Please note that new user registrations disabled at this time.

Are we going to war?

Anything goes... just keep it clean.
User avatar
Chanak
Posts: 4677
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 12:00 pm
Location: Pandemonium
Contact:

Post by Chanak »

Originally posted by Scayde
Y&ou know Thug.I have wondered myself if GWB did not feel a lot of the same dissatisfaction with the way the Gulf War ended....There were more than a few Americans who felt the job was left undone, Stormin Norman being at the top of the list..Unfortunately Bush Senior put more credence in the council opf Powell than Schwarztkof.
There well may be a point to what you are saying in Bush looking for justifcation to finnish the job his Father started.

I feel that if this had been finnished then, we would not be having many of the problems we are having now. :rolleyes:


I recall General Schwartzkopf wanting to push forward past the line of demarcation during the ground push into Iraq...to do so would have been to act independently of the Coalition agreement, however. Bush Sr. respected this, and so American (as well as British, Canadian, and French) forces halted at a designated point.

Did this leave unfinished business? Absolutely, I agree with you whole-heartedly. Much was undone, and I recall most of my friends on the front lines feeling a great deal of frustration. Nevertheless, the agreement was honored.

I would like to point something out to everyone posting in this thread...understand that despite the rhetoric, and puffing of chests in the media, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi military he commands doesn't stand much of a chance if the United States decides to invade. During Desert Storm, the Iraqis employed T-72 Soviet tanks...light years behind the American battle tank, the M1-A1 Abrams. These were either eliminated by Allied anti-tank ground forces (there are a variety of portable means to destroy heavy equipment), or wiped out by the American Apache attack helicopters.

The Apache has since been replaced in active service by an even deadlier, and faster, hovering arsenal of high-tech weaponry. These alone can eliminate entire armored divisions, without much support at all...

In short, the fear of losing many American lives in a protracted conflict on Iraqi soil actually might be exaggerated in the press.

@Sleepy: Are you familiar with the US Constitution? :)
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
User avatar
Nippy
Posts: 5085
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Reading, England
Contact:

Post by Nippy »

I'd agree completely, the Challenger and Scimatar tanks that the British use could more than likely annihalate a similar issue, not to mention the anti-armour capabilites that the British have. Not only that, but the British Spec Ops could do the business as much as anyone. The Sub we've posted out there uses Tomahawk's, and think how many aircraft carriers the US put out there? Lets be honest, they battle won't be a long-winded affair, it's a simple case of how far it'll go...
Perverteer Paladin
User avatar
Chanak
Posts: 4677
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 12:00 pm
Location: Pandemonium
Contact:

Post by Chanak »

Originally posted by Nippy
I'd agree completely, the Challenger and Scimatar tanks that the British use could more than likely annihalate a similar issue, not to mention the anti-armour capabilites that the British have. Not only that, but the British Spec Ops could do the business as much as anyone. The Sub we've posted out there uses Tomahawk's, and think how many aircraft carriers the US put out there? Lets be honest, they battle won't be a long-winded affair, it's a simple case of how far it'll go...


Thanks for the additional info, Nippy. :) I'm not too boned up on European military capability...but as I recall, the US and Britain collaborated on the classified armor material that the M1-A1 sports...it behaves like reactive armor. I am sure the British battle tanks are similarly equipped. One edge NATO held over the Soviet bloc (which was the chief supplier for Iraq for many years) was superior technology, such as thermal imaging and advanced computer targeting capability.

It's funny you should mention the Tomahawk missle...egad, that thing can make U-turns in flight... :eek: :eek: :eek: That missle could fly through the streets of Bagdad, seeking a particular target...and only strike *that* target.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
User avatar
Scayde
Posts: 8739
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 1:05 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Scayde »

Originally posted by Chanak
I recall General Schwartzkopf wanting to push forward past the line of demarcation during the ground push into Iraq...to do so would have been to act independently of the Coalition agreement, however. Bush Sr. respected this, and so American (as well as British, Canadian, and French) forces halted at a designated point.

Did this leave unfinished business? Absolutely, I agree with you whole-heartedly. Much was undone, and I recall most of my friends on the front lines feeling a great deal of frustration. Nevertheless, the agreement was honored.
I did not know this, thank you for the insight. It does help me to feel somewat better about the whole affair

I would like to point something out to everyone posting in this thread...understand that despite the rhetoric, and puffing of chests in the media, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi military he commands doesn't stand much of a chance if the United States decides to invade. During Desert Storm, the Iraqis employed T-72 Soviet tanks...light years behind the American battle tank, the M1-A1 Abrams. These were either eliminated by Allied anti-tank ground forces (there are a variety of portable means to destroy heavy equipment), or wiped out by the American Apache attack helicopters.

The Apache has since been replaced in active service by an even deadlier, and faster, hovering arsenal of high-tech weaponry. These alone can eliminate entire armored divisions, without much support at all...

In short, the fear of losing many American lives in a protracted conflict on Iraqi soil actually might be exaggerated in the press.

@Sleepy: Are you familiar with the US Constitution? :)


While I do not know enough about military hardware to be able to recognize any of these you have listed, (other than the Apache that is) I take great comfort in our military..I feel there is no force of arms better in the world than our military. Our equipment, inteligence, and organization are second to none. The men and women who serve are some of the finest and most highly trained in the world. They sacrifice much so that the rest of us can sleep safer in our beds at night . To any and all who serve, or have served, you have my sincerest appreciation adn respect :cool:

Scayde Moody
(Pronounced Shayde)

The virtue of self sacrifice is the lie perpetuated by the weak to enslave the strong
User avatar
Skooter327
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 8:36 pm
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Skooter327 »

Originally posted by Chanak
It's funny you should mention the Tomahawk missle...egad, that thing can make U-turns in flight... :eek: :eek: :eek: That missle could fly through the streets of Bagdad, seeking a particular target...and only strike *that* target.
Have you seen the guidance footage of these missles on the History Channel? When they show those things being flown around obstacles and into the window of a building, the thought of how accurate those missles are is just chilling.
User avatar
Nippy
Posts: 5085
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Reading, England
Contact:

Post by Nippy »

It's funny you should mention the Tomahawk missle...egad, that thing can make U-turns in flight... That missle could fly through the streets of Bagdad, seeking a particular target...and only strike *that* target.
That's the funny thing I find about Tomahawk's, the warhead can go to withint 10 Metres, right? Who gives a damn?! The thing has an explosive radius of 50-100, if not more! :D

That is true, the Soviet bloc had little choice in the matter really, they were the only people that would give them support, even then, the T- range of tanks has only gotten so far, the 72 was WW2 era! They really are up against it, I'm afraid that it would be quite horrific, the sad thing is, Hussein would get his forces into a situation where they couldn't capitulate. I'm pretty sure that his words where that "his forces would guard the gates of Baghdhad." It almost sends shivers down my spine.

What did you mean to Sleepy about the Constitution? I'm intrigued...
Perverteer Paladin
User avatar
HighLordDave
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
Contact:

Post by HighLordDave »

We shouldn't really be worried about the length of a war in Iraq because even if only the United States puts people on the ground, the Iraqi army will be annhilated. Our equipment is better, our soldiers better trained and our warplanners are better prepared than any Saddam Hussein has. The only thing that could possible lengthen a war is prolonged urban fighting which has a tendency to equal the odds in favour of the defender, even if they are outnumbered and outgunned.

The American and British air forces and naval aviators will have absolute air supremecy. We destroyed much of the Iraqi air force in the Gulf War and they haven't had much of an opportunity to acquire new equipment or train new pilots. Conversely, almost all of the active duty pilots in American fighter wings (both Air Force and Navy) have flown missions over Iraq enforcing the no-fly zones some time in the last twelve years. On the modern battlefield, the army with the best air support will win.

What we should be worried about is occupying Iraq. What is Dubya's exit strategy? What is the timetable for installing a friendly government and ensuring its prolonged survival? How long are American soldiers, who are already stretched pretty thin with already-high OPTEMPOs (the frequency of deployment), going to be in Iraq and under the constant threat of partisan attacks? What will the long-term effect of Americans conquering and occupying a Muslim nation be on creating more terrorists?

If we have learned anything from Vietnam (and believe me, we learned a bunch), it's that you shouldn't send soldiers somewhere without a clear mission and a clear time to get out. What is the mission in Iraq? Is it to assassinate Saddam Hussein? Is it to capture the oil fields (the second largest in the world) and install American corporations to run them? Is it to destroy the world's supply of weapons of mass destruction that are in the hands of people we don't trust (if this is the case, we'd better prepare to invade Pakistan, India and North Korea, too)?

I have been opposed to invading Iraq for some time. I was opposed to the Gulf War twelve years ago. Unless Dubya can make his case and answer the questions above, I don't think we have any business starting a land war in Asia.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!

If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
User avatar
Chanak
Posts: 4677
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2002 12:00 pm
Location: Pandemonium
Contact:

Post by Chanak »

Originally posted by HighLordDave
We shouldn't really be worried about the length of a war in Iraq because even if only the United States puts people on the ground, the Iraqi army will be annhilated. Our equipment is better, our soldiers better trained and our warplanners are better prepared than any Saddam Hussein has. The only thing that could possible lengthen a war is prolonged urban fighting which has a tendency to equal the odds in favour of the defender, even if they are outnumbered and outgunned.

The American and British air forces and naval aviators will have absolute air supremecy. We destroyed much of the Iraqi air force in the Gulf War and they haven't had much of an opportunity to acquire new equipment or train new pilots. Conversely, almost all of the active duty pilots in American fighter wings (both Air Force and Navy) have flown missions over Iraq enforcing the no-fly zones some time in the last twelve years. On the modern battlefield, the army with the best air support will win.

What we should be worried about is occupying Iraq. What is Dubya's exit strategy? What is the timetable for installing a friendly government and ensuring its prolonged survival? How long are American soldiers, who are already stretched pretty thin with already-high OPTEMPOs (the frequency of deployment), going to be in Iraq and under the constant threat of partisan attacks? What will the long-term effect of Americans conquering and occupying a Muslim nation be on creating more terrorists?

If we have learned anything from Vietnam (and believe me, we learned a bunch), it's that you shouldn't send soldiers somewhere without a clear mission and a clear time to get out. What is the mission in Iraq? Is it to assassinate Saddam Hussein? Is it to capture the oil fields (the second largest in the world) and install American corporations to run them? Is it to destroy the world's supply of weapons of mass destruction that are in the hands of people we don't trust (if this is the case, we'd better prepare to invade Pakistan, India and North Korea, too)?

I have been opposed to invading Iraq for some time. I was opposed to the Gulf War twelve years ago. Unless Dubya can make his case and answer the questions above, I don't think we have any business starting a land war in Asia.


Excellent military points, HLD. Urban warfare is precisely the challenge here...however, having witnessed the Ranger battalion at Ft. Lewis conduct specialized training in such environments, I must say that the Special Operations Group is more than prepared to meet the challenge. We often hear about firefights between "regular" infantry and enemy forces, but we rarely hear about the excursions made by SOG personnel like the Deltas, Rangers and the SEALS into enemy territory. The American forces are mirrored by the elite British units, perhaps the finest such troops in the world...the two combined present an edge in this arena of combat as well.

As a sidenote, I looked over some of the specialized equipment available to SOG personnel...this is of course unclassified. ;) A helmet is available that permits the soldier a 360 degree field of vision...it also boasts night vision (ultraviolet) capability...

I like to keep in mind that the "Gulf War" was conducted by a number of nations...the United States and Britian being the major players in the Coalition forces. Nevertheless, the military action was supported by the United Nations. The United States and Britian abstained from pushing forward into Iraq out of respect for the coalition's goals. Charges of a conspiracy to own Iraqi property or oil fields fell through then, and it is not the aim of the United States even now. It was only a matter of time before Hussein would play the role of belligerent aggressor once more...

Iraqi actions during that conflict demonstrated Hussein's belligerent posture...for which there is no justification whatsoever on an international scale. There wasn't then, and there isn't now. Not only do I applaud President Bush for sticking to his guns, but I support military action against Iraq 100%. What is the objective this time? There is no question, to me - the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power in Iraq, which should have been done over a decade ago.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
User avatar
Scayde
Posts: 8739
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2002 1:05 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Post by Scayde »

*Reading Chanak's, Nippy's and HLD's posts and Learning a lot* :cool: :cool: :cool:

Scayde Moody
(Pronounced Shayde)

The virtue of self sacrifice is the lie perpetuated by the weak to enslave the strong
User avatar
HighLordDave
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
Contact:

Post by HighLordDave »

Originally posted by Chanak
however, having witnessed the Ranger battalion at Ft. Lewis conduct specialized training in such environments, I must say that the Special Operations Group is more than prepared to meet the challenge.
What was the mission in this training? Was it to achieve an objective or occupy the town? The United States, which maintains the best army in the world, has not prepared its soldiers to become stationary targets in an urban environment, which is what would happen if (when?) we conquer Iraq. To see this, we only need to look back to the Battle of Mogadishu to see how a rag-tag army of armed locals can inflict significant casualties on American soldiers.

I do not believe that any Iraqi field commander would order his soldiers to use chemical weapons on Americans, even if Saddam Hussein ordered it. We would simply start carpet bombing or nuking towns in pre-emptive strikes. However, I have no doubt that no matter how bad they think Saddam Hussein is, the Iraqi people would soon come to resent an American military presence that lasts any length of time. Unless there is a definite exit strategy, we would find our soldiers the targets of sniper attacks, car bombings and other acts of sabotage and "terrorism" (freedom fighting?).

Unless we get in and out of Iraq very quickly, anti-American elements in other Muslim nations will flock to Iraqi partisan groups the way they did to the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. We cannot afford a long occupation or prolonged "nation-building" (interestingly, a term Republicans hate because Clinton did a lot of it, but it seems to be what we're about in Afghanistan and what we will be up to in Iraq). The cost in political capital convincing Arab states that we're not establishing a permanent presence will be high, as will the cost of the war in both money, material and lives if it goes on too long.

We were spoiled by the Gulf War. According to government reports, 148 American soldiers were killed in battle (35 due to friendly fire), 145 killed in other than battle (ie-accidents) and 467 wounded in action (72 were wounded by friendly fire). Since Vietnam, politicians have become very sensitive to high body counts and the Gulf War and the air campaign in the Balkans has only reinforced the notion that war is bloodless and of a "video game" style. If we occupy Iraq, I am sure the cost will be much, much higher. Is Dubya prepared to pay that price?

What is the objective this time? There is no question, to me - the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power in Iraq

Is that all? Then why the armed build-up in the Persian Gulf region? We could remove Saddam Hussein and every one of his chief lieutenants very easily and very effiently with a sniper rifle or a cruise missile. There is an interim government-in-exile forming as we speak that is planning to build a western-friendly post-Saddam Iraqi government that we could install in a matter hours after Hussein's death.

Dubya's dad not only had the opportunity to have Saddam Hussein by Americans, but he had the opportunity to back at least two internal insurrections by Iraqi anti-Saddam forces. He squandered them through a combination of short-sightedness and needing to appease our Arab allies by not meddling (too much) in a Muslim country. Support for Dubya's war in far shorter supply that it was for his dad's war, not only among our usual allies, but in the Muslim nations as well.

What is the real purpose of Dubya's war? To draw attention away from a flagging economy? Defense contracts to his (and his vice-president's) friends? Oil? To finish what his father started?

The party line from the White House is to topple a despot and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. There are far worse dictators in the world and there are more destructive weapons of mass destruction that what Saddam Hussein has, so why go after Iraq?

The World Trade Center attacks have taught us that there are people out there who hate American so much they will kill themselves to kill some of us. How do you think their ideological brethren will feel after we assassinate Saddam Hussien and take over a Muslim country; will it make these people hate us more or less? Are we, as a nation, prepared to deal with the consequences of our actions and the responses this war will generate?
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!

If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
User avatar
The Z
Posts: 4451
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 7:42 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by The Z »

This may have been brought up before but....

Excuse my rude interruption into this discussion, but I have a few quick, and possibly irrelevant/unimportant question(s).

Won't the war be VERY expensive on the US and it's allies? If so will it affect the economy on a global scale?

Re: Muslims....if America does go to war with Iraq, won't the Islamic population in that area become very infuriated? I mean, if war does occur, two Arabic countries have been singled out for various reasons (Afghanistan I can understand, however....Iraq seems to be an excuse to claim oil), while problems in Korea arise. And though the Israeli/Palestine problem is not directly the States' fault, they do support the Israelis. How will those people feel when they are shunned for open war upon Iraq? Moreover, the Palistinians will become even more enraged at the States for what they (and what might be) called "prejudice against Muslim states" won't they?
"It's not whether you get knocked down, it's if you get back up."
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Re: This may have been brought up before but....
Originally posted by The Z
Excuse my rude interruption into this discussion, but I have a few quick, and possibly irrelevant/unimportant question(s).

Won't the war be VERY expensive on the US and it's allies? If so will it affect the economy on a global scale?


Estimates of an Iraqi war by the US at this time vary, but all tend to fall in the neighborhood of 5-10 billion dollars--provided the war part is over within a month. The high cost is because this is a technology-intensive war the US is planning to fight (believing they will have the same low casuality figures sustained in the earlier Gulf War thanks to that). The rebuilding of Iraq is expected to take a lot longer.

Significantly, Bush did not figure in either an Iraqi war or the Star Wars space defense shield in his projections for this year's federal budget, which is already severely in the red.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Tamerlane
Posts: 4554
Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: The land of Oz
Contact:

Post by Tamerlane »

Re: This may have been brought up before but....
Originally posted by The Z
Excuse my rude interruption into this discussion, but I have a few quick, and possibly irrelevant/unimportant question(s).

Won't the war be VERY expensive on the US and it's allies? If so will it affect the economy on a global scale?


Whilst fable pretty much answered that question, I'm just wondering can the US economy actually handle the war? Bush is cutting back on taxes yet choosing to spend more, not the best formula to use. Will the war help to stimulate the economy, or will it likely go bust as a result.
Originally posted by The Z
Re: Muslims....if America does go to war with Iraq, won't the Islamic population in that area become very infuriated?
As Kid has already stated, Indonesia will be of biggest concern for me. These students are already in a whipped up state of expressing anti-western sentiments, and the war will raise a few tempers over here. The outer regions are already a hot bed for terrorists activity through out the South-East, and things will get a lot worse as a result.
Originally posted by Skooter327
Have you seen the guidance footage of these missles on the History Channel? When they show those things being flown around obstacles and into the window of a building, the thought of how accurate those missles are is just chilling.


Funny you should mention that, missles are only as good as the people in charge or the intelligence used. Advanced missles were used in Afghanistan and they resulted in a tribal elders meeting loyal to Karzai getting mistaken for Taliban forces and being subsequently bombed. Same for the hospital which was destroyed in Serbia and lets not forget the high profile case of the Chinese embassy getting bombed too, during the early stages of the conflict amongst others. Collatoral damage is always a part of modern warfare, but people shouldn't put too much faith into such weapons.
!
User avatar
Mr Sleep
Posts: 11273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Dead End Street
Contact:

Post by Mr Sleep »

Originally posted by Chanak
@Sleepy: Are you familiar with the US Constitution? :)


Only enough to be cynical and make off the cuff comments about it :D HLD linked to it a while back but it forced my eyes closed so I never got around to reading it fully.

Apparently it is the right of any US citizen to bear arms...not an arsenal though ;)
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
User avatar
Nippy
Posts: 5085
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Reading, England
Contact:

Post by Nippy »

Are you sure about that Sleepy? Bearing arms to some US is like borrowing a couple of tanks from Knox. :D ;)
Perverteer Paladin
User avatar
Mr Sleep
Posts: 11273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Dead End Street
Contact:

Post by Mr Sleep »

Originally posted by HighLordDave
The United States, which maintains the best army in the world


The largest, yes, however I would contend they are not the most competent, they have not had a great deal of experience and I think there are better trained units out there. The SBS thing I quoted once before is a perfect example.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
User avatar
Nippy
Posts: 5085
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 11:00 pm
Location: Reading, England
Contact:

Post by Nippy »

@ Sleep, was that when we discussed Spetsnaz, SBS and training? I think I remember that...
Perverteer Paladin
User avatar
Mr Sleep
Posts: 11273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2000 10:00 pm
Location: Dead End Street
Contact:

Post by Mr Sleep »

Originally posted by Nippy
@ Sleep, was that when we discussed Spetsnaz, SBS and training? I think I remember that...


Yeah that was it, I would say those troops are superior to the average US grunt. However they are in short supply and you probably need as many poor grunts as you do skilled soldiers.
I'd have to get drunk every night and talk about virility...And those Pink elephants I'd see.
User avatar
Audace
Posts: 344
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2001 10:00 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Audace »

Bush better hurry with his war...the curse of Tecumseh doesn't care about politics.....http://www.samsloan.com/tecumseh.htm
"Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas"
User avatar
HighLordDave
Posts: 4062
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2001 11:00 pm
Location: Between Middle-Earth and the Galaxy Far, Far Away
Contact:

Post by HighLordDave »

Comparing a US Army infantry soldier with someone from the Spetznaz or Royal Gurkha Rifles is not a valid comparison. Comparing an SAS trooper with a Navy SEAL is, and I believe the SEALs (or Marine Force Recon or Army Special Forces or Air Force Air Commandos) to be the equal of any special operations unit in the world.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!

If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
Post Reply