The Battle of Baghdad - Page 3

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 13:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
so, who are the barbarians who are about to kick your ass?

the barbarians who killed 3000 of us, who left a smoking hole in lower manhattan, and who left the acrid smoke pouring out of the Pentagon, that I remember smelling. Those barbarians. But we're gonna beat them, cause we're a fundamentally different kind of polity than ancient Rome.

Alex · January 31, 2003, 13:21

DP

Alex · January 31, 2003, 13:21

Caesar, morituri te salutant.

(Hm, my Latin is a bit rusted)

What came after the glorious Roman Empire? The Dark Age. Oh boy.

Sinapus · January 31, 2003, 13:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexnm
Caesar, morituri te salutant.

(Hm, my Latin is a bit rusted)

What came after the glorious Roman Empire? The Dark Age. Oh boy.

Fortunately, history doesn't repeat itself exactly.

Az · January 31, 2003, 13:52

Quote:

the barbarians who killed 3000 of us, who left a smoking hole in lower manhattan, and who left the acrid smoke pouring out of the Pentagon, that I remember smelling. Those barbarians. But we're gonna beat them, cause we're a fundamentally different kind of polity than ancient Rome.

then his entire point is void.

Willem · January 31, 2003, 13:59

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
[SIZE=1]

Since 1991
the US went into somalia as part of a UN operation, at teh urging of the UN.
The US fought in Kosovo, as part of a multilateral NATO operation, which Blair pushed as much as more than the US govt, after having been very reluctant to get involved in the Balkan conflict.
We went into Afganistan after an attack ON OUR SOIL that killed 3000, could easily have killed more. One which we entered with the approval of the entire world.
The implication that the US goes to war at the drop of a hat is false. Invading Iraq may or may not be justified, but the idea you imply is wrong, and to hope for high US casualties to avoid it is vile.

What about Panama, Grenada, Vietnam? And what about all the US support for puppet regimes, as in Nicauragua, the Shah of Iran?

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 14:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

What about Panama, Grenada, Vietnam? And what about all the US support for puppet regimes, as in Nicauragua, the Shah of Iran?

Note I said since 1991. Panama was in 1989 (iirc) grenad in 1984, and US withdrew from Viet nam in 1972.
The shah was overthrown in 1979, Somoza in the mid-70's IIRC.

The cold war was a different time, I was trying to refer to the post cold war era.

You did read my post, didnt you?????

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 14:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

then his entire point is void.

His point:
"We don't lose brothers or sons because we kick so much ass. The Romans, our geopolitical forebears, went to war all the time to maintain the Pax Romana, against smaller and less well trained armies. They did very well in those engagements. America is the same way."

Well im not sure if "geoppolitical forebears" can be reconciled with "A very different polity" (though i suspect it can be) but his main point, that low US casualties are associated with (and caused by) geopolitical dominance seems to stand - how is it contradicted by what i said????

Willem · January 31, 2003, 14:42

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Note I said since 1991. Panama was in 1989 (iirc) grenad in 1984, and US withdrew from Viet nam in 1972.
The shah was overthrown in 1979, Somoza in the mid-70's IIRC.

The cold war was a different time, I was trying to refer to the post cold war era.

You did read my post, didnt you?????

When it comes to international trust, you can't just draw a line and say that actions before then don't count. Americans may not care to much about history, but many cultures still get angry over things that occured a hundred years ago. They aren't just going to ignore past indiscretions by the US, especially when the current administration is acting in the same way as they did in the "bad old days".

Hell, most of Bush's staff also served under Reagan. I'm sure more than a few of them had a hand in all those engagements I mentioned. Oliver North certainly wasn't acting alone.

Az · January 31, 2003, 14:48

Quote:

Well im not sure if "geoppolitical forebears" can be reconciled with "A very different polity

this was my biggest problem.

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 15:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

When it comes to international trust, you can't just draw a line and say that actions before then don't count. Americans may not care to much about history, but many cultures still get angry over things that occured a hundred years ago. They aren't just going to ignore past indiscretions by the US, especially when the current administration is acting in the same way as they did in the "bad old days".

Hell, most of Bush's staff also served under Reagan. I'm sure more than a few of them had a hand in all those engagements I mentioned. Oliver North certainly wasn't acting alone.

He was not speaking what makes him angry in general, but his fear that the US will regularly start wars if things dont go badly for us in Iraq. If we're trying to guess at future behavior it makes sense to draw a line where the situation changed enough to impact behavior. (Isnt it europeans who are always telling israelis to forget about Arafats history as a terrorist???)

Every nation has indiscertions in its past. If we are to be paralyzed because of that, no democracy will act - and thats just what people like Saddam hussein want. And the US, without defending each indiviudal action undertaken in the cold war, was by and large doing the right thing. As our allies, by and large agreed. If youre going to go back to history, you need to go back to the WHOLE history - the defense of Europe in NATO for 40 years, not just a Grenada or Nicaruagua.

Sandman · January 31, 2003, 15:19

I don't expect the Iraqis to put up much of a fight at Baghdad. It'll just be loads of civilian casualties, and hand-wringing from warmongers mumbling about collateral damage and 'these things happen in war'.

Sinapus · January 31, 2003, 16:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
I don't expect the Iraqis to put up much of a fight at Baghdad. It'll just be loads of civilian casualties, and hand-wringing from warmongers mumbling about collateral damage and 'these things happen in war'.

Boy, aren't we out of line.

Sten Sture · January 31, 2003, 16:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
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.

Tactically I think this is how it might unfold, though I would argue that because of the nature of the defensive positions around Baghdad, the more likely end game is to try to turn the outer circle Rep Guard against the inner circle Special Guards. Since they cannot move their positions, a defection by one section would allow the civilians in the city to be evacuated. I would seriously doubt if there will be either carpet bombing (in an urban area???) or house to house fighting. A surrounded and emasculated Saddam for a peoiod of weeks is a containment policy that could work easier than the DMZ in Korea, and with very low overall casualties. Could be as low as a couple hundred total - on all sides.

Ned · January 31, 2003, 17:18

The US got into some very intense battles in WWII, both theaters, and in Korean and Vietnam. We did very well in those most of those battles, all told. The reason we did well was firepower.

But, if the enemy is determined and has plenty of ammo, it can put up quite a resistance. I am thinking of the Russians before Moscow in '41 and at Stalingrad late '42 and the Germans in the winter '42-43 attack on Army Group Center and at Berlin in '45. Those were bloodbaths.

Sten Sture · January 31, 2003, 17:30

There were two articles on www.strategypage.com (most stuff is from gung-ho military guys - so be aware) last summer that were pretty interesting. I'll link them here and edit in a couple of snipets:

http://www.strategypage.com/strategy...s/20020620.asp

...the shaky nature of his fear-driven regime makes Iraqi WMD use, or threats of use, problematic after an American invasion starts.

Saddam's security forces would then have major incentives to shoot him, to produce a better outcome for themselves. Fear of Saddam would decrease, fear of us grow, and the chances of Saddam's assassination increase, at exponential rates after the invasion starts. The Iraqis learned to think of us as supermen during Desert Storm, with the Taliban's recent demise reminding them. There is no reasonable expectation of Iraqi survival once a U.S. invasion begins, even if Iraq then uses WMD.

Saddam's best chance of survival is therefore deterrence of invasion...

http://www.strategypage.com/strategy...s/20020501.asp

The Saudi regime has major problems at home such that we might not be able to keep them in power much longer even if we wanted to (its domestic problems are what drives its funding of terrorism), and it certainly can't stay in power if the U.S. government attempts to bring it down through overt (blockade) or covert means.

Interesting scenarios to consider, though clearly just that.

DuncanK · January 31, 2003, 17:39

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Note I said since 1991. Panama was in 1989 (iirc) grenad in 1984, and US withdrew from Viet nam in 1972.
The shah was overthrown in 1979, Somoza in the mid-70's IIRC.

The cold war was a different time, I was trying to refer to the post cold war era.

You did read my post, didnt you?????

Historians don't consider anything less then 20 years ago as history. That's because we can't determine true changes within that time.

Lord Merciless · January 31, 2003, 18:54

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.

Capt Dizle · January 31, 2003, 19:20

Rumors circulating here in NC, supposedly from Fort Bragg speak of new urban warfare tactics including a special device capable of disabling all persons in a radius of a typical city block long enough for specially equiped soilders to infiltrate and subdue with minimal risk and casualties.

I would hope to hear MTG confirm or refute this rumor as I have no idea.

Ned · January 31, 2003, 19:36

The US got into some very intense battles in WWII, both theaters, and in Korean and Vietnam. We did very well in those most of those battles, all told. The reason we did well was firepower.

But, if the enemy is determined and has plenty of ammo, it can put up quite a resistance. I am thinking of the Russians before Moscow in '41 and at Stalingrad late '42 and the Germans in the winter '42-43 attack on Army Group Center and at Berlin in '45. Those were bloodbaths.

Lancer · March 17, 2003, 14:38

We are very close now...the question is, will the Iraqis in Baghdad put up a fight?

Lancer · March 20, 2003, 15:08

I heard on FOX that elements of the Republican Guard have expressed the desire to surrender. If so, the battle of Baghdad will be easier. The Republican guard are the ones deployed to defend the city.

Dauphin · March 20, 2003, 15:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Lancer
I heard on FOX

Not that I doubt the journalistic integrity of FOX, but are there any other sources?

Sava · March 20, 2003, 15:12

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I last longer in bed than the Iraqii army will last in battle.

The Iraqi's will start fighting...

Lancer · March 20, 2003, 15:14

BC, not yet. My hopes are up though.

Lancer · March 20, 2003, 15:35

"So far, so very good"

If you have to ask, "is that 'shock and awe', then it's not. You'll know it when you see it."

Sava · March 20, 2003, 15:36

So far, I'm shocked and awed by MSNBC's Brian Williams, and the amount of times he says "uh".

Lancer · March 20, 2003, 15:42

uh, well...they aren't "fair and balanced" either.

I'd love to be rolling through Iraq, heading towards Baghdad, stopping to let the Iraqi army kiss my hand...except for the chem weapons thing...

Sava · March 20, 2003, 15:45

I'm switching around stations... I just have the TV on in case there are more cool explosions. Right now I'm listening to "The Score" sports radio 670 AM. There's a funny segment called "who you crapping" on right now. Thursdays at 1:30-2:00 PM on Thursdays is the best radio.

Kramerman · March 20, 2003, 16:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Sloww : didn't you predict W. would go to Iran right next ?

hopefully we will, diplomatically at first, adn if they fail to comply, then militarily if we have to. IIRC, they have a functioning plutonium manufcaturing reactor, and another Uranium enrichment plant that we just found out about not long ago. With Iran's chief enemy, Saddam Hussein's regime, is no more, hopefully they will have no more reason to persue weapons of mass destruction adn will comply.