N Korea warns US of pre-emptive action - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

FlyingIguana · 02-06-2003, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KingK7
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.

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.

BigFish · 02-06-2003, 01:23 AM

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.

drunkmonkey · 02-06-2003, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FlyingIguana

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

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.

letshunt · 02-06-2003, 01:26 AM

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.

rooster · 02-06-2003, 01:26 AM

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

drunkmonkey · 02-06-2003, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BigFish
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.

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.

theking · 02-06-2003, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FlyingIguana

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.

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?

FlyingIguana · 02-06-2003, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

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.

KingK7 · 02-06-2003, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

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?

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.

drunkmonkey · 02-06-2003, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

... It is Saddam that has caused the suffering of his people.

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

)

drunkmonkey · 02-06-2003, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

Is this the well trained Army that you are referring to?

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

KingK7 · 02-06-2003, 01:45 AM

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.

theking · 02-06-2003, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FlyingIguana

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

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.

drunkmonkey · 02-06-2003, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

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".

drunkmonkey · 02-06-2003, 01:53 AM

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.

evie · 02-06-2003, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jay[neX]
So when will Bush stop crying about Irak and do something about N. Korea?

When they discover oil there.

eroswebmaster · 02-06-2003, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by drunkmonkey

Here in lies the fucking idiocy of Americans. Iraq fought for the whole world against the Iranians. Nearly 11 fucking years Iraq defended the world against the revolt of Iranian upheaval. Iraq was supported by every nation on the planet. Where do you think they got chemical agents from?

After the Iranian "standoff", Iraq was left with massive debt. Everyone reliqueshed that debt except Kuwait. Iraq occupied Kuwait and "relinquished" their debt. America stepped in, like the moral police, and sanctioned Iraq. The Irqi people suffer becuause of the sanctions placed by the Americans. That is what they know and that is what they hate.

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.

eroswebmaster · 02-06-2003, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wonton

It was only after the gulf war in 1991 that they began to suffer big time, at the hand of US sanctions.

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

scooby doo as scooby does · 02-06-2003, 02:07 AM

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.

theking · 02-06-2003, 02:08 AM

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.

bhutocracy · 02-06-2003, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
This war will be over with almost before it begins. The first two days of the Air War will be like a shock 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..

bhutocracy · 02-06-2003, 02:29 AM

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.

theking · 02-06-2003, 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bhutocracy

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..

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.

theking · 02-06-2003, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bhutocracy
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 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.

KRL · 02-06-2003, 02:43 AM

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.

bhutocracy · 02-06-2003, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

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.

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.

directfiesta · 02-06-2003, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lenny2

Maybe about the same time you learn how to spell Iraq?

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....

Joe Sixpack · 02-06-2003, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

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.

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

bhutocracy · 02-06-2003, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

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.

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.

theking · 02-06-2003, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

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

They had them in '98. What happened to them?

Joe Sixpack · 02-06-2003, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

They had them in '98. What happened to them?

Okay then, you tell me exactly what WMD they had in 1998.

bhutocracy · 02-06-2003, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

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

c'mon dude.. they couldn't know he doesn't have any.. they may be starting a war knowing that to the best of their intelligence he doesn't have any.. but no military planner would proceed without factoring it in. I wouldn't believe any country that said they had totally disarmed. Iraq and America not excluded.

bhutocracy · 02-06-2003, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

Okay then, you tell me exactly what WMD they had in 1998.

get the reciepts from America, Britain and France

theking · 02-06-2003, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

Okay then, you tell me exactly what WMD they had in 1998.

Chemical, and biological materials and missiles/artillary armed with chemicals. By their own admission they had these and the first round of inspectors were in the process of destroying them but were kicked out before the process was completed. Iraq now claims that they took it upon themselves to destroy the remainder, but do not offer any proof that they have done so. They claim that they also destroyed the paper work of the destruction so they have no paper proof to offer. There would be physical evidence of the destruction but they have not offered any physical evidence. There would be those scientists, engineers and other personell that would have been involved in the destruction but they have not presented these people either. Bottom line is, they had them and 1441 requires that they prove that they no longer have them and their word is not proof. So I repeat the question. What happend to them?

eroswebmaster · 02-06-2003, 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

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

This is utter bullshit.

One reason we fear these guys and their wmd's is because Iraqi's on average are extremely intelligent and educated people.

Before all this shit started in the 80's they were by far one of the more literate arab nations, and Saddam saw to that.

They have the scientists who can create such things, and then you factor into the equation that they also have a crazy man at the helm who has used such a weapon not once...but TWICE!

He has them, they have always had them, and will continue to produce them when possible.

Joe Sixpack · 02-06-2003, 03:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

Chemical, and biological materials and missiles/artillary armed with chemicals. By their own admission they had these and the first round of inspectors were in the process of destroying them but were kicked out before the process was completed. Iraq now claims that they took it upon themselves to destroy the remainder, but do not offer any proof that they have done so. They claim that they also destroyed the paper work of the destruction so they have no paper proof to offer. There would be physical evidence of the destruction but they have not offered any physical evidence. There would be those scientists, engineers and other personell that would have been involved in the destruction but they have not presented these people either. Bottom line is, they had them and 1441 requires that they prove that they no longer have them and their word is not proof. So I repeat the question. What happend to them?

Lets just assume for a moment, for the sake of the argument, that you are correct. Why then, has it taken five years for this to become a public issue.

Sounds to me like a bullshit smokescreen.

Methinks George Bush needs to:

1) Distract the populace from the increasingly ailing domestic economy.
2) Get Iraqi OIL!

bhutocracy · 02-06-2003, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

1) Distract the populace from the increasingly ailing domestic economy.
2) Get Iraqi OIL!

It's just that these points and Saddam actually having WMD aren't mutually exclusive.
In the slightest.

Joe Sixpack · 02-06-2003, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bhutocracy

It's just that these points and Saddam actually having WMD aren't mutually exclusive.
In the slightest.

No, but if nothing has changed since 1998, why all the fuss now?

sexmanic · 02-06-2003, 03:59 AM

i remember 1991 .. same bs. there was all this talk about sadaam's military prowess .. 4th largest in the world and all. fuck em. asses kicked in no time then, and wil be even faster this time bcasue we will use tactical nukes. another thing different now is that we will secure the oil fields first so that fuck wad doesn't burn them again.

what i hate is all this rhetoric about how the iraq army will be tough becasue they are sooo loyal, and well-trained etc.

jeeesus - don't you think the fucking US military is loyal and well trained?

iraq will look like Superman's glass lair soon enough .. then N. Korea can decide if they want some too. the us military capability is vastly underestimated. vastly.

many people of the world thought the raiders would win too.

hunnyluv · 02-06-2003, 04:04 AM

Would it make a difference to the world if Sadaam had the world's second largest oxygen suppy held hostage instead of the oil?

Mr.Fiction · 02-06-2003, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hunnyluv
Would it make a difference to the world if Sadaam had the world's second largest oxygen suppy held hostage instead of the oil?

Now he's holding oil hostage? That's a new one.

stocktrader23 · 02-06-2003, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hunnyluv
Would it make a difference to the world if Sadaam had the world's second largest oxygen suppy held hostage instead of the oil?

Exactly. If Sadaam were to take a match to his oil rigs again everyone would find out exactly what this war is about in a hurry. Then Bush would say we were attacking for environmental protection. I just wonder if some of you only get your news on CNN. Korea is definately more of a threat than Sadaam. Too bad they don't have oil.

bhutocracy · 02-06-2003, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Joe Sixpack

No, but if nothing has changed since 1998, why all the fuss now?

For any and all of the reasons commonly stated.. I've never said otherwise.. I would agree or am open to Oil, distraction from the US economy, dual use economics and war as a stimulous to the US economy, lack of catching Bin Laden, keeping 9/11 "fresh" to shore up the thing that gave him his real support, imperialism and denying of french/russian imperialism, blah blah blah as reasons... none of that would change the fact that Saddam probably has the weapons. He's a bad mofo, and no amount of the rest of the world acting better, as bad or worse in foreign policy is going to change that. There is no black and white. Everyone is tainted. Everyone has a vested interest.
As I've said before the real losers in this are the Iraqi people. The amount of civilians that are going to be either killed or displaced is nuts. With no guarantee the US installed leader will be much better, only that he will be compliant to US interests.
They still wear the burqa in Afghanistan.
If only one of those nifty predator drones could take Saddam and his son out.. with swift intervention to fill the vacuum. (intentionally naive, you get the idea though, succeeding in what the CIA has tried but failed at) no thousands of innocent people killed.. no mass creation of possible terrorists. I think the UN estimated about a million people will be left "displaced" by any urban Iraq war.. They aren't going to be thankful they no longer have a roof over their heads and the same countries that create their situation to "free them" aren't going to allow them in as refugees because then they cease being "oppressed by a murderous dictator" and start being "potential terrorists".
Besides Iraqi civilians it's Australian exports that are my other concern.

Captain Evil · 02-06-2003, 06:12 AM

Most of you are making a big mistake: you assume too much.

The truth is, we don't know what will happen. There are many different possibilities, and not much that we can be sure of.

Maybe the US will win easily. Their technological advantage indeed makes that very likely. But maybe they won't. When preparing for the war, the US military did a large scale simulation. In that simulation, the US had major losses, no real gains, and they would have lost, had it not been for the head of the military disallowing the side playing "Iraq" to do anything not known beforehand.

Read about it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0...786992,00.html

I personally think it would be foolish to make any assumptions based on the limited information we have.

Captain Evil · 02-06-2003, 06:14 AM

Here's the article:

Wake-up call

If the US and Iraq do go to war, there can only be one winner, can't there? Maybe not. This summer, in a huge rehearsal of just such a conflict - and with retired Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper playing Saddam - the US lost. Julian Borger asks the former marine how he did it

Friday September 6, 2002
The Guardian

At the height of the summer, as talk of invading Iraq built in Washington like a dark, billowing storm, the US armed forces staged a rehearsal using over 13,000 troops, countless computers and $250m. Officially, America won and a rogue state was liberated from an evil dictator.

What really happened is quite another story, one that has set alarm bells ringing throughout America's defence establishment and raised questions over the US military's readiness for an Iraqi invasion. In fact, this war game was won by Saddam Hussein, or at least by the retired marine playing the Iraqi dictator's part, Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper.

In the first few days of the exercise, using surprise and unorthodox tactics, the wily 64-year-old Vietnam veteran sank most of the US expeditionary fleet in the Persian Gulf, bringing the US assault to a halt.

What happened next will be familiar to anyone who ever played soldiers in the playground. Faced with an abrupt and embarrassing end to the most expensive and sophisticated military exercise in US history, the Pentagon top brass simply pretended the whole thing had not happened. They ordered their dead troops back to life and "refloated" the sunken fleet. Then they instructed the enemy forces to look the other way as their marines performed amphibious landings. Eventually, Van Riper got so fed up with all this cheating that he refused to play any more. Instead, he sat on the sidelines making abrasive remarks until the three-week war game - grandiosely entitled Millennium Challenge - staggered to a star-spangled conclusion on August 15, with a US "victory".

If the Pentagon thought it could keep its mishap quiet, it underestimated Van Riper. A classic marine - straight-talking and fearless, with a purple heart from Vietnam to prove it - his retirement means he no longer has to put up with the bureaucratic niceties of the defence department. So he blew the whistle.

His driving concern, he tells the Guardian, is that when the real fighting starts, American troops will be sent into battle with a set of half-baked tactics that have not been put to the test.

"Nothing was learned from this," he says. "A culture not willing to think hard and test itself does not augur well for the future." The exercise, he says, was rigged almost from the outset.

Millennium Challenge was the biggest war game of all time. It had been planned for two years and involved integrated operations by the army, navy, air force and marines. The exercises were part real, with 13,000 troops spread across the United States, supported by actual planes and warships; and part virtual, generated by sophisticated computer models. It was the same technique used in Hollywood blockbusters such as Gladiator. The soldiers in the foreground were real, the legions behind entirely digital.

The game was theoretically set in 2007 and pitted Blue forces (the US) against a country called Red. Red was a militarily powerful Middle Eastern nation on the Persian Gulf that was home to a crazed but cunning megalomaniac (Van Riper). Arguably, when the exercises were first planned back in 2000, Red could have been Iran. But by July this year, when the game kicked off, it is unlikely that anyone involved had any doubts as to which country beginning with "I" Blue was up against.

"The game was described as free play. In other words, there were two sides trying to win," Van Riper says.

Even when playing an evil dictator, the marine veteran clearly takes winning very seriously. He reckoned Blue would try to launch a surprise strike, in line with the administration's new pre-emptive doctrine, "so I decided I would attack first."

Van Riper had at his disposal a computer-generated flotilla of small boats and planes, many of them civilian, which he kept buzzing around the virtual Persian Gulf in circles as the game was about to get under way. As the US fleet entered the Gulf, Van Riper gave a signal - not in a radio transmission that might have been intercepted, but in a coded message broadcast from the minarets of mosques at the call to prayer. The seemingly harmless pleasure craft and propeller planes suddenly turned deadly, ramming into Blue boats and airfields along the Gulf in scores of al-Qaida-style suicide attacks. Meanwhile, Chinese Silkworm-type cruise missiles fired from some of the small boats sank the US fleet's only aircraft carrier and two marine helicopter carriers. The tactics were reminiscent of the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in Yemen two years ago, but the Blue fleet did not seem prepared. Sixteen ships were sunk altogether, along with thousands of marines. If it had really happened, it would have been the worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor.

It was at this point that the generals and admirals monitoring the war game called time out.

"A phrase I heard over and over was: 'That would never have happened,'" Van Riper recalls. "And I said: nobody would have thought that anyone would fly an airliner into the World Trade Centre... but nobody seemed interested."

In the end, it was ruled that the Blue forces had had the $250m equivalent of their fingers crossed and were not really dead, while the ships were similarly raised from watery graves.

Van Riper was pretty fed up by this point, but things were about to get worse. The "control group", the officers refereeing the exercise, informed him that US electronic warfare planes had zapped his expensive microwave communications systems.

"You're going to have to use cellphones and satellite phones now, they told me. I said no, no, no - we're going to use motorcycle messengers and make announcements from the mosques," he says. "But they refused to accept that we'd do anything they wouldn't do in the west."

Then Van Riper was told to turn his air defences off at certain times and places where Blue forces were about to stage an attack, and to move his forces away from beaches where the marines were scheduled to land. "The whole thing was being scripted," he says.

Within his ever narrowing constraints, Van Riper continued to make a nuisance of himself, harrying Blue forces with an arsenal of unorthodox tactics, until one day, on July 29, he thinks, he found his orders to his subordinate officers were not being listened to any more. They were being countermanded by the control group. So Van Riper quit. "I stayed on to give advice, but I stopped giving orders. There was no real point any more," he says.

Van Riper's account of Millennium Challenge is not disputed by the Pentagon. It does not deny "refloating" the Blue navy, for example. But that, it argues, is the whole point of a war game.

Vice-Admiral Cutler Dawson, the commander of the ill-fated fleet, and commander, in real life, of the US 2nd Fleet, says: "When you push the envelope, some things work, some things don't. That's how you learn from the experiment."

The whole issue rapidly became a cause celebre at the Pentagon press briefing, where the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, got the vice-chairman of the joint chiefs-of-staff, General Peter Pace, to explain why the mighty US forces had needed two lives in order to win.

"You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?" General Pace asked.

Van Riper agrees with Pace in principle, but says the argument is beside the point.

"Scripting is not a problem because you're trying to learn something," he says. "The difference with this one was that it was advertised up front as free play in order to validate the concepts they were trying to test, to see if they were robust enough to put into doctrine."

It is these "concepts" that are at the core of a serious debate that underlies what would otherwise be a silly row about who was playing fair and who wasn't. The US armed forces are in the throes of what used to be called a "Revolution in Military Affairs", and is now usually referred to simply as "transformation". The general idea is to make the US military more flexible, more mobile and more imaginative. It was this transformation that Rumsfeld was obsessed with during his first nine months in office, until September 11 created other priorities.

Captain Evil · 02-06-2003, 06:15 AM

The advocates of transformation argue that it requires a whole new mindset, from the generals down to the ordinary infantryman. So military planners, instead of drawing up new tactics, formulate more amorphous "concepts" intended to change fundamentally the American soldier's view of the battlefield.

The principal concept on trial in Millennium Challenge was called "rapid, decisive operation" (RDO), and as far as Van Riper and many veteran officers are concerned, it is gobbledegook. "As if anyone would want slow, indecisive operations! These are just slogans," he snorts.

The question of transformation and the usefulness of concepts such as RDO are the subject of an intense battle within the Pentagon, in which the uniformed old guard are frequently at odds with radical civilian strategists of the kind Rumsfeld brought into the Pentagon.

John Pike, the head of GlobalSecurity.org, a military thinktank in Washington, believes the splits over transformation and the whole Van Riper affair reflect fundamental differences of opinion on how to pursue the war on Iraq.

"One way is to march straight to Baghdad, blowing up everything in your way and then by shock and awe you cause the regime to collapse," Pike says. "That is what Rumsfeld is complaining about when he talks about unimaginative plodding. The alternative is to bypass the Iraqi forces and deliver a decisive blow."

Van Riper denies being opposed to new military thinking. He just thinks it should be written in plain English and put to the test. "My main concern was that we'd see future forces trying to use these things when they've never been properly grounded in an experiment," he says.

The name Van Riper draws either scowls or rolling eyes at the Pentagon these days, but there are anecdotal signs that he has the quiet support of the uniformed military, who, after all, will be the first to discover whether the Iraq invasion plans work in real life.

"He can be a real pain in the ass, but that's good," a fellow retired officer told the Army Times. "He's a great guy, and he's a great patriot, and he's doing all those things for the right reasons."

GTS Mark · 02-06-2003, 06:25 AM

Anybody see that movie "3 Kings".

*Chris Farley Voice*

Hehe yeah that was cool! And ummmm the part where all the iraqi soldiers were worried that sadam was going to kill them all. Hehe yeah that was awesome!

DH

Troels · 02-06-2003, 06:55 AM

If this was is gonna be a swift one or not is anyones guess.

But who believes that killing alot or Iraqis will reduce terrorism againt the US?
It will come back and bite you/us in the ass.

Saddam was supported in the war against Iran by most of the Western world. Noone wanted/wants religious maniacs in control of significant Arab countries.

Just imagine the future outlook if muslim fanatics take control, or split the country of Iraq after Saddam is removed/killed?
Actually I'd rather have an Iraq with Saddam in charge, than what I'm seeing in Iran today - those guys are nuts, and probably more involved in terrorism than Saddam is.

Wilbo · 02-06-2003, 07:09 AM

Somehow I can't see democracy flying in Iraq. All of the powers that be who surround Iraq are probably scared to death of democracy. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are both kingdoms and kings are notorious for wanting to stay in power. What would happen if all of the middle East suddenly wanted to elect their own leaders? I think we're more likely to see a leader installed that is acceptable to Iraq's neighbors and no elections. Please note that all of the above is my own personal opinion and I have no facts to back this up. ( I just hate it when people post their opinions as facts )

02-06-2003, 01:20 AM	#51
LiveDose Show Yer Tits! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Out there... Posts: 25,792	50 __________________ Scammer Alert: acer19 acer [email protected] [email protected] Money stolen using PayPal

02-06-2003, 01:26 AM	#55
letshunt Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 196	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. __________________ The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. -George Patton

02-06-2003, 02:07 AM	#70
scooby doo as scooby does Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: A deep dark place. Posts: 314	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. __________________ In 1904, Charles Newman-Berry connected two abacus's together using specially enhanced GrapeVine thus inventing the first Internet connection. NEWMAN-BERRY CASH Paying webmaster since 1904

02-06-2003, 02:08 AM	#71
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	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. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html Last edited by theking; 02-06-2003 at 02:27 AM..

02-06-2003, 02:43 AM	#76
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	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. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

02-06-2003, 01:23 AM	#53
BigFish Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: United States of America Posts: 1,159	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.

02-06-2003, 01:26 AM	#56
rooster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,384	drunk, you have reached the point where your so offbase, its not worth debating. later

02-06-2003, 01:45 AM	#63
KingK7 Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 6,372	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.

02-06-2003, 01:53 AM	#66
drunkmonkey Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: behind you Posts:1,075,324 Posts: 799	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.

02-06-2003, 02:29 AM	#73
bhutocracy Not making A Comeback Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 10,218	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.

02-06-2003, 03:59 AM	#90
sexmanic Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: smega bowls Posts: 196	i remember 1991 .. same bs. there was all this talk about sadaam's military prowess .. 4th largest in the world and all. fuck em. asses kicked in no time then, and wil be even faster this time bcasue we will use tactical nukes. another thing different now is that we will secure the oil fields first so that fuck wad doesn't burn them again. what i hate is all this rhetoric about how the iraq army will be tough becasue they are sooo loyal, and well-trained etc. jeeesus - don't you think the fucking US military is loyal and well trained? iraq will look like Superman's glass lair soon enough .. then N. Korea can decide if they want some too. the us military capability is vastly underestimated. vastly. many people of the world thought the raiders would win too. __________________ ________ rental unit

02-06-2003, 04:04 AM	#91
hunnyluv Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 50	Would it make a difference to the world if Sadaam had the world's second largest oxygen suppy held hostage instead of the oil? __________________ Hello, I love you. Yes you do.

02-06-2003, 06:12 AM	#95
Captain Evil Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 164	Most of you are making a big mistake: you assume too much. The truth is, we don't know what will happen. There are many different possibilities, and not much that we can be sure of. Maybe the US will win easily. Their technological advantage indeed makes that very likely. But maybe they won't. When preparing for the war, the US military did a large scale simulation. In that simulation, the US had major losses, no real gains, and they would have lost, had it not been for the head of the military disallowing the side playing "Iraq" to do anything not known beforehand. Read about it here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0...786992,00.html I personally think it would be foolish to make any assumptions based on the limited information we have.

02-06-2003, 06:14 AM	#96
Captain Evil Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 164	Here's the article: Wake-up call If the US and Iraq do go to war, there can only be one winner, can't there? Maybe not. This summer, in a huge rehearsal of just such a conflict - and with retired Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper playing Saddam - the US lost. Julian Borger asks the former marine how he did it Friday September 6, 2002 The Guardian At the height of the summer, as talk of invading Iraq built in Washington like a dark, billowing storm, the US armed forces staged a rehearsal using over 13,000 troops, countless computers and $250m. Officially, America won and a rogue state was liberated from an evil dictator. What really happened is quite another story, one that has set alarm bells ringing throughout America's defence establishment and raised questions over the US military's readiness for an Iraqi invasion. In fact, this war game was won by Saddam Hussein, or at least by the retired marine playing the Iraqi dictator's part, Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper. In the first few days of the exercise, using surprise and unorthodox tactics, the wily 64-year-old Vietnam veteran sank most of the US expeditionary fleet in the Persian Gulf, bringing the US assault to a halt. What happened next will be familiar to anyone who ever played soldiers in the playground. Faced with an abrupt and embarrassing end to the most expensive and sophisticated military exercise in US history, the Pentagon top brass simply pretended the whole thing had not happened. They ordered their dead troops back to life and "refloated" the sunken fleet. Then they instructed the enemy forces to look the other way as their marines performed amphibious landings. Eventually, Van Riper got so fed up with all this cheating that he refused to play any more. Instead, he sat on the sidelines making abrasive remarks until the three-week war game - grandiosely entitled Millennium Challenge - staggered to a star-spangled conclusion on August 15, with a US "victory". If the Pentagon thought it could keep its mishap quiet, it underestimated Van Riper. A classic marine - straight-talking and fearless, with a purple heart from Vietnam to prove it - his retirement means he no longer has to put up with the bureaucratic niceties of the defence department. So he blew the whistle. His driving concern, he tells the Guardian, is that when the real fighting starts, American troops will be sent into battle with a set of half-baked tactics that have not been put to the test. "Nothing was learned from this," he says. "A culture not willing to think hard and test itself does not augur well for the future." The exercise, he says, was rigged almost from the outset. Millennium Challenge was the biggest war game of all time. It had been planned for two years and involved integrated operations by the army, navy, air force and marines. The exercises were part real, with 13,000 troops spread across the United States, supported by actual planes and warships; and part virtual, generated by sophisticated computer models. It was the same technique used in Hollywood blockbusters such as Gladiator. The soldiers in the foreground were real, the legions behind entirely digital. The game was theoretically set in 2007 and pitted Blue forces (the US) against a country called Red. Red was a militarily powerful Middle Eastern nation on the Persian Gulf that was home to a crazed but cunning megalomaniac (Van Riper). Arguably, when the exercises were first planned back in 2000, Red could have been Iran. But by July this year, when the game kicked off, it is unlikely that anyone involved had any doubts as to which country beginning with "I" Blue was up against. "The game was described as free play. In other words, there were two sides trying to win," Van Riper says. Even when playing an evil dictator, the marine veteran clearly takes winning very seriously. He reckoned Blue would try to launch a surprise strike, in line with the administration's new pre-emptive doctrine, "so I decided I would attack first." Van Riper had at his disposal a computer-generated flotilla of small boats and planes, many of them civilian, which he kept buzzing around the virtual Persian Gulf in circles as the game was about to get under way. As the US fleet entered the Gulf, Van Riper gave a signal - not in a radio transmission that might have been intercepted, but in a coded message broadcast from the minarets of mosques at the call to prayer. The seemingly harmless pleasure craft and propeller planes suddenly turned deadly, ramming into Blue boats and airfields along the Gulf in scores of al-Qaida-style suicide attacks. Meanwhile, Chinese Silkworm-type cruise missiles fired from some of the small boats sank the US fleet's only aircraft carrier and two marine helicopter carriers. The tactics were reminiscent of the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in Yemen two years ago, but the Blue fleet did not seem prepared. Sixteen ships were sunk altogether, along with thousands of marines. If it had really happened, it would have been the worst naval disaster since Pearl Harbor. It was at this point that the generals and admirals monitoring the war game called time out. "A phrase I heard over and over was: 'That would never have happened,'" Van Riper recalls. "And I said: nobody would have thought that anyone would fly an airliner into the World Trade Centre... but nobody seemed interested." In the end, it was ruled that the Blue forces had had the $250m equivalent of their fingers crossed and were not really dead, while the ships were similarly raised from watery graves. Van Riper was pretty fed up by this point, but things were about to get worse. The "control group", the officers refereeing the exercise, informed him that US electronic warfare planes had zapped his expensive microwave communications systems. "You're going to have to use cellphones and satellite phones now, they told me. I said no, no, no - we're going to use motorcycle messengers and make announcements from the mosques," he says. "But they refused to accept that we'd do anything they wouldn't do in the west." Then Van Riper was told to turn his air defences off at certain times and places where Blue forces were about to stage an attack, and to move his forces away from beaches where the marines were scheduled to land. "The whole thing was being scripted," he says. Within his ever narrowing constraints, Van Riper continued to make a nuisance of himself, harrying Blue forces with an arsenal of unorthodox tactics, until one day, on July 29, he thinks, he found his orders to his subordinate officers were not being listened to any more. They were being countermanded by the control group. So Van Riper quit. "I stayed on to give advice, but I stopped giving orders. There was no real point any more," he says. Van Riper's account of Millennium Challenge is not disputed by the Pentagon. It does not deny "refloating" the Blue navy, for example. But that, it argues, is the whole point of a war game. Vice-Admiral Cutler Dawson, the commander of the ill-fated fleet, and commander, in real life, of the US 2nd Fleet, says: "When you push the envelope, some things work, some things don't. That's how you learn from the experiment." The whole issue rapidly became a cause celebre at the Pentagon press briefing, where the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, got the vice-chairman of the joint chiefs-of-staff, General Peter Pace, to explain why the mighty US forces had needed two lives in order to win. "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?" General Pace asked. Van Riper agrees with Pace in principle, but says the argument is beside the point. "Scripting is not a problem because you're trying to learn something," he says. "The difference with this one was that it was advertised up front as free play in order to validate the concepts they were trying to test, to see if they were robust enough to put into doctrine." It is these "concepts" that are at the core of a serious debate that underlies what would otherwise be a silly row about who was playing fair and who wasn't. The US armed forces are in the throes of what used to be called a "Revolution in Military Affairs", and is now usually referred to simply as "transformation". The general idea is to make the US military more flexible, more mobile and more imaginative. It was this transformation that Rumsfeld was obsessed with during his first nine months in office, until September 11 created other priorities.

02-06-2003, 06:15 AM	#97
Captain Evil Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 164	The advocates of transformation argue that it requires a whole new mindset, from the generals down to the ordinary infantryman. So military planners, instead of drawing up new tactics, formulate more amorphous "concepts" intended to change fundamentally the American soldier's view of the battlefield. The principal concept on trial in Millennium Challenge was called "rapid, decisive operation" (RDO), and as far as Van Riper and many veteran officers are concerned, it is gobbledegook. "As if anyone would want slow, indecisive operations! These are just slogans," he snorts. The question of transformation and the usefulness of concepts such as RDO are the subject of an intense battle within the Pentagon, in which the uniformed old guard are frequently at odds with radical civilian strategists of the kind Rumsfeld brought into the Pentagon. John Pike, the head of GlobalSecurity.org, a military thinktank in Washington, believes the splits over transformation and the whole Van Riper affair reflect fundamental differences of opinion on how to pursue the war on Iraq. "One way is to march straight to Baghdad, blowing up everything in your way and then by shock and awe you cause the regime to collapse," Pike says. "That is what Rumsfeld is complaining about when he talks about unimaginative plodding. The alternative is to bypass the Iraqi forces and deliver a decisive blow." Van Riper denies being opposed to new military thinking. He just thinks it should be written in plain English and put to the test. "My main concern was that we'd see future forces trying to use these things when they've never been properly grounded in an experiment," he says. The name Van Riper draws either scowls or rolling eyes at the Pentagon these days, but there are anecdotal signs that he has the quiet support of the uniformed military, who, after all, will be the first to discover whether the Iraq invasion plans work in real life. "He can be a real pain in the ass, but that's good," a fellow retired officer told the Army Times. "He's a great guy, and he's a great patriot, and he's doing all those things for the right reasons."

02-06-2003, 06:25 AM	#98
GTS Mark Vrume Mark Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 20,912	Anybody see that movie "3 Kings". Chris Farley Voice Hehe yeah that was cool! And ummmm the part where all the iraqi soldiers were worried that sadam was going to kill them all. Hehe yeah that was awesome! DH

02-06-2003, 06:55 AM	#99
Troels Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Between the clouds Posts: 1,035	If this was is gonna be a swift one or not is anyones guess. But who believes that killing alot or Iraqis will reduce terrorism againt the US? It will come back and bite you/us in the ass. Saddam was supported in the war against Iran by most of the Western world. Noone wanted/wants religious maniacs in control of significant Arab countries. Just imagine the future outlook if muslim fanatics take control, or split the country of Iraq after Saddam is removed/killed? Actually I'd rather have an Iraq with Saddam in charge, than what I'm seeing in Iran today - those guys are nuts, and probably more involved in terrorism than Saddam is.

02-06-2003, 07:09 AM	#100
Wilbo Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Baltimore Posts: 2,082	Somehow I can't see democracy flying in Iraq. All of the powers that be who surround Iraq are probably scared to death of democracy. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are both kingdoms and kings are notorious for wanting to stay in power. What would happen if all of the middle East suddenly wanted to elect their own leaders? I think we're more likely to see a leader installed that is acceptable to Iraq's neighbors and no elections. Please note that all of the above is my own personal opinion and I have no facts to back this up. ( I just hate it when people post their opinions as facts )