The Battle of Baghdad - Page 4

Sten Sture · March 20, 2003, 16:18

I'm starting to wonder if the ground pounders will attack Baghdad first... a couple days of this cruise missle here, bunker bomb there to deflect concentration while the Heavies are already on their way. Then the lights go out and an M1A2 shows up at the intersection of Saddam Blvd and Main Street.

Lancer · March 20, 2003, 16:40

Kramerman, with the Iranian nuke news lately, they just might go to Iran. Another possibility would be Syria, chaseing after Saddams WMD that he reportedly sent there.

Sten, I bet you they blew through the mine fields last night, leaving the 'bedded' reporters in Kuwait w/ the camp fires burning.

Lancer · March 20, 2003, 17:36

Brits are saying that up to 20% of Republican Guards are seeking to surrender.

FOX news reports...

The battle of Baghdad I was so worried about may become... easier.

Sten Sture · March 20, 2003, 18:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
leaving the 'bedded' reporters in Kuwait w/ the camp fires burning.

I can't imagine Rumsfeld deceiving people that way!!

Watching the news just tells us what isn't happening. I say we land at Calais.

GePap · March 20, 2003, 18:07

The coolition plans for swift success seem to rely too heavily on mass Iraqi surrenders. They keep saying they know this guy will and that guy: as of yet, we have what, 17? 24 hours in and we got 17/250,000 of the Iraqi army surrendered......

I will not trust any news reports until some sort of confirmation occurs,a nd those rumors that the Iraqis are goign to surrender sound to me as valid currently as those that Saddam is dead or injured.

jim panse · March 20, 2003, 18:16

Quote:

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.

This is disgusting. You are really willing to bury thousands of civilians? I always thought the world has learned but reading this ....

You will only hit innocent civilians, old women and men, wifes with their children but not Saddam.

Carpet Bombing a city was accepted as a kind of "Aerial Strategy" (hu, this makes me desperate though) in WW2. Now everybody is talking about the ´clean´ warfare of the Coalition. I can only repeat: This is disgusting and uncivilized.

Master Zen · March 20, 2003, 18:18

The Battle of Baghdad has yet to begin...

Units of the Iraqi army not deployed in a major urban center are pretty much worthless and their surrender is more than rational.

I would however expect them to fight in the cities where US technology might be a little hampered by the concrete jungle

Shi Huangdi · March 20, 2003, 18:34

"The coolition plans for swift success seem to rely too heavily on mass Iraqi surrenders. They keep saying they know this guy will and that guy: as of yet, we have what, 17? 24 hours in and we got 17/250,000 of the Iraqi army surrendered......"

Well we haven't invaded yet.

People, there all alternatives to just trying to dig them out from a city. We can simply have coalition forces sorround the city, broadcast loudly that the city will be attacked soon and that all civilians must leave immediatly as it about to become a warzone, then take the city piece by piece, leveling it with artillery and sending in ground forces to occupy those areas.

jim panse · March 20, 2003, 18:40

Quote:

There aren't any barbarians about to kick our asses, not anytime soon anyway. People always concentrate on the decline of Rome. America is still at the height of its power, we're like the Rome of the second century.

Yeah, and I believe the US is in decline since the end of the Cold War. The US hasn´t won, the US was just left over.

Quote:

The US is not to be compared with Romans. First, we have not even entered the imperial stage yet, and may never do. Second, Romans were not invincible, they had several crushing defeats(Cannae 217BC, Carrhae 53BC, and Teutoburger Forest 9AD) in their history even before the decline. All these defeats literally wiped out large fractions of their manpower. The US has yet to suffer any defeat of such magnitude.

I don´t know your definition of `Imperialism` but to me I don´t think the term fits. The US is the overwhelming power since WW1. That is the fact.
I consider the US Power in decline because the US know that if China and Europe and Russia join in against the US that the US will lose. On the battlefield, on the "Free Markets", everywhere. That´s why the US hinders us Europeans whenever possible in uniting.

Lancer · March 21, 2003, 22:48

Well, 3rd infantry is coming up on two Iraqi Republican Guard armored divisions on the approaches to Baghdad. FOX said something about a river crossing...

Right now the 3rd is speculated to be moving to establish a forward position, supply etc, for the assault.

Dominikos · March 22, 2003, 00:11

I can understand how the regular army units of Iraq can surrender en masse, however, I don't think the Republican Guard will be doing the same thing, at least not on a large scale.

Does anyone know whether the special Republican Guard has any night vision equipment or any other kick-ass weapons for that matter. Afterall, they are the elite, right? There is the Republican Guard and then there is the Special Republican Guard.

------------------
~Dominik - Lord of the Putumayo~

Lancer · March 22, 2003, 00:16

I don't know Dom, but I was just having a conversation w/ a friend last night about this. After '91 Saddam should have bought every commercially available night vision available. You can get them at Costco... They wouldn't be nearly as good, but at least the Iraqi troops wouldn't be blind at night.

Master Zen · March 22, 2003, 01:25

I do expect the Republican Guard to put up a much better fight. Units engaging the US/UK are pretty crappy to begin with, the ****'s gonna hit the fan if the US/UK reaches Baghdad and Iraq has not yet surrendered.

SlowwHand · March 24, 2003, 13:42

There are 3 lines of Republican Guards.

The 1st is little better than conscripts.
The 2nd is to defend the Butchering Pig from his own army.
The 3rd are essentially bodyguards.

They're all wusses.
Dressing in civilain clothes, fighting from homes.
So, who's fault is it when Iraq's innocent civilians are killed?

Exactly.

Kropotkin · March 24, 2003, 13:45

Slowwhand: I do recall a american officer saying the same about the VC back in the 60's as they always ran into the jungle as soon as the battle was about to start. If it's cowardly or not is one issue but it's not as insane as actually fighting on US's terms.

And no, I'm not saying that Iraq will be another Vietnam.

Az · March 24, 2003, 14:02

I am.

It will be another Vietnam!

seriously, though, It seems that the Allies tried to bite off a lil' more than they could chew at once. There is no doubt they'll eat Iraq, but that sure made them choke a bit.

SlowwHand · March 24, 2003, 15:18

Choke, sputter.

I will not discuss Vietnam.
Too much ignorance that refuses to be corrected.

Traianvs · March 24, 2003, 15:48

Quote:

They're all wusses.
Dressing in civilain clothes, fighting from homes.
So, who's fault is it when Iraq's innocent civilians are killed?

America, they're all wusses

They drop bombs from thousands and thousands of feet high..
Use artillery and basically equipment 1000 times as efficient and costly than Iraq's equipment

So, is it their fault they use whatever tactics they can find to resist the Americans?

They know that if they engage in regular battle they don't even stand a chance... Iraqi troops get killed all the time, while Americans lose troops mainly due to accidents...

SlowwHand · March 24, 2003, 15:53

Traianvs · March 24, 2003, 16:01

Ooh, Sloww's giving me the fearsome

omg I'm scared now.. haven't got anything more useful to say there?

Shi Huangdi · March 24, 2003, 16:01

"America, they're all wusses"

Says someone from a loser country which hasn't contributed much of anything historically, was quickly over run in both world wars, and whose main historical action of note was their atrocious rule in the Congo. Those Africans your country slaughtered sure didn't have as good as weapons tech as you did.

SlowwHand · March 24, 2003, 16:04

Trajanus just likes to bounce around, spreading crap.

You missed your calling in fertilizer sales.

Traianvs · March 24, 2003, 16:09

Quote:

Says someone from a loser country which hasn't contributed much of anything historically, was quickly over run in both world wars, and whose main historical action of note was their atrocious rule in the Congo. Those Africans your country slaughtered sure didn't have as good as weapons tech as you did.

We have a loser country ey??

-At least we don't participate in the war, and THAT would make us losers..?

no historical contribution?

-Oh gee, you're another one of those ignorant Americans that only know about their own civil wars, and never have learnt about the rest of the world?

quickly overrun in both World Wars?

-true, what did you expect with the zillions of troops the germans had, and the superior arms of theirs? You could compare it with America invading Iceland, I bet Iceland wouldn't be able to do much either.

our main historical action our rule in Congo that was atrocious?

-it was atrocious yes, but don't forget that everywhere on the world the colonizers were being atrocious to their colonies, it's not like it was just us, back in those days the view on the wold as it is today was also quite different (human rights etc and similar modern post WWII terms didn't exist in the minsd of the ppl back then). Also don't forget Lumumba was killed with American (CIA) support

Traianvs · March 24, 2003, 16:10

Quote:

Trajanus just likes to bounce around, spreading crap.

You missed your calling in fertilizer sales.

calling in fertilizer sales?? euh what does that mean?

Is that a lame attempt for absurd humour Sloww? too bad you suck donkey balls at it

Barley · March 24, 2003, 16:23

The battle for Bagdad will surely be the mother of all battles, or rather a blood bath. Wilst I am loath to admit it I can foresee 100's on coalition lives being lost and many 1000's of Iraqi's (many civilian).

I hope you americans have the stomach for a real fight. its all fine and dandy bombing from 10'000 feet and launching cruise missles from 1000's of miles away. This will be room to room, street to street. For the first time the advantage will be with the defender.

Seems to me some of your generals underestimated the strength of the Iraqi resolve. These people fighting you may not be regular soldiers, they may not even support Saddam, what they are doing though is defending THEIR country against the unjust agression hidden under the veil of liberation or deissaramanent. So! where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

This is going to end in tears & the Tigris will run red with the blood of all concerned (not Bush's he's sitting watching on TV). Is it to late to stop? There MUST be another way......

Myrddin · March 24, 2003, 16:55

They tried that on Day1, but missed Saddam

SlowwHand · March 24, 2003, 18:32

Barley, just go back to your knitting.
We'll call you in a few days when it's all over.

Spiffor · March 24, 2003, 18:38

Wasn't Basra intended to be liberated "a few hours" after the beginning of all this ?

Barley · March 24, 2003, 19:07

Quote:

Barley, just go back to your knitting.

Ok..........

Oh and when you call dont forget what I said here.

I support US & UK but its just there is a lot about this thats not right. My stomach turns everytime I see an Iraqi child in hospital. For christs sake couldn't they have sent in some special forces to just assasinate Sadam, if the president of USA can be assasinated surely we could have got to Saddam!

America just wanted to flex its muscles and try out some new weapons.......

"Shock & Awe" hmmmmmmmm well were all pretty shocked thats for shaw, and awe in the stupidity of it all.

Dis · March 24, 2003, 19:24

Assassination is illegal

plus we would have had to eliminate his sons as well.

yes it would be nice if it wasn't illegal... oh well