1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Warmongers Thread

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by joespaniel, Feb 8, 2003.

  1. joespaniel

    joespaniel Unescorted Settler

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Messages:
    5,260
    Location:
    The Old Pueblo
    Now that I have fooled everyone into thinking I am a dove, lets unleash the blitzkrieg. :D

    How will the US led coalition go about its task of removing Saddam Hussein from the reigns of power and disarming the fortress that has become Iraq?

    I noticed that the 101st Airborne is deploying to the Gulf, which has great mobility and range to strike with. Perhaps a daring air assault from Blackhawks to surround and capture saddam in one of his palaces?

    Or am I trapped in circular thinking (Mogadishu)?

    Should they "siege" Baghdad and wait for him to come out?

    I dont think that is very realistic, only civilians would suffer, not the military.

    The disarmament phase will probably last a very long time, I envision an occupation to possibly last years.

    Post your thoughts, you evil warmongers! :soldier:
     
  2. napoleon526

    napoleon526 Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Messages:
    3,694
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    I think that direct engagement with Saddam's army a la 1991 is most likely. Once his army is destroyed, Saddam will quickly lose popular support and will have to flee, or his own people will kill him.
     
  3. stormbind

    stormbind Retenta personam!

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    14,081
    Location:
    London
    Saddam's people are against him. We should not forget that this is a war with Saddam... not Iraq!
     
  4. .:KNAS:.

    .:KNAS:. Civfanatic

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,272
    Location:
    North Crackalacken
    I believe that the Iraqi army will take a severe pounding from American airforces and army. But alot of the fighting will be done by Iraqi rebels ala Afghanistan.
     
  5. joespaniel

    joespaniel Unescorted Settler

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Messages:
    5,260
    Location:
    The Old Pueblo
    :hmm: I dont think you will find too many Iraqis willing to wage a guerilla war for Saddam.

    More likely outsiders that need an excuse to attack civilians in Western Countries.

    Which they will do anyway.
     
  6. sgrig

    sgrig Comrade

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Messages:
    1,123
    Location:
    Isaac Newton's College
    Does anyone here think that urban fighting is a possibility? Or guerrilla warfare after Saddam is toppled, and Iraq is occupied ? And how many troops would be needed for full occupation?

    It seems to me that such types of warfare are the only ones which bring significant casualties to the US troops.

    There have numerous reports that the campaign is going to start with a massive barrage of cruise missiles - upto 800 in two days, coupled with massed air strikes which would use almost 100% precision weapons.

    However there have not been any details as to what happens next. Is it going to be a Gulf War style armoured spearhead, or an "inside-out" approach where light troops would attack Baghdad straight away.

    It seems to me that the strategy is going to be different from Gulf War, because the US has relatively few tanks in the region, and relatively few ground forces in general, compared to Gulf War. So probably something else will happen.

    Another consideration is the morale of Iraqi troops. This time, as the US will be the "agressors", the morale level might be higher than in the Gulf War, where Iraq was the "agressor".

    Note: for guerrilla warfare it doesn't have to be just Iraqis - it could be different volunteer "mujahedeen" from neighbouring arab countries who are just waiting for a chance to kill a few Americans.
     
  7. Immortal

    Immortal Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    5,950
    Also if most of the guerilla fighters (like the Kurds) emerge victorious they will attempt to carve their own slice out of the country. Which Turkey is DEAD against. It was different in Afghanistan because the NA still wanted to keep afghanistan together.
     
  8. .:KNAS:.

    .:KNAS:. Civfanatic

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,272
    Location:
    North Crackalacken
    I meant for America, like the Northern Alliance :)

    PS. Love your signature :D
     
  9. SunTzu

    SunTzu Hooah Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    4,528
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NYC
    I say a joint assault, the 101st Airborne and 82nd sent into Baghdad, and possibly other major cities so we can capture the cities before the Iraqi army tries to pull back into the cities, cause we all know they're going to be totally destroyed if they fight in the open against us.
     
  10. joespaniel

    joespaniel Unescorted Settler

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Messages:
    5,260
    Location:
    The Old Pueblo
    Ah, I misunderstood. :crazyeye:

    The Kurdish have been organizing along those lines, and are recieving training from the Special Forces right now.

    However, the Iraqi army (namely the Republican Guard) is still too strong for them. US ground forces are going to get dirty on this one.
     
  11. MrPresident

    MrPresident Anglo-Saxon Liberal

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    8,511
    Location:
    The Prosperous Part of the EU
    KILL 'EM!! KILL 'EM ALL!!! SEND THEM TO THE FIERY DEPTHS OF HELL!!...I think I might have misunderstood the meaning of this thread.
     
  12. ellie

    ellie Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,673
    Location:
    uk
    British special forces are believed to have been there for weeks already, seeking out targets,

    I think it will be a quick war to win, and an endless peace to maintain bogging down troops for years.

    Ellie
     
  13. joespaniel

    joespaniel Unescorted Settler

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Messages:
    5,260
    Location:
    The Old Pueblo
    The "medication thread" is down the hall to the right. :D
     
  14. nixon

    nixon Rationale is leaving you

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,584
    Location:
    Дания
    I think Saddam will try to do an Osama vanishment, while our forces blast his remaining governmental apparatus to pieces.
     
  15. Pongui

    Pongui Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2002
    Messages:
    4,342
    Speaking as a warmonger, I should say that one can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. The greatest challenge to the Bush administration is in building and maintaining public outrage at the Hussein regime. I suggest breaking a few eggs to accomplish this. There should be a use of chemical weapons on his own people, to show what Saddam is capable of, and to shock the world into impotency. Then, the US will be justified in using any means at its disposal to occupy Iraq quickly and efficiently.

    :satan:
     
  16. stormbind

    stormbind Retenta personam!

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    14,081
    Location:
    London
    True, they risk their lives to designate targets for allied attacks. Precision strikes would be worthless without them.

    SAS Rules! :D
     
  17. stormbind

    stormbind Retenta personam!

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    14,081
    Location:
    London
    Erm, he has already done this. Didn't they tell you?
     
  18. gael

    gael Ard Ri

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    2,394
    Location:
    Ireland
    :sleep:

    Change the record lads.
     
  19. cgannon64

    cgannon64 BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    19,213
    Location:
    Hipster-Authorland, Brooklyn (Hell)
    :goodjob: Right on, gael.

    But, to make this post worthwhile: I think they will go straight for Baghdad. I don't think the US is stupid enough to try to seige Baghdad - that would be a waste of life. I think a straight attack on Baghdad, but stragetic bombings before that, during, and after.
     
  20. MrPresident

    MrPresident Anglo-Saxon Liberal

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    8,511
    Location:
    The Prosperous Part of the EU
    Why do people have a problem with other people talking about an imminent war? I don't understand that. If you don't want to talk about it, fair enough. But surely people have a right to talk about what they want, especially potential warfare.
     

Share This Page