It's official... the war is starting in mid-February

@rchives

The Russian armed forces have obtained information that the United States and its allies have already decided to launch military action in Iraq from mid-February, according to a normally reliable news source in the former communist state.

The news agency Interfax's specialist military news wire AVN, today quotes an unnamed high-ranking source in the Russian general staff, saying US-led operations would be launched once an attacking force had been assembled in the Gulf.

The source did not indicate by what means the Russian military had obtained such information.

"According to the information we have, the operation is planned for the second half of February. The decision to launch it has been taken but not yet been made public," the source told the agency, which has generally authoritative contacts in the Russian military and political establishment.

The source said the US and its allies had amassed about 100,000 soldiers and officers in the region but were awaiting for a strength of 150,000 before launching an attack.

"The military operation against Iraq will be conducted by a combination of means - strikes will be from the air, land and sea. The war will be short, lasting about one month," the source said.

source: The Irish Times

scojones

Originally posted by @rchives
The war will be short, lasting about one month," the source said.

IF there is a war it will not be short. Do you have a link to this?

@rchives

Yes, but you have to have access to the premium content at Ireland.com, which is why I broke the rules by posting the whole thing, instead of a link... sorry.

It's appalling to think that the "protectors of democracy" can be so single minded intheir determination for war, regardless of the opinions of the public.

Its a shame Ireland can't throw its lot in with the French and Germans rather than pandering to the US constantly.

scojones

aye. It's a scary thought that war could be upon us. We all have speculated that there will be war due to the amounts of manpower and the like being put into position just in case. But i have a question: If bush strikes without UN approval what will that mean? Can the UN do anything about it?

Kell

Unfortunately, the US's military budget dwarfs the combined military budget of the rest of the world by a substantial amount, so in the event that the US does attack with or without UN approval, no one has the firepower to stop 'em. Thats the sick bit. They are so well equipped that they can pretty much do as they like as no-one has as many biig guns as they do.

scojones

Sky News said the other day that at the moment bush has the backing of his country. But if that changed and lets say < 20% agreed with striking, and the UN didn't agree, nor did much of the world for that matter - do you still think he would strike? He's powermad and to me it looks like he's the one going in search for a war that could be avoided.

Raskolnikov

Don't ye all pretend to be suprised, what do you think 100,000 armed troops, numerous aircraft carriers, sub and ships are doing in the Persian Gulf? Military excersises my arse hole. The whole cost of the operation has already run into billions, the US will want to recoup the losses with a nice victorious war in which they can plunder Iraqi oil to cover the war costs and ensure that freedom loving people can continue to drive 4 ton SUV's that get 8 miles to the gallon.

The war will be short, lasting about one month," the source said

typical. Thats somewhat like the german army before attacking russia. This is going to turn into another Vietnam for America, especially since they're occupying the area for at least 8 months after the invasion.

Typedef

Originally posted by Kell
They are so well equipped that they can pretty much do as they like as no-one has as many biig guns as they do.

Except for all of those Russian Nukes, the principal of mutually assured destruction is still a valid proposition, thus, the US could never, for example effect an invasion of Russia or China, or of France or Britain for that matter.

dathi1

Bush has to go to war:
Since the Reps got into power the Economies books are gone mad and a massive deficit has been gained. The best way to keep eyes of the situation is to have a "quick" war and hope that oil prices level off. With this under his belt this will then insure a presidential victory in 04 even if there is a slight upturn in the economy. Also the spoils can be divided between BP (Britain) Amoco and Exxon. The oil fields are the first in line for the taking..then wear down the Iraqi troops (which might not happen at all) and enter Baghdad slowly with little resistance. If there is any resistance at all make it look good Hollywood style for the folks back home.
That's the way its going to happen in a nutshell.

Long term??? Yes the fifth column etc will kick into action. Pity.

Bush is screwed. Once the American Citizens start seeing a constant stream of bodybags coming in from Iraq, they'll begin to question his speeches/claims. Personally, i think the american forces will get bogged down. While America has shown that its capable of performing surgcal strikes, and quick(3-4 day) ground campaigns, their experience of taking & holding hostile territory over a long period of time is extremely limited. Say goodbye to Bush's Ratings in about 1 months time.

Raskolnikov

I disagree Klaz, US airpower will ensure that no Iraqi armoured vehicle in the open desert will be left intact. Once bombers, cruise missiles etc have all but eliminated the Iraqi army, the US will enter Iraq with armour unopposed. More likely than not they'll bypass the big cities until the USAF can suppress the troops in them. Even then they i doubt they'll send huge numbers of US troops in, i bet the Iraqi dissident's they're currently training will come in handy here. Also people have been blathering on about the US suffering another Vietnam, as they said with Afghanistan, Yugoslavia etc. This won't happen because

• Massive technological gap between the two countries
• US troops are far better equiped than those who fought in Vietnam
• Other than the big cities and unpopulated north, Iraq is open ground. Unlike Vietnam
• There is nothing to suggest that the Iraqi troops will fold less quickly as they did in 1991

My prediction? Iraq army will be routed within two weeks, in four weeks the US flag will be flying above Baghdad and only a few pockets of resistance will remain. US will suffer light casualties, Iraq left with a few hundred thousand dead Not wanting to get off topic but if it does come down to war and Iraq suffers these casualties we'll have there blood on our hands for allowing US refuelling at Shannon, not that this is likely to bother anyone.

Chaos-Engine

I posted on thisLast month..

bonkey

Originally posted by @rchives
The war will be short, lasting about one month," the source said.

Just like that short war in Afghanistan that the administration admit is still ongoing?

jc

DiscoStu

US airpower will ensure that no Iraqi armoured vehicle in the open desert will be left intact. Once bombers, cruise missiles etc have all but eliminated the Iraqi army, the US will enter Iraq with armour unopposed.

Do you really think that they will be left out in the middle of the desert with big signs saying "Insert Bomb Here ->" ?

Look at Kosovo the Serb army hid the vast majority of their armour and layed decoys in the open for the us to bomb to kingdom come, while that Nice Jamie shea was telling us that almost the entire Serb armoured forces were destroyed and everything was going swimmingly.

Personally i belive that Saddam will first destroy as much of the oil wells as he possibly can and then fortify all troops and armour in urban areas.

Saddam is as good at the PR game as Dubya. Once CNN and Fox(not forgetting Al-Jazzera) start showing apaches flying low to get that tank parked down an allyway beside a moqsue, baby food factory and childerens hospital people will not like it one bit.
Also once the ground forces enter into bagdahd and other cities it will probably make mogadishu look like a cakewalk.
These will be people with their backs to the wall and with nothing to loose which will make them all the more dangerous.

Another probability is that Saddam, knowing his is done for anyway lets loose with whatever Bio/Chem weapons he does have left over or hidden.

It will be very very messy imho.

Balfa

Raskolnikov, saddam has already explained he's learned from 1991, and will be keeping his tanks well hidden from the sky, keeping his troops huddled in cities. there's no way the USAF will carpet bomb the cities. Not even bush is that demented.

It's obvious 1991's tactics won't work this time.

I think the best tactics they could employ would be to drive all their tanks into the ocean, and drive all their boats onto the land, go home, get high, and chill.

gandalf

OK if war breaks out there are 2 scenarios that I see happening.

1. The Iraqi army crumbles and desert on masse and its over in matter of weeks or a few months. Very light US & UK casulties and moderate Iraqi ones (ie the low thousands, which I know is not nice but!).

2. The Iraqi army prepares for Urban warfare, leaves the borders undefended, lets the US roll up to the cities and then with the lessons of Somalia unleases a vicious urban warfare offensive with the full knowledge if body bags start shipping home to the US & UK that they will start to turn the tide of public opinion. This would mean heavy casulties for the US & UK and massive casulties for the Iraqis.

Remember the Iraqis have probably learnt their lesson from the Gulf War and will not engage in a old style battle plan (well maybe in a limited token fashion) they will have their forces well hidden in the cities.

Personally I hope if war breaks out option 1 is the outcome, eventhough it galls me to think that President Butthead (don't know which poster called him that but I think its very apt ) will get a victory.

Heres hoping that the brave stance by France & Germany will change some peoples minds (Hello Tony!!). They make me proud that we are a member of the EU (and thats the first time I've been proud of that in a while). I wonder what Taoiseach Ostrich is doing at the moment ??? One thing he is not stopping is making sure we aren't facilitating the build up of what could be a Illegal operation by allowing unconstitutional use of our airspace and airport.

Gandalf.

mike65

Originally posted by gandalf

Heres hoping that the brave stance by France & Germany will change some peoples minds (Hello Tony!!). They make me proud that we are a member of the EU (and thats the first time I've been proud of that in a while).

Gandalf.

C'mon now Gandalf. Do you belive the French and Germans are taking a principled stand? No, the French are owed a tonne of money by Saddam and would like so see it one day, while the German chancellor is presiding over a failed economic entity, he dare'nt buck his publics pacifist opinion right now. He already hugely unpopular.

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
he dare'nt buck his publics pacifist opinion right now.

One could argue it is his job to obey public opinion on issues such as this. If the public are strongly against the war, it would be remiss of their elected officials to ignore that.

jc

Turnip

Originally posted by mike65
C'mon now Gandalf. Do you belive the French and Germans are taking a principled stand? No, the French are owed a tonne of money by Saddam and would like so see it one day, while the German chancellor is presiding over a failed economic entity, he dare'nt buck his publics pacifist opinion right now. He already hugely unpopular.

Mike.

The people of France and Germany are ferociously anti-American (gratitude how are you) so their governments dare not support the US and Britain. It'd be political suicide.

Turnip

Originally posted by Balfa
Raskolnikov, saddam has already explained he's learned from 1991, and will be keeping his tanks well hidden from the sky, keeping his troops huddled in cities. there's no way the USAF will carpet bomb the cities. Not even bush is that demented.

It's obvious 1991's tactics won't work this time.

I wonder if Saddam will do what the Serbs did and deploy fake tanks and artillery and so on? I believe the war will be over quickly and the much hyped urban warfare just won't occur.

Thorbar

Originally posted by Turnip
The people of France and Germany are ferociously anti-American (gratitude how are you) so their governments dare not support the US and Britain. It'd be political suicide.

What exactly did America do to Germany that they should be greatful for?

I'm not sure comparing urban fighting in Iraqi to the disaster at Mogadishu is fair. In Mogadishu it was around 150 US troops who got isolated in a city of around 20,000(can't remember exact numbers) of complete nutters. And even then they managed to get out with only 18 dead soldiers. In Iraqi I'm guessing the Americans are going to give themselves better odds then that and also they'll be clearing the city and wont be completely surrounded and lost. Also I'm not too sure the Iraqi soldier is going to stand up to the huge strain of fighting an enemy that outclasses them in nearly ever department, we could easily see the army fall to bits like it did in 1991.

alastair

Originally posted by Thorbar
What exactly did America do to Germany that they should be greatful for?

I'd imagine that the marshall plan would play some part there, and maybe helping get rid of hitler? Keeping west berlin out of the DDR as well. If your point is that they aren't beholden to the US I'd agree fully though. Every country has the right to self determination (including democratic Iran. Bush take note)

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by gandalf
They make me proud that we are a member of the EU (and thats the first time I've been proud of that in a while).

Gandalf.

I don't think we have much too be proud of. We haven't used our position in either the EU or the security council to much effect in terms of expressing opposition to a war !

One could argue it is his job to obey public opinion on issues such as this. If the public are strongly against the war, it would be remiss of their elected officials to ignore that.

When have elected officials ever represented public opinion . . . if they did, there would be no war, no troops in Shannon and half of the threads in this forum would never have been opened !

PH01

Great! I can't wait for the TV coverage (must get cable for CNN and Sky News).
Hope it's better than the Afghan war last year - TV was shìte for that. Where were all the tanks and artillery? Bloody mountains get in the way of a good TV war.
And if the First Gulf War is anything to by, the second should be a great sequel?
And those laser guided missiles with the camera on their noses, what's the story with the black and white pictures? Colour, we want colour!

hallelujajordan

Originally posted by PH01

And those laser guided missiles with the camera on their noses, what's the story with the black and white pictures? Colour, we want colour!

Maybe we'll have "interactive TV" this time . . . press the red button for missile cam . . . !

If they were really clever we could choose our own targets from the comfort of our recliner !

Raskolnikov

Originally posted by DiscoStu
Do you really think that they will be left out in the middle of the desert with big signs saying "Insert Bomb Here ->" ?

Look at Kosovo the Serb army hid the vast majority of their armour and layed decoys in the open for the us to bomb to kingdom come, while that Nice Jamie shea was telling us that almost the entire Serb armoured forces were destroyed and everything was going swimmingly.

Personally i belive that Saddam will first destroy as much of the oil wells as he possibly can and then fortify all troops and armour in urban areas.

Saddam is as good at the PR game as Dubya. Once CNN and Fox(not forgetting Al-Jazzera) start showing apaches flying low to get that tank parked down an allyway beside a moqsue, baby food factory and childerens hospital people will not like it one bit.
Also once the ground forces enter into bagdahd and other cities it will probably make mogadishu look like a cakewalk.
These will be people with their backs to the wall and with nothing to loose which will make them all the more dangerous.

Another probability is that Saddam, knowing his is done for anyway lets loose with whatever Bio/Chem weapons he does have left over or hidden.

It will be very very messy imho.

The problem with that is you're making an awful lot of asumptions. The bulk of the Iraqi army is made up of unmotivated and ill-equipped conscripts. There is the better equiped but far smaller Republican Guard though. You've also got to remember that Sadaam hasn't got new equipment to replace what was destroyed in the Gulf War, unless it was smuggled, even if it was it would be low grade stuff. The bio/chem threat is almost non-existant imho, Sadaam has no effective delivery systems and despite UN efforts there have been no weapons found!

Typedef

It will be interesting I think to see if Saddam really does posess Weapons of Mass Destruction, this will be put to the test when the Americans do invade.

If Iraq uses Chemical weapons to defend itself, then the American position will be vindicated, if not, the war can be shown to be an invalid invasion to exponenciate oil interests.

That'd be my take anyway.

PH01

Originally posted by Typedef
It will be interesting I think to see if Saddam really does posess Weapons of Mass Destruction, this will be put to the test when the Americans do invade.

If Iraq uses Chemical weapons to defend itself, then the American position will be vindicated, if not, the war can be shown to be an invalid invasion to exponenciate oil interests.

That'd be my take anyway.

I doubt it if they'll find any WMD.
Saddam will keep saying he doesn't have any WMD - and draw them out until summer.
The EU (France and Germany) will press for more time to allow the UN inspections to finish.
The US and the UK don't really care about whether Iraq has or has not WMD and will press to a early resolution - i.e. invade in mid February and war over by mid March (April at the latest - they wouldn't want to see this going into summer - cost too much dollars).

If they're going to have a war I hope they get it over with ASAP. The world economy does like have this issue creating all this uncertainty.

And BTW, all politics in the middle east is about Oil.



First of all it's

DiscoStu

The problem with that is you're making an awful lot of asumptions.

we are all making assumptions, unless you are privvy to chats between the joint chiefs of staff that the rest of us as not.

Lessons will have been learnt after the first gulf war ie the iraqi army stands little(read no) chance of victory in open desert warfare. us air supremacy, superior battlefield intelligence and more advanced destructive weapons will ensure that.
Why would they risk swift and total defeat when they can bring battles into cities where it will be many time more difficult to defeat them?

US Air supremacy will be all but meaningless as there is no chance that the united states would risk large scale bombing of predominantly civilian areas.

Remedial Military Tactics 101 - Use what you have, as best you can.

PH01

You're right about the assumptions Disco. The American probably think that all they have to do is roll one tank over the Iraqi border and the Iraqi regime will wall to pieces.
Although there is a likelihood that this might happen

Snowball

Originally posted by @rchives
...saying US-led operations would be launched once an attacking force had been assembled in the Gulf.

They aleady have over 300,000 men there. How many are enough? 1/2 million? 1 million? where does this end? Korea? China? Cuba? Ireland (IRA)? Spain (ETA)?

Victor

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
You've also got to remember that Sadaam hasn't got new equipment to replace what was destroyed in the Gulf War, unless it was smuggled, even if it was it would be low grade stuff.

Actually they can produce the low grade stuff themselves, mostly small arms and artillery. They have the ability to maintain aircraft and tanks, but there is an obvious deficiency in spare parts. Most allegations of smuggling revolve around very modern radars from Serbia and the Ukraine.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
The bio/chem threat is almost non-existant imho, Sadaam has no effective delivery systems and despite UN efforts there have been no weapons found!

I would consider it low rather than non-existent. Every semi-industrialised has the ability to engage in some chemical warfare, all you need is a plant that produces something as simple as chlorine (which Iraq can) or a similar chemical. And empty chemical shells were found last week.

Originally posted by Snowball
They aleady have over 300,000 men there. How many are enough? 1/2 million? 1 million?

Actually the current figure is closer to 100,000 (all services, throughout the gulf region) with a further 50,000 being sent, so I don't know where you get 300,000 men, but then you were never good at figures, were you?

Originally posted by Snowball
How many are enough? 1/2 million? 1 million?

The expectation is the Americans will wait until they have 150,000 to 250,000, although numbers of men are not the sole criteria. During the Gulf war they had more than 500,000 plus the contributions from other countries.

Originally posted by Snowball
where does this end?

It doesn't. The world will continue in a state of flux, as it always has. Countries can only deal with current issues, they don't have magic balls where they can foresee and pre-empt every issue. If everything was perfect, things couldn't be improved.

Snowball

Originally posted by Victor
Actually the current figure is closer to 100,000 (all services, throughout the gulf region) with a further 50,000 being sent, so I don't know where you get 300,000 men, but then you were never good at figures, were you? The expectation is the Americans will wait until they have 150,000 to 250,000, although numbers of men are not the sole criteria. During the Gulf war they had more than 500,000 plus the contributions from other countries.

Acording to Sky News the figure (Between all none Iraq forces) is just under 300,000 and will only get bigger.

Victor

Originally posted by Snowball
Acording to Sky News the figure (Between all none Iraq forces) is just under 300,000 and will only get bigger.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12231216,00.html

It is however, dwarfed by the US commitment to the region: some 200,000 and rising.

Can you stop telling mis-truths (but whats new there)? They say committment - not in the Gulf region, not travelling there, they say "committment".

Raskolnikov - actually i agree with you on the whole destruction of the Iraqi army, in a short period of time. However i wasn't talking about that. America plans to occupy Iraq for a period of time lasting longer than 6 months. Its during the occupation that i see america having problems. Russia had very little problems with taking over Afghanistan, they just had problems with the constant attacks thereafter. Same with Vietnam. America took over the cities, but had roblems with the hit & run attacks the Viet Cong used prior to their large offensives. I foresee a similiar situation developing here, with arab suicide bombers, hit & run attacks, and general gurellia attacks. Its during this time that america will see large numbers of their personnel coming home in body bags. Its one thing to take a country, its another thing to hold it.

TrevorOcon

I wish you were right on this Klaz:
>The war will be short, lasting about one month," the source said
typical. Thats somewhat like the german army before attacking russia. This is going to turn into another Vietnam for America, especially since they're occupying the area for at least 8 months after the invasion.<

The 'US' didn't do this. The people of the US are far less convinced of the 'logic' or need for this Invasion of theirs than they were of the Vietnam War - . The Rich running the US gov are Dictating this War.

But Times have changed vastly since the 70's . According to Harper's and other magazines, some of the new weapons in the US arsenal: Actual lasers that can burn or destroy over a quarter mile, Sound focusers that can bring buildings down or destroy the personal inside - either one. And of course the hundred feet earth burrowing bombs and land missles used in the last war. The unmanned flying destruction drones. And the Depleted Uranium ammunition that 8000 US troops from the Gulf war have now complained of suffering from.

There is Zero chance for any effective Iraqi resistence - But the Bush government WELCOMES such resistance as a greater opportunity to try out new and sophisticated long-range weapons of destruction.

The boys coming back in body bags will be the ones the US killed by friendly fire mistakes and those who get too much Depleted Uranium poisoning .

This just another phase of the Rich who run the US showing that they arethe biggest monsters in the Valley.

I don't see any way not to be controlled by their power.

---There is Zero chance for any effective Iraqi resistence---

again i disagree. Their army will be destroyed quickly, however the american people have a horror of taking out civilian areas. The Iraqi forces can use that to their advantage. We've seen over the last 50 years how guriella warfare can be effective against a superior military force. They won't win, but they will do serious damage to the american forces in the area. Look at the Palestinian Suicide Bombers. They walk into and area and blow themselves up, murdering all in their path. (troops are fair game, but they'll take out civilians also). Sniping of any officer of rank. make it a war of attrition. Petrol bombs taking out patrols. Using children, to plant explosives in army camps. These are some of the ways that an Arab Country can continue their resistence.

Victor

Originally posted by TrevorOcon
According to Harper's and other magazines, some of the new weapons in the US arsenal: .... Sound focusers that can bring buildings down or destroy the personal inside - either one.

Can we have a link for this?

TrevorOcon

Yes I can give you the immediate 'Link' for that - however it IS a hardcopy Link and not an Internet URL link - unless you want pay for 'full Content' on the Harper's Magazine Website.

Here's the LINK> on page 17 of the Feb 2003 "Harper's Magazine" Under the title (you have to love Harper titles) "When Just Killing - Wont Do" From "Non-Lethal Weapons: Terms and References" Published by the United States Air Force Institute for National Security Studies. Pick up the Issue - It is bar non the finest magazine for factual intellectual input in the States.

But as the Weapons and Klaz's faith in US propaganda - you would think the Gulf War and the Afghanistan Invasion would have been enough to show ANYbody what must immediately and inevitably happen. First the US was using the 50ft Earthboring Smart Bombs to take out underground control bunkers in the Gulf War for Saint's Sake!! Second the reason that Afghanistan Invasion took a couple of weeks longer than expected is because -the Taliban had no Large Modern Army for the US to Focus it's mass extermination weapons on- . A large more modern army is EXACTLY what Bush wants the US to be able to try out it's new weapons on.

So Klaz's idea that since Iraq has a larger better organized army that will give the US more trouble - is precisely wrong. The US had a little trouble with the Taliban because they dispersed, melted away and their was nothing definite that couild be destroyed all at once.

I really have to believe that Klaz is a Yank for him to be buying that US media stuff that Quoting Klaz :>" however the american people have a horror of taking out civilian areas." <

Oh Yes. Right on. A horror of taking out civilian areas:: Like in Vietnam where village after village was destroyed 'in order to save it' in the hundreds. Like in Afghanistan where whole sections of cities that Taliban were hold up in were shelled. Like when Reagan sent in Jets to bomb an urban area around Tripoli Lybia to try to take out Khadafi. The jet bombs got a lot of civilians and Khadafi's daughter but they didn't get Khadafi.

It AMAZING how people buy US media stuff whole cloth! Does the US's recent Phillipine skirmish ring a bell - where native as well as rebels were taken out ? And what was the US doing in the Phillipines anyway? You didn't hear about the Mayor of Philadelphia 14 years ago that Bombed a building with a helicopter to take out a dissident group called MOVE ? You didn't hear about how the US tanks destroyed an entire radical religious group men women and children in Waco Texas? Worried about civilian centers?!?!! Educate yourself Klaz; if the US goes into Iran a Quarter Million 250,000 Iranians will die. Sure most of them will be soldiers - but many will not. The gullibility of people bamboozled by the US media boggles the mind.

And why is the -US- doing this Iraq War? Iraq had nothing at all to do with the World Trade Center bombing. So what is Iraq guilty of that Korea China Bolivia Colombia and several African dictator ships aren't guilty of? Nuclear Weapons? And Who is it that decided that Only the US was entitled to have Nuclear Weapons? China invaded Tibet and Annexed and killed many people While Having Nuclear Weapons - did the US go in and try to disarm China ? Some of you on here are absolutely DRUGGED with US Propaganda.

TrevorOcon

>http://asia.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/12/sproject.irq.troops/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed deployment orders Friday to send more U.S. troops to the Persian Gulf.
The deployment of 62,000 more U.S. troops will nearly double the size of the force in the region.<


So if sending 62,000 more troops will DOUBLE what is already there - then we are talking about 120,000 troops by the early weeks in February. And the US has never let their initial number of troops not be followed with more

So here in Jan. we ALREADY have 120,000 Directed to the Iraq front.

200,000 by the end February would be only 80,000 more.

200,000 troops focussed directly on Iraq by the end of February looks about right to me.


>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/12/181237.shtml
U.S. Iraq Force to Number 150 Thousand
NewsMax Staff
Monday, Jan. 13, 2003
The main U.S. battle force that is assembling in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and perhaps Turkey to confront Saddam Hussein will by late February number 150,000 troops, according to a report in the New York Times. <

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by TrevorOcon
You didn't hear about how the US tanks destroyed an entire radical religious group men women and children in Waco Texas?

A : They didn't have tanks

B : Everybody's heard of Wako, if not through serious media then at least throgh the South Park spoof.

TrevorOcon

Even if Saadam goes completely sissy-bananas and offers to kiss Bush's ass in the main Bagdhad mosque - does anyone here think that with the expenditure of sending almost a quarter Million troops to the Gulf area that Bush just to save face and not be called a jump-the-gun spendthrift idiot - won't start a massive killing of Iraqis??

He want's very badly to have a big place in war history and to make more of a world commotion than his daddy did. Many will die early and terribly to satisfy that vanity and egotism.


But it may ALL have something to do with this Living Planet in a humanly subconscious way - Purging its Surface of Excess human numbers. The Great wars in this century have occured at times when human population reached Significantly record numbers. The Planet shrugs millions of beings off its shoulders in periodic wars. Bush may just be an Instrument of unseen Planetary reaction.

TrevorOcon

Barry - Victor makes a very good point - when he asks people to get their FACTS STRAIGHT. I guess as moderator he has read many half-truths per day.

Barry - you said that their were no TANKS at Waco : Please observe the below post from Google. ALL you have to do is go to Google you know - so why try to BS us ?

Waco: A New Revelation, Reviewed by Gavin Phillips [Free Republic ...
... type of operational or tactical effort against the Branch Davidians.”. March Bell,
Director of Waco Congress Investigation ... team from inside the tanks...Or were ...
Description: Raises questions about a documentary film and suggests violation of human rights in the Waco incident.
Category: Regional > North America > ... > Human Rights and Liberties
www.freerepublic.com/forum/a388175d5194e.htm - 48k - Cached - Similar pages

Branch Davidians, Waco, and the FBI - John Danforth's Final ...
... A fire then broke out, and 76 Davidians, including 27 ... which is now referred to simply
as Waco—has become ... blame for the carnage on the Branch Davidian leader ...
www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b10a03.html - 36k - Cached - Similar pages

BRANCH DAVIDIANS (STUDENTS OF THE SEVEN SEALS)
... concluded that the children of the Branch Davidians were being ... Were Army personnel
present at Waco? ... are claims of helicopter gun ships and tanks equipped with ...
www.religioustolerance.org/dc_branc2.htm - 40k - Cached - Similar pages

Waco: The Rules of Engagement - San Francisco Chronicle Review
... from the congressional hearings on Waco, parts of ... the FBI's negotiations with the
Branch Davidians; home video ... FBI agents clowning around on tanks; home videos ...
www.waco93.com/sfchreview.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Waco: The Rules of Engagement - On HBO
... appear to be coming from the tanks moments before a ... the fire was started deliberately
by the Branch Davidians. WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT suggests this may ...
www.waco93.com/hbo.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.waco93.com ]

mike65

Originally posted by TrevorOcon
Even if Saadam offers to kiss Bush's ass in the main Bagdhad mosque - does anyone here think that Bush just to save face and not be called a jump-the-gun spendthrift idiot - won't start a massive killing of Iraqis??

er no, Bush may be a Texan oil hick but he' isnt actually a mad nutter as you seem to be suggesting.

"Hey Dick, why dont we kill thousands of Iraqis just for the fun of it, hell no-one will mind much, not if the oils safe..." I dont see myself.

A little less hysteria would'nt go amiss from some here.

Mike.

Snowball

Originally posted by mike65
er no, Bush may be a Texan oil hick but he' isnt actually a mad nutter as you seem to be suggesting.

"Hey Dick, why dont we kill thousands of Iraqis just for the fun of it, hell no-one will mind much, not if the oils safe..." I dont see myself.

A little less hysteria would'nt go amiss from some here.

Mike.

I would not be so sure. The guy is a bit ****ed up.
Also I would not be suprised if some ppl high up in the US intelegence (including Bushes daddy) knew about the 911 strikes and let it happen because they could then go and invade Iraq and get the oil. Or even more extream (and I do admit extream) but also would not shock me that if the Bushes made a deal with their old family freind Bin Laden so that he attacks and they get to attack Iraq and get the oil. Bin Laden's deal is that he gets to live in a CIA safe house some were in the world and lives happily ever after. Ether or some other scrwed up thing would not suprise me at all.

TrevorOcon --- But as the Weapons and Klaz's faith in US propaganda --- So Klaz's idea that since Iraq has a larger better organized army that will give the US more trouble - is precisely wrong.----


I thought i'd explained myself in regards to this well enough. Guess Not. I don't think the Iraq army will last more than a few days I do however think that american forces will be faced with resistence from the iraqi people, retired officers, and soldiers. Its one thing to take out an armoured column in the open, its quite another thing to find one man who snipes from a crowd.


--Like in Vietnam where village after village was destroyed 'in order to save it' in the hundreds. Like in Afghanistan where whole sections of cities that Taliban were hold up in were shelled. Like when Reagan sent in Jets to bomb an urban area around Tripoli Lybia to try to take out Khadafi.--

Vietnam was the clincher. This is when the american people woke up and realised what army was doing in another country. They saw the killing on TV, and heard first hand from the returning troops what happened. Since then the armerican people have a horror of dooing the same. Actually they do. -- When Reagan, went against Khadafi, it wasn't a war, so he wasn't under the watch of the people. If Bush hits civilian areas, where huge civilian casulties occur, do u really think the american people or europe would let him away with it?

---- And what was the US doing in the Phillipines anyway?---
You might as well ask, what is america doing in Germany, or Japan. What were they doing in Europe in 1943, or in Korea, or Vietnam, or in the gulf war. America has tried tried for decades to make itself into the sheriff for the world. Of course it sticks its nose where its not wanted.

TrevorOcon, I've never been a big fan of america. I don't really like the people, nor its history. Hell, I can almost lump it in with my feelings for Britain. But i find it strange, that you can look at two posts (from which i said 1. that the americans would receive alot of body bags & 2. the american people had a horror of hitting civilians.) and get that i'm under the US thumb. Strange. Regardless, I have a feeling that you're so convinced your ideas, that America must be full of evil folk, just waiting to plant daisy-cutters in a field full of people. You don't seem to leave an element of doubt that you might be wrong in your convictions.

You see, i think, i could be wrong. The american forces might have no problem holding a country form upwards of 6-8 months. It'll be interesting to see if they manage it without too many casulties....

Victor

Originally posted by Snowball
They aleady have over 300,000 men there. How many are enough? 1/2 million? 1 million? where does this end? Korea? China? Cuba? Ireland (IRA)? Spain (ETA)?

O_o! Look at this article it say "The number of US troops assembling in the Gulf region has now surpassed 60,000, although authorities will not confirm the exact number. " (30 January 2003 )

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,885463,00.html

Hobbes

What I don't get is how everyone seems to think it will be all cut and dried when the US finally takes Baghdad.

For starters, you have the Iraqis who are loyal to Saddam. Depending on who they fear the most depends on if they will be fighting and where.

You have people in Baghdad who are probably more loyal to Saddam then in other areas, so Urban warfare will probably happen, especially if they believe the press that the Kurds may or may not be taking over (although Turkey said they would only help the US if they left the Kurds were they were).

In Urban test fighting a few months ago the US army had over a 50% mortality rate.

Then as mentioned you have the other players in Iraq who will see it as a chance to grab land, heck even Israel said they would take a chunk at one stage.

You can bet your ass that if Saddam knows he's getting removed, then all bets will be off. You can forget about straight combat my guess is he would attack back in covert (ie. Terrorism) ways. It's unlikely US is going to turn Iraq into glass if he does pull some crap but you can bet it's not going to make matters better.

Then your going to have the resentment of what will basically look like the US invading another country, which will cause the increase of terrorism domestic and abroad (But Bush will probably use that excuse to go into Iran, as the pipeline has to go somewhere from Afganistan).

Plus if the US goes without UN approval (or worse, it's veto'ed in the UN but they go ahead) it will basically be "all bets are off" for a lot of countries who will see US example to attack other countries, not to mention the so called "Axis of Evil" states will probably start arming up.

So no, it won't be a happy ending when the US tanks roll into Baghdad to "Liberate" the masses.

Btw, anyone paying attention to Afganistan? Apart from US troops still being shot at, the US installing a government that has human rights issues that make the Taleban look like sunday schoolers, it appears to be reverting back to it's old ways. Just recently they have banned women from going to school.

Based on that what makes the US think that it's going to be a short and sweet war?

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Btw, anyone paying attention to Afganistan? Apart from US troops still being shot at, the US installing a government that has human rights issues that make the Taleban look like sunday schoolers, it appears to be reverting back to it's old ways. Just recently they have banned women from going to school.

But at least they're making great strides in destroying the opium crops again.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by bonkey
But at least they're making great strides in destroying the opium crops again.

jc

Hard to tell when your being sarcastic or not

From what I gather the Opium crop late last year was the pratically a record harvest even in comparision to the 90's.

At least one province has said that if the West isn't going to hand over the $4 billion it promised and aren't allowed grow poppies then terrorism will return.