Let's just hope invading the cities wont be necessary, then the body-bags will be coming home in droves...

Basra and Bagdad are major cities, densely populated, and it really doesnt matter alot what kind of technology you have when you fight hand-to-hand combat, from house to house.

Planes and tanks may easily take out targets from a great distance in deserts, it gets a little harder when there are civilians all around the targets, and CNN is following 2 foot-steps behind.

However, I have no doubt the US WILL win the war, question is at what cost... To the US soldiers and their families I mean, I dont give a flying fuck about the ragheads in that piece-of-shit country.

I also have a feeling this war will be the beginning of a greater one.

A possible scenario is this:
1. Saddam sends chem/bio weapons at Israel.

2a. Israel responds promptly by sending a nuke into Bagdad or another major city. THIS scenario will create a WHOLE lot of uncertainties, most of them with a terrifying outcome.

2b. Israel responds with a conventional attack on Iraq. (Unlikely, if Iraq does 1. )
Even this option will be nasty, as you can be sure the rest of the camel-jockeys will launch an attack on Israel. It will in any case raise MASSIVE support for Iraq amongst the arab/muslim states.
In that case, expect the war to drag on, and expect a hell of alot more terrorist activity.

Like I said, just a possible scenario, but not very unlikely.

If any of you think that Iraq sent those scuds in 91 just because they HATE Israel, you are terribly wrong. They very well know that any aggression by Israel will mount MASSIVE support for Iraq.

Just as I suspected. Another kid posting pretending to be an adult. :1orglaugh

Truth has been spoken. :drinkup

Sticks and stones. Back up your shit, asswhipe, or vacate. Don't be a pawn simply because you have no other option.

I don't want to play with you kid. So just go back to posting your BS.

I will take that as a victory. thanks, loser.

Indians? 300 Years ago? Are you kidding? Waco? wtf? How does Waco compare with a leader of a Country ordering his men to gas thousands of innocent villagers?

Drunkmonkey, do you get your insight on the Iraqi people from Sean Penn or something.

Any iraqi I have ever heard talk that was fortunate to get out of there all want to see sadaam toppled.

Those people do not have the freedom to say things. Even a hint of dislike of sadaam is grounds for being taken by the secret police and never seen again.


Some of you are an embarrasment to the brave people that fought in WW2. A war where there was casualities by the millions, and men marched into battles where there was no clear cut advantage like we have now.

Do you not think that the leader of the Iraqi people is showing the fallacies of the American government in much the same light that we are showing their wrong doings? They gas their citizens, we drive tanks and burn ours. Saddam may be wrong in our eyes, but that is not the question. Is he wrong in the people of Iraq's eyes?

You are correct. In a moral aspect, Saddam is wrong. Democracy is the key. However, my point is that we are not just going to be able to "air raid" Iraq and walk in with out a fight. We are talking about an impovershed people who lay the blame of their poverty squarley on the shoulders of the USA. It will not be an easy victory.

50 :)

thats exactly what these people who think we'll win this like desert storm fail to understand. when you fight an urban war all that technology doesn't help as much as it did in the desert.

from what i hear iraq has a very well trained army and it could get bloody.

What are you talking about? The Waco incident does not compare with Saddam. Waco was between a sect group and law enforcement. You're saying the United States President and Congress systematically planned and carried an attack at Waco? NO! At most, it was a raid gone wrong by law enforcement. Saddam (IRAQ's LEADER) made the decision to gas innocent villagers that had no CHOICE but to die slowly.

Not only well trained but loyal. The bulk of the royal guard is sunni mulsim which is extremely loyal to Saddam. Loyal to the point of death. The Sunnis were not present in the Gulf war. They were held back by command of Saddam. The military intelligence of America was incorrect in their assumptions that the royal guard helped occupy Kuwait. It was a big blunder.

Also, the Iraqi people, all three sects, have solidifed thanks to the sanctions put in place by the USA. There is nothing stronger than a common enemy.

Well-

Bush can't get too aggressive with North Korea because they could lob one of those babies right in on Seoul. Their government is under tremendous pressure as a result of drought problems and it's people are hungry, plus they don't actually enjoy a whole lot of freedom. the current delivery system has a range of about a hundred miles...but they aren't far from the 500 mile launch system, which would threaten Japan.

So Bush has kinda got his nuts in a wringer on that one....the reactor they fired up is a graphic based reactor...and is good for created enriched uranmiun or plutonium.

On the other hand, you could argue that North Korea gives credence to stomping Iraq in the ground before they get those types of weapons and start threatening everyone. Neither country is exactly a bastion of freedom or run by guys who are rational thinkers.

Makes me glad I am a webmaster and not a president, he can't stay out of trouble on these issues.

drunk, you have reached the point where your so offbase, its not worth debating. later

The attack on the Kurds was not commanded by Saddam. It was commanded by his cousin (Ali Hassan al-Majid )
who was in charge of insurection. Saddam had "nothing" to do with it much in the same way the president had nothing to do with Waco.

This well trained Army is the same one that we killed 100,000-300,000 to a loss of something over a hundred of our troops. This well trained Army is the same one that was surrendering by the tens of thousands. This well trained Army is the same one that their pilots flew their fighter jets into Iran. This well trained Army is the same one that seven of our tanks destroyed 140 tanks and assorted armored vehicles, without taking a hit. This well trained Army (the fourth largest Army in the world in 1991) is the same one that was defeated in six weeks of an air campaign and 100 hours of ground warfare. Is this the well trained Army that you are referring to?

their well trained royal guard was protecting baghdad and saddaam just in case the states decided to march in. they were pulled back.

This "well trained army" is the same one that is now gathering in populated areas, protecting themselves with civilians, and digging into and around buildings. They are not on the run in the open...

I dunno how well trained they are, but I do know when you are dug in, you are able to put up a messy fight, even with light/medium weapons, such as AK 47s and RPGs.

I doubt this not in the least. As a lover of democracy, I believe that Saddam should be routed. However, it will be long and drawn out. Avoidance of this is happnestance. The intelligence requried to locate, assasinate, and supplant Saddam has been consumed. A frontal attack is planned. A frontal attack is the last bastion of any great military. It will be long and hard (I have been in porn too long when I resort to phrases like that :1orglaugh )

No. that army was comprised of conscripted Shiite mulims who, at the time, were enemies of Saddam. Do you not know your military history?

Tell you what, when you see those fuckers with a green bandana with arab text on it running around on CNN, you know this war will be messy.

The Republican Guard is too small to be significant and I suspect that they are not much better trained than any of the other units. Even if they are well trained they are to small and grossly out matched technologically. There will not be street to street fighting in the old sense. Our helicopter gunships and AC-130 gunships will be on point, as will other weapon platforms and not our grunts.

This is true. Technologically, we are far superior. However, they do have the defensive. And they do have the loyalty (the way). we are not just going to walk in and say "we are the champions".

Can you believe that some thread about a girl sleeping with another girl is the leading topic for the evening? Man, if that is what it is all about, fuck, I've got like the bomb-diggity life.

When they discover oil there.

HMMM...now who here does not understand his enemy....VMI graduate...cough cough bulshit.

Saddam Hussein went after Iran for the sole purpose of attempting to fullfill his desire to rule the region.

He also knew that if he were to battle the Iranians it would surely please the U.S. because we now had a common enemy due to Khomeni and the fundamentalist overthrowing the Shah of Iran. And when the Iranians started throwing body after body to the front lines and started to gain the upper hand against Iraq, we the US did exactly as he wanted us to.

Got involved.

We funded them, trained them, outfitted them...but funny thing was we did the same with Iran. Eventually a cease fire was drawn up...the Iranians backed off and Saddam wiped out 1,000's of Kurds (possibly 100,000's) with chemical weapons.

Once it was all over and the whole Iran/Contra affair reared it's ugly head Saddam saw how two faced we were, now that his country was going broke due to the lengthy war he decided to invade his neighbor Kuwait, thinking that no one would care.

Wrong, it was after his battle with Iran that they began to suffer...this is why he invaded Kuwait.

The Iraqi population are split. Some heavily support Saddam, some heavily hate him. But they all hate the US. Not surprizing since the US has been the sole driver of sanctions for quite a while (most countries have wanted to reduce the sanctions). The Iraqi's population are aware of this, and whereas you are fed the 'US is a freedom loving world policeman with right on it's side' bullshit, they are fed the 'US is an evil empire whose troops will kill and rape their woman' bullshit. They will fight, and fight hard with home territory advantage.

Your commanders know this. That's why they are planning to leave a huge amount of troops permanantly in Iraq for three years plus. They are leaving only 20% less than will there at the start (assuming 250,000 at the start). Despite the propaganda you are being fed, the war will be long, many US troops will die, and whilst I have no doubt the US will win the big initial battles and probably march into Baghdad pretty quick, I would really not like to guess who will win the long drawn out guerilla war.

And before any one jumps in, remember you have a record of getting that one wrong in the past. Learn a bit.

This war will be over with almost before it begins. The first two days of the Air War will be like a flash bang going off and the Iraqi's will just be in a daze after that. I am not going to be surprised if the Special Operation Forces and ground troops act in co-ordination with the air strike.

the "big shiny guns" aspect of it yes.. not the "war on terror" aspect. I fully expect more US soldiers to die in the following guerilla warfare "transitional occupation" and subsequent "terrorist attacks" than in the initial blitz. The urban warfare will be a lot harder than "shooting fish in a barrel" from gunships in the desert and bulldozers filling in trenches of '91 though.. just not longer..

plus don't forget Saddam's very likely WMD. It might not be as easy as people think if he unleashes some of his kurdish love potion.

I have a strong suspicion that you are right. I have thought all along that winning the peace is going to be the real war and we will definitely lose some people in the effort. As I stated before the street to street will not be fought in the old way. Our helicopter gunships, AC-130 gunships and other weapons platforms will be on point not the Infantry.

I am not sure what our game plan is to deal with the possible use of WMD's but I am sure we have one as our Military is publically being nonchalant about this issue. Either the Military is seriously concerned or has developed a plan to deal with this before it can happen. I suspect that some of the intelligence that we will not release are known WMD targets and we don't want to take a chance of that information being leaked and the materials/weapons being moved.

The major problem with the North Korea issue is the fact that despite their economic weaknesses they posses an incredibly powerful military force. It would be no easy task to defend the ROK if NK goes into pre-emptive mode. I would venture to guess the if NK didn't deploy WMD right away in the strike, the CIA would deploy some for them against NK so we could quickly justify the use of NW's. Based on the facts and figures below, I see no other way to engage them successfully without NW's. Look at the numbers yourself. Tech is tech, and but 1 Million active and 6 Million reserve troops is 7 Million men. If we moved our entire military force into battle they would still outnumber us 3 to 1. You would have to mobilize quite a coalition force to counter NK conventionally, and I don't think that would be possible on a timely basis. From people in the loop, who I've talked to, the JCS are already making battle plans with tactical NW deployment from the get go.

MILITARY FORCES
1. The "Military First" orientation has always been the heart and soul of the North Korean regime. It provides the only conceivable means by which the regime can survive and achieve its ultimate security through reunification. The military continues to grow in both conventional and asymmetrical forces with increasing emphasis on the latter. The military provides deterrence, defense, and a massive offensive threat, as well as leverage in international negotiations. The army is much more than just a military organization; it is North Korea's largest employer, purchaser, and consumer, the central unifying structure in the country, and the source of power for the regime.

2. Pyongyang's military goal is to reunify the peninsula by force. North Korea's fundamental war-fighting strategy mandates achievement of surprise, prosecution of a short and violent war, prevention of major United States reinforcement of the peninsula, and negation of the Republic of Korea's mobilization. The North Korean Armed Forces today are the fifth largest in the world. The ground forces, numbering one million active duty soldiers, provide the bulk of the North's offensive war-fighting capability and are the world's third largest army. They are supported by an air force of over 1,600 aircraft and a navy of more than 800 ships. Over 6 million reserves augment the active duty personnel. Seventy percent of their active force, to include 700,000 troops, 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks, is garrisoned within 100 miles of the Demilitarized Zone. Much of this force is protected by underground facilities, including over four thousand underground facilities in the forward area alone. From their current locations these forces can attack with minimal preparations.

3. North Korea fields an artillery force of over 12,000 self-propelled and towed weapon systems. Without moving any artillery pieces, the North could sustain up to 500,000 rounds an hour against Combined Forces Command defenses for several hours. The artillery force includes 500 long-range systems deployed over the past decade. The proximity of these long-range systems to the Demilitarized Zone threatens all of Seoul with devastating attacks.

4. Realizing they cannot match Combined Forces Command's technologically advanced war-fighting capabilities, the North's leadership focuses on developing asymmetrical capabilities such as ballistic missiles, special operations forces, and weapons of mass destruction designed to preclude alliance force options and offset our conventional military superiority.

5. The North's asymmetric forces are formidable, heavily funded, and cause for concern. The progress of the North's ballistic missile program indicates it remains a top priority. Their ballistic missile inventory now includes over 500 SCUDs of various types. They continue to produce and deploy medium-range No Dongs capable of striking United States bases in Japan. Pyongyang is developing multi-stage missiles with the goal of fielding systems capable of striking the Continental United States. They tested the 2,000-kilometer range Taepo Dong 1 and continue work on the 5,000 plus kilometer Taepo Dong 2. Pyongyang is one of the world's largest missile proliferators and sells its missiles and technology to anyone with hard currency.

6. In late 1999 North Korea agreed to a moratorium on future missile test firings for the duration of discussions with the US to improve bilateral relations. North Korea publicly reaffirmed that moratorium in June 2000. The US continues to engage North Korea in talks to resolve the threat of North Korean missiles in the region as well as broader concerns with proliferation of North Korean missiles globally.

7. North Korea's Special Operations Forces are the largest in the world. They consist of over 100,000 elite personnel and are significant force multipliers providing the capability to simultaneously attack both our forward and rear forces.

8. North Korea possesses weapons of mass destruction. A large number of North Korean chemical weapons threaten both our military forces and civilian population centers. We assess North Korea is self-sufficient in the production of chemical components for first generation chemical agents. They have produced munitions stockpiles estimated at up to 5,000 metric tons of several types of chemical agents, including nerve, choking, blister, and blood. We assess that North Korea has the capability to develop, produce, and weaponize biological warfare agents, to include bacterial spores causing anthrax and smallpox and the bacteria causing the plague and cholera. While North Korea denies possession of nuclear weapons and has frozen its nuclear program at Yongbyon, we remain concerned the North could revive a weapons production program. The Perry process provides a diplomatic roadmap for addressing that threat as well as the missile threat.

It definately won't be another Somalia thats for sure, but without infantry you hold no ground. Even with gunships in a forward position I would bet more will die than in '91. It'll just be over much sooner. Then the shitty-ass occupation begins.

Many langages on this Planet, different spelling:


Powell fait le procès de l'Irak, Bagdad promet une réponse (AFP)
jeudi 6 février 2003, 9h17
Le secrétaire d'Etat américain Colin Powell a dressé mercredi un réquisitoire sévère contre l'Irak devant le Conseil de sécurité de l'Onu, auquel Bagdad a aussitôt répliqué en annonçant l'envoi prochainement aux Nations Unies "d'une réponse détaillée" à ces "mensonges".
http://fr.fc.yahoo.com/i/irak.html

I am sure that in Arab they have a different spelling....

Thats's because they know he doesn't have any.

Those 800 initial missiles I would assume will be trying to neutralize that. You don't need that many just to take the water and electricity out and "shock and awe".
The forward infantry would surely have bio-suits. If anything hapened Bush would get castrated for going on about his WMD and then not insisting on their use. I don't know how effective they are though against the weapons saddam is likely to have. Also he may direct WMD at Israel instead of his own heavily defended areas. I would be on the first plane out of there with my family at this point.