 11:39

Quote:

The war will be over within 7 days, then all the anti war brigade will have to explain why they were wrong about evrything.

No! the battle may be over in 7 days but the war will go on and on and on. You need to address the fundamental causes, why there are 000's of muslims willing to give their lives for their cause.

By attacking Iraq you will further this cause and the hatred shared by many (I dont hate the yanks but like many can sympothise with the reason for it, and that basically boils down to your constant persuit of American eliteism & self-interest [already demonstrated in this thread]).

Until you listen you'll never learn, until you learn the war will never end.

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 11:42

What drivel. Saddams regime is not religious based, he does not hate the west because of Israel or anything like that.

Saddam hates us because we kicked him out of Kuwait and imposed sanctions on him. He is a classic power mad demegogue in the Stalin mold.

He wants you to think its about religion to get other Arabs on board, and you have fallen for it

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 11:47

Stinger :
The problem is that many anti-US leaders want the Arab population to think it is about religion or clash of cultures. Each tiem the US will wage war to a muslim (and even more to an Arabic) country, the hate against the US will progress, whether the objective reasons have to do with religion or not.

Barley · January 31, 2003, 11:48

Ive not fallen for it, gosh far from it. I am concerned though that there are many many Muslims that will either fall for it or use it as religious justification to further their cause.

At the end of the day like and I have to make a choice im squarely behind America, yes it may not seem that way from some of my posts but im trying to be representive of the other side of the coin. But for the record I dont think the attack is currently justifiable in the scheme of global peace and other issues.

Why not invest the $billions youll spend on saving lives by building heathcare infrastructure in the Middle East or Africa?