Say What !!
-
Article To quote from the above article: "ANKARA, Turkey -- A defiant Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has said his country would fight "very effectively" if attacked by the United States. Aziz, speaking in Turkey, accepted there would be great losses but added Iraq had learned military lessons from the 1991 Gulf War. " Them boys are dense are they not. They have no freaking idea what about to be brought down on their head if they continue on the current collision course. The "lesson" they did NOT learn from the Gulf War is that they are not a world class military power and never will be. Bravado has its place but this ain't it. I'd almost be willing to bet that if we do have a little tussle with Iraq ( whcih I hope we don't BTW )that the US casualities will be LESS than it was for the Gulf War because we will not have the "friendly fire" incidents that cost us so dearly in the earlier conflict. Plus the advancement is weapons and materials in the last decade or so has been staggering. Sad Damn give it up. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Article To quote from the above article: "ANKARA, Turkey -- A defiant Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has said his country would fight "very effectively" if attacked by the United States. Aziz, speaking in Turkey, accepted there would be great losses but added Iraq had learned military lessons from the 1991 Gulf War. " Them boys are dense are they not. They have no freaking idea what about to be brought down on their head if they continue on the current collision course. The "lesson" they did NOT learn from the Gulf War is that they are not a world class military power and never will be. Bravado has its place but this ain't it. I'd almost be willing to bet that if we do have a little tussle with Iraq ( whcih I hope we don't BTW )that the US casualities will be LESS than it was for the Gulf War because we will not have the "friendly fire" incidents that cost us so dearly in the earlier conflict. Plus the advancement is weapons and materials in the last decade or so has been staggering. Sad Damn give it up. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: but added Iraq had learned military lessons but, are using the same out-dated crap they had over 10 years ago. Which was mostly already out-dated then. The toughest part will picking them off from between the civilians, when they go running down the street. BW {insert witty/thought-provoking saying here}
-
Richard Stringer wrote: but added Iraq had learned military lessons but, are using the same out-dated crap they had over 10 years ago. Which was mostly already out-dated then. The toughest part will picking them off from between the civilians, when they go running down the street. BW {insert witty/thought-provoking saying here}
brianwelsch wrote: The toughest part will picking them off from between the civilians, when they go running down the street. ...from 40,000 ft. at mach 2 with a cruise missle... :omg:
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
brianwelsch wrote: The toughest part will picking them off from between the civilians, when they go running down the street. ...from 40,000 ft. at mach 2 with a cruise missle... :omg:
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
use of a "human shield" will be partly why we're going to have to involve more ground troops, as opposed to simply running wave after wave of air attack. BW {insert witty/thought-provoking saying here}
-
use of a "human shield" will be partly why we're going to have to involve more ground troops, as opposed to simply running wave after wave of air attack. BW {insert witty/thought-provoking saying here}
brianwelsch wrote: use of a "human shield" will be partly why we're going to have to involve more ground troops... I wouldn't. If this is a war, it's a WAR!!! 100% or not at all. Didn't the Germans bomb London? Didn't the allies bomb the crap out of Dresden? Didn't the US virtually destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (No, I'm not suggesting nuclear bombs in Iraq) Have the rules of war changed in 60 years? We do not need another Vietnam. IMO we either destroy them or we stay the hell out. Preferably the latter.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Article To quote from the above article: "ANKARA, Turkey -- A defiant Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has said his country would fight "very effectively" if attacked by the United States. Aziz, speaking in Turkey, accepted there would be great losses but added Iraq had learned military lessons from the 1991 Gulf War. " Them boys are dense are they not. They have no freaking idea what about to be brought down on their head if they continue on the current collision course. The "lesson" they did NOT learn from the Gulf War is that they are not a world class military power and never will be. Bravado has its place but this ain't it. I'd almost be willing to bet that if we do have a little tussle with Iraq ( whcih I hope we don't BTW )that the US casualities will be LESS than it was for the Gulf War because we will not have the "friendly fire" incidents that cost us so dearly in the earlier conflict. Plus the advancement is weapons and materials in the last decade or so has been staggering. Sad Damn give it up. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
The Taliban did the same posturing as this guy is going. What do you expect them to say? Todd Smith
-
Article To quote from the above article: "ANKARA, Turkey -- A defiant Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has said his country would fight "very effectively" if attacked by the United States. Aziz, speaking in Turkey, accepted there would be great losses but added Iraq had learned military lessons from the 1991 Gulf War. " Them boys are dense are they not. They have no freaking idea what about to be brought down on their head if they continue on the current collision course. The "lesson" they did NOT learn from the Gulf War is that they are not a world class military power and never will be. Bravado has its place but this ain't it. I'd almost be willing to bet that if we do have a little tussle with Iraq ( whcih I hope we don't BTW )that the US casualities will be LESS than it was for the Gulf War because we will not have the "friendly fire" incidents that cost us so dearly in the earlier conflict. Plus the advancement is weapons and materials in the last decade or so has been staggering. Sad Damn give it up. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
It's psychology.. The US knows that Saddam supposedly has badass weapons of some sort (A, B and C-grade weapons). And Iraq is of course "warning" the US that they'll use them. Both parts may be bluffing - who knows. Does anyone know both parts agenda? -- Giles wrote: You Scandinavians invaded my home land, like 1500 (+-500) years ago, and kept coming back for more. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Viking Tour, England, 15th July 563. Ticket price: £10 Sold out!
-
Article To quote from the above article: "ANKARA, Turkey -- A defiant Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has said his country would fight "very effectively" if attacked by the United States. Aziz, speaking in Turkey, accepted there would be great losses but added Iraq had learned military lessons from the 1991 Gulf War. " Them boys are dense are they not. They have no freaking idea what about to be brought down on their head if they continue on the current collision course. The "lesson" they did NOT learn from the Gulf War is that they are not a world class military power and never will be. Bravado has its place but this ain't it. I'd almost be willing to bet that if we do have a little tussle with Iraq ( whcih I hope we don't BTW )that the US casualities will be LESS than it was for the Gulf War because we will not have the "friendly fire" incidents that cost us so dearly in the earlier conflict. Plus the advancement is weapons and materials in the last decade or so has been staggering. Sad Damn give it up. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: The "lesson" they did NOT learn from the Gulf War is that they are not a world class military power and never will be In the Gulf conflict of '91, the allied forces job was to remove the occupying forces from Kuwait. The American hi-tech weaponary was ideal for this. This time it is going to be very different. We are talking about invading a country, we are going to have to get our hands dirty this time. You can't go dropping bombs on civilian areas (where the Iraqi forces will no doubt hide out). This is going to be house to house fighting. This one will be more like Somalia and the Balkan conflict. Lots of people are going to die on both sides. In the recent Afghan campaign, we had the native people to fight for us - I don't believe that Iraq has a viable opposition army for us to use to fight for us. America has improved it's weaponary a lot in the last 10 years, but it's going to be the fighting spirit and moral of the guys on the ground that'll win or lose this one. Hopefully the lessons from Somalia and even Vietnam have been learnt. Michael "I've died for a living in the movies and tv. But the hardest thing I'll ever do is watch my leading ladies, Kiss some other guy while I'm bandaging my knee." -- The Unknown Stuntman
-
brianwelsch wrote: The toughest part will picking them off from between the civilians, when they go running down the street. ...from 40,000 ft. at mach 2 with a cruise missle... :omg:
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: ...from 40,000 ft. at mach 2 with a cruise missle... A cruise missile is very nice for attack military targets, but once the enemy moves into civilian areas you run into the most dangerous weapon in a war - Propaganda. Michael "I've died for a living in the movies and tv. But the hardest thing I'll ever do is watch my leading ladies, Kiss some other guy while I'm bandaging my knee." -- The Unknown Stuntman
-
Richard Stringer wrote: The "lesson" they did NOT learn from the Gulf War is that they are not a world class military power and never will be In the Gulf conflict of '91, the allied forces job was to remove the occupying forces from Kuwait. The American hi-tech weaponary was ideal for this. This time it is going to be very different. We are talking about invading a country, we are going to have to get our hands dirty this time. You can't go dropping bombs on civilian areas (where the Iraqi forces will no doubt hide out). This is going to be house to house fighting. This one will be more like Somalia and the Balkan conflict. Lots of people are going to die on both sides. In the recent Afghan campaign, we had the native people to fight for us - I don't believe that Iraq has a viable opposition army for us to use to fight for us. America has improved it's weaponary a lot in the last 10 years, but it's going to be the fighting spirit and moral of the guys on the ground that'll win or lose this one. Hopefully the lessons from Somalia and even Vietnam have been learnt. Michael "I've died for a living in the movies and tv. But the hardest thing I'll ever do is watch my leading ladies, Kiss some other guy while I'm bandaging my knee." -- The Unknown Stuntman
Michael P Butler wrote: I don't believe that Iraq has a viable opposition army for us to use to fight for us. It could theoretically be possible to divert the majority of Iraqi-an Military's allegiance. The US has some clever guys who are capable of doing this however they (Iraq-ian) will need a catalyst to get them moving. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was the way the war would be scripted out. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Michael P Butler wrote: I don't believe that Iraq has a viable opposition army for us to use to fight for us. It could theoretically be possible to divert the majority of Iraqi-an Military's allegiance. The US has some clever guys who are capable of doing this however they (Iraq-ian) will need a catalyst to get them moving. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was the way the war would be scripted out. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin^Davies wrote: It could theoretically be possible to divert the majority of Iraqi-an Military's allegiance. The US has some clever guys who are capable of doing this however they (Iraq-ian) will need a catalyst to get them moving. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was the way the war would be scripted out. It is a possible strategy, but one which would probably leave the country in a bigger mess than now. Could an American removal of Saddam by this method cause a civil war. Now that would be interesting, a situation that Iran would be quick to exploit. Everytime I play with these scenarios, I always end up with the same result - World War III. I hope to god the American military have better minds that mine working on this problem. (And I pray that Bush listens to these people) Michael "I've died for a living in the movies and tv. But the hardest thing I'll ever do is watch my leading ladies, Kiss some other guy while I'm bandaging my knee." -- The Unknown Stuntman
-
Article To quote from the above article: "ANKARA, Turkey -- A defiant Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has said his country would fight "very effectively" if attacked by the United States. Aziz, speaking in Turkey, accepted there would be great losses but added Iraq had learned military lessons from the 1991 Gulf War. " Them boys are dense are they not. They have no freaking idea what about to be brought down on their head if they continue on the current collision course. The "lesson" they did NOT learn from the Gulf War is that they are not a world class military power and never will be. Bravado has its place but this ain't it. I'd almost be willing to bet that if we do have a little tussle with Iraq ( whcih I hope we don't BTW )that the US casualities will be LESS than it was for the Gulf War because we will not have the "friendly fire" incidents that cost us so dearly in the earlier conflict. Plus the advancement is weapons and materials in the last decade or so has been staggering. Sad Damn give it up. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
It is a little different this time. Saddam has already said that he will not fight on an open battlefield, he will fight in the streets if towns and cities. This guarantees the US casualities will be higher. It's so much easier to boobytrap a few buildings, or put a sniper in a window, or walk a child strapped with explosives up to a bunch of troops. Technology means squat in a guerilla war, look at Vietnam, and I have a nasty feeling that this will be such a war. Like it or not, this will be a media war. Every action will be seen by the people back home. Every US death will be televised, and the shocking casualities that will be inflicted on the civilian population will be in every living room. There is already a significant percentage of the population against an involvement. Hussein is banking on the fact that the American public don't like seeing their soldiers killed and wounded, and call for withdrawl if they do. There is another nasty side to this as well. What did Hussein do when he was forced out of Kuwait? He set fire to the oil wells. The man is a scorched earther. I have no doubt he would burn everything, including his own people, and take a few US soldiers with him than just head on in. Personally, I don't think this one will be as easy as the last one. Cheers The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest.
-
Colin^Davies wrote: It could theoretically be possible to divert the majority of Iraqi-an Military's allegiance. The US has some clever guys who are capable of doing this however they (Iraq-ian) will need a catalyst to get them moving. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was the way the war would be scripted out. It is a possible strategy, but one which would probably leave the country in a bigger mess than now. Could an American removal of Saddam by this method cause a civil war. Now that would be interesting, a situation that Iran would be quick to exploit. Everytime I play with these scenarios, I always end up with the same result - World War III. I hope to god the American military have better minds that mine working on this problem. (And I pray that Bush listens to these people) Michael "I've died for a living in the movies and tv. But the hardest thing I'll ever do is watch my leading ladies, Kiss some other guy while I'm bandaging my knee." -- The Unknown Stuntman
IRAQ must be invaded split up and then the US must retreat. The major splits of the country should go to Syria and Iran for appeasement. ( However this just means they don't have a gap to fight over. ) WWIII is to be avoided at all costs. But the US is still addicted to the Mid-East Oil which continues to be a staple of the problems. The weapon's inspectors re-entry at the moment is daft. What's the point in gaining access if they can't inspect everywhere ? Possibly the US will have to goad Iraq into some form of activity, or even "place" small MWDs in Iraq to change the status. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
IRAQ must be invaded split up and then the US must retreat. The major splits of the country should go to Syria and Iran for appeasement. ( However this just means they don't have a gap to fight over. ) WWIII is to be avoided at all costs. But the US is still addicted to the Mid-East Oil which continues to be a staple of the problems. The weapon's inspectors re-entry at the moment is daft. What's the point in gaining access if they can't inspect everywhere ? Possibly the US will have to goad Iraq into some form of activity, or even "place" small MWDs in Iraq to change the status. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin^Davies wrote: IRAQ must be invaded split up and then the US must retreat Won't make a difference except to destabilise the region further. Colin^Davies wrote: The major splits of the country should go to Syria and Iran for appeasement. ( However this just means they don't have a gap to fight over. ) Syria and Iran are hardly better than Iraq. The people of Iraq only get to exchange one dictatorship for another. The only reason Iraq has come to the attention of the world is through it's invasion of Kuwait. Syria and Iran are just as much sponsors of terrorism as Iraq is. Colin^Davies wrote: WWIII is to be avoided at all costs. Agreed. Colin^Davies wrote: But the US is still addicted to the Mid-East Oil which continues to be a staple of the problems. I'd say it's their policies that are driven by the addiction to oil that are the problem. Colin^Davies wrote: The weapon's inspectors re-entry at the moment is daft. What's the point in gaining access if they can't inspect everywhere ? Hussein played this one well. Bush was gaining support in the UN for a multi-national force to go in to Iraq and stomp on Saddam using Iraqs refusal for weapon inspections as a reason. The UN was beginning to waver in favour of the US plan, but only because there were no weapons inspections. Iraq says, "Ok, you can bring weapon inspectors in", Bush's argument disappears and the reason for the UN to use force is removed. Bush is now arguing for tougher inspection criteria. All up Hussein has played the politics magnificently. I doubt that the US will now get UN support for a strike. Colin^Davies wrote: Possibly the US will have to goad Iraq into some form of activity, or even "place" small MWDs in Iraq to change the status. I think Hussein is smarter than that. I don't think goading will work. I think Bush is more likely to be goaded into making a mistake than Hussein is. Don't forget, Hussein is a terrorist at heart. One of the goals of terrorism is to provoke an extreme response so that (in short) a new generation of terrorists is recruited. Hussein knows the rulebook. I'm not convinced Bush does. As for 'planting' WMDs in Iraq. Not a good idea. It would be way to easy to be caught, and then the US would lose *all* credibility in the region. That would cause way more problems that it solves. Cheers
-
Richard Stringer wrote: The "lesson" they did NOT learn from the Gulf War is that they are not a world class military power and never will be In the Gulf conflict of '91, the allied forces job was to remove the occupying forces from Kuwait. The American hi-tech weaponary was ideal for this. This time it is going to be very different. We are talking about invading a country, we are going to have to get our hands dirty this time. You can't go dropping bombs on civilian areas (where the Iraqi forces will no doubt hide out). This is going to be house to house fighting. This one will be more like Somalia and the Balkan conflict. Lots of people are going to die on both sides. In the recent Afghan campaign, we had the native people to fight for us - I don't believe that Iraq has a viable opposition army for us to use to fight for us. America has improved it's weaponary a lot in the last 10 years, but it's going to be the fighting spirit and moral of the guys on the ground that'll win or lose this one. Hopefully the lessons from Somalia and even Vietnam have been learnt. Michael "I've died for a living in the movies and tv. But the hardest thing I'll ever do is watch my leading ladies, Kiss some other guy while I'm bandaging my knee." -- The Unknown Stuntman
In the Gulf conflict of '91, the allied forces job was to remove the occupying forces from Kuwait. The American hi-tech weaponary was ideal for this. The American hi-tech weaponry was ideal for attacking large units in open space. There's actually no reason Iraqi forces couldn't have done a house-to-house fight in Kuwait. The problem was that Iraqi strategy was bad. The key factors in a future war will be: how badly will the US hurt the Iraqi army in the first round of the fight (because, as 1991 showed, if you hit them hard in the first round, soldiers will desert en masse rather than face 'certain death'), and how willing are Iraqis going to be to die for Saddam - particularly if the US shows a willingness to accept POWs. Related to the first issue, the Iraqi army already has past experience fighting the US, and because the US beat them badly, they will probably show a willingness to defect. It's true that a house-to-house fight will be the best strategy for Saddam, but if the US can isolate each of the towns from each other (it's hard to move between towns without being seen, and the US could also jam radio transmittions, and broadcast psy-ops), then you may have a situation where the pockets of Iraqi soldiers, demoralized by the experience of fighting the US 10 years ago, and unwilling to die for Saddam, will defect on a per-town basis. Mass defections will demoralize the military even more, thus encouraging more defections. Bahgdad will probably be the strong point of the Iraqis - where Saddam will maintain large numbers of his most-loyal troops. But, it will be demoralizing for them to have lost the rest of the country. I think Saddam will certainly use his WMD (chemical and biological weapons) to stay in power, and there will definately be more casualties this time than in the Gulf War. Of course, there were next-to-none casulties in the Gulf War, so that isn't saying much. The comparisons to Vietnam and Somalia are not quite valid for a few reasons. Vietnam was fought in the jungle - which gave the Vietnamese the ability to move freely. In Iraq, movement between cities is much easier to see. The Vietnamese were duped into believing they were fighting a war of liberation. They didn't have enough experience with the communist government to know that it wasn't something that they really wanted. Saddam has been in power since 1979 (and has been second-in-command since 1968). They've had a great deal of time to realize that he's not really the person they want in power. The ques
-
IRAQ must be invaded split up and then the US must retreat. The major splits of the country should go to Syria and Iran for appeasement. ( However this just means they don't have a gap to fight over. ) WWIII is to be avoided at all costs. But the US is still addicted to the Mid-East Oil which continues to be a staple of the problems. The weapon's inspectors re-entry at the moment is daft. What's the point in gaining access if they can't inspect everywhere ? Possibly the US will have to goad Iraq into some form of activity, or even "place" small MWDs in Iraq to change the status. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
Colin^Davies wrote: Possibly the US will have to goad Iraq into some form of activity, or even "place" small MWDs in Iraq to change the status. Wow !! Please tell me you are kidding. What did the Iraqi *people* do to you or your country for u to suggest such an extreme step ? I hope any war that happens is aimed at killing Saddam and not hurting the Iraqi people. Iraqi society has already been smashed into the ground by the sanctions and by the tyranny of Saddam. I have heard arguments like "They deserve it because they havent overthrown Saddam". It is not easy to start a revolution. On a side note, none of the 9-11 terrorists, USS Cole, Taliban prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, are Iraqi. At least I havent read any reports of any Iraqi citizens being arrested for involvement in the recent terrorist acts. Have you ? I really dont think it is fair that in the name of war against terror, Iraqi people have to pay, when most of the hijackers and arrested Taliban are from allies and friends like Saudi, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen. The countries mentioned are all monarchies or military dictatorships. This hypocrisy is understandable from the standpoint of acheiving short term goals, but its only going to create other long term problems. For example : Pakistans constitution has been permanently altered to make it militarized. The army general (Mr Musharaf) and all army generals that will come after him now have the power to dismiss the "entire" elected body. Thats their pound of flesh.. No one (US,UN,UK) said a word and let it slide. Works for the time being, but 10 years hence, watch the fun Wow ! I really rambled on this one - prolly because my close friend is originally from Iraq (caldian). - Vivek
-
The Taliban did the same posturing as this guy is going. What do you expect them to say? Todd Smith
Todd Smith wrote: What do you expect them to say? Mick Martin is the MAN. ;P Michael Martin Australia mjm68@tpg.com.au "I personally love it because I can get as down and dirty as I want on the backend, while also being able to dabble with fun scripting and presentation games on the front end." - Chris Maunder 15/07/2002
-
Richard Stringer wrote: The "lesson" they did NOT learn from the Gulf War is that they are not a world class military power and never will be In the Gulf conflict of '91, the allied forces job was to remove the occupying forces from Kuwait. The American hi-tech weaponary was ideal for this. This time it is going to be very different. We are talking about invading a country, we are going to have to get our hands dirty this time. You can't go dropping bombs on civilian areas (where the Iraqi forces will no doubt hide out). This is going to be house to house fighting. This one will be more like Somalia and the Balkan conflict. Lots of people are going to die on both sides. In the recent Afghan campaign, we had the native people to fight for us - I don't believe that Iraq has a viable opposition army for us to use to fight for us. America has improved it's weaponary a lot in the last 10 years, but it's going to be the fighting spirit and moral of the guys on the ground that'll win or lose this one. Hopefully the lessons from Somalia and even Vietnam have been learnt. Michael "I've died for a living in the movies and tv. But the hardest thing I'll ever do is watch my leading ladies, Kiss some other guy while I'm bandaging my knee." -- The Unknown Stuntman
Michael P Butler wrote: This time it is going to be very different. We are talking about invading a country, we are going to have to get our hands dirty this time Seems like I have heard this before. We were gonna have all kinds of body bags coming home when we ran into the mighty Republican Guard etc. Remember the talking heads telling us how good they were?... You give them too much credit. They are untrained, under equipped, and primnarily a conscripted army. The same thing will happen again. They can't use arty on us because our counter battery capability is too good. Their infantry is pathetic, they had better not use CB weapons or there will be a big stinking hole in the desert, they have no real armor capability as demonstrated in 91, and of course no air capability at all. I see no way that this will be any different thanb last time from our perspective. We probably will unleash a whole new plethora of advanced weapon systems such as directed beam energy weapons to knock out electronics, new precision guided weapons, sonic weapons, unmanned aircraft carring attack capability, etc.. Its not even fair but who cares. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Article To quote from the above article: "ANKARA, Turkey -- A defiant Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz has said his country would fight "very effectively" if attacked by the United States. Aziz, speaking in Turkey, accepted there would be great losses but added Iraq had learned military lessons from the 1991 Gulf War. " Them boys are dense are they not. They have no freaking idea what about to be brought down on their head if they continue on the current collision course. The "lesson" they did NOT learn from the Gulf War is that they are not a world class military power and never will be. Bravado has its place but this ain't it. I'd almost be willing to bet that if we do have a little tussle with Iraq ( whcih I hope we don't BTW )that the US casualities will be LESS than it was for the Gulf War because we will not have the "friendly fire" incidents that cost us so dearly in the earlier conflict. Plus the advancement is weapons and materials in the last decade or so has been staggering. Sad Damn give it up. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: they are not a world class military power and never will be It's probably not comparable, but what about Viet-Nam ? Didn't It show a third world army may be enough to win a political victory (the one which matters)? Richard Stringer wrote: the US casualities will be LESS than it was for the Gulf War because we will not have the "friendly fire" incidents that cost us so dearly in the earlier conflict Generally, it's more the US Army/Air Force which are known to fire a little bit easily (It was true during WWII, I don't know if it's still the case) To conclude, I would say I don't think Iraq wants war. GW Bush wants, whatever the cost. The one who isn't misanthropist when 40 years old never loved human kind Qui n'est pas misanthrope à 40 ans n'a jamais aimé les hommes Nicolas De Chamfort (1740-1793)