List of factors that could deter US military - GoFuckYourself.com

TheFLY · 03-24-2003, 01:31 PM

Just post common sense stuff try to be serious for once...

1. They are on foreign soil, foreign climate, conditions, etc.
2. They can't kill civilians, and the world is watching for injustices.
3. Their mission is unclear (fighting for freedom?)
4. Suicide attackers
5. Coalition forces are outnumbered
6. Coalition is fighting multiple invisible enemies.
7. Coalition has more to lose in terms of quality of life, pampering...
8. Coalition bogged down by supplies and protective chemical gear?
9. Coalition can't destroy the city or the infrastructure.

Maybe you guys can elaborate on all this -- it just seems to me that on foreign soil, something *could* go terribly wrong... Think about how many years IRAQ has had to prepare for this war strategically -- and for a man as shrewd as Saddam with nothing to lose, I can only imagine a worst possible scenario... mass carnage.

Juicy D. Links · 03-24-2003, 01:32 PM

Fly has gonnorea of the anus

DarkJedi · 03-24-2003, 01:34 PM

Sly_RJ · 03-24-2003, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheFLY
5. Coalition forces are outnumbered

They are? Maybe with Iraqi civilians and militants, but with troops? How many do they have?

TheFLY · 03-24-2003, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by juicylinks
Fly has gonnorea of the anus

Try to be serious -- the future of the world is on trial buddy.

directfiesta · 03-24-2003, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkJedi

Why are you posting TheKing picture?

Thrawn$ · 03-24-2003, 01:39 PM

having ennemies Behind and front of them

Thrawn$ · 03-24-2003, 01:40 PM

the wrong guys always loose!
like movies

Fletch XXX · 03-24-2003, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheFLY

3. Their mission is unclear (fighting for freedom?)

Mission is clear.

The Removal Of Saddam Hussein & His Regime.

BRISK · 03-24-2003, 01:44 PM

Coalition forces have no training to defend against the fierce attack goats in the Iraqi military.

TheFLY · 03-24-2003, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

They are? Maybe with Iraqi civilians and militants, but with troops? How many do they have?

But the news is saying that civilians have killed and injured marines... Why wouldn't civilians pick up guns too? Baghdad was destroyed by the USA in the Gulf War 12 years ago -- do you think they have forgotton?

All those kids who lost their family are now old enough for revenge... Please correct me here if I'm wrong...

stocktrader23 · 03-24-2003, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch XXX

Mission is clear.

The Removal Of Saddam Hussein & His Regime.

I suppose you really think that is it huh?

Sly_RJ · 03-24-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheFLY

But the news is saying that civilians have killed and injured marines... Why wouldn't civilians pick up guns too? Baghdad was destroyed by the USA in the Gulf War 12 years ago -- do you think they have forgotton? All those kids who lost their family are now old enough for revenge... Please correct me here if I'm wrong...

No, you're not wrong. I listed those in my statement above.

But you still avoided my question. Are you going to answer? Are the Allied troops seriously outnumbered? And where do you get your information?

stocktrader23 · 03-24-2003, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheFLY

But the news is saying that civilians have killed and injured marines... Why wouldn't civilians pick up guns too? Baghdad was destroyed by the USA in the Gulf War 12 years ago -- do you think they have forgotton? All those kids who lost their family are now old enough for revenge... Please correct me here if I'm wrong...

No you aren't wrong. Regardless of how much people say otherwise here we are facing more resistance than we expected. Our news keeps saying soldiers are pretending to be civilians etc, but there are several independant journalists reporting that many civillians from Iraq and the surrounding area are against the US. They are causing problems.

stocktrader23 · 03-24-2003, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

No, you're not wrong. I listed those in my statement above.

But you still avoided my question. Are you going to answer? Are the Allied troops seriously outnumbered? And where do you get your information?

I would like to know this also. Not counting civilians how many soldiers are in Saddam's army.

TheFLY · 03-24-2003, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch XXX

Mission is clear.

The Removal Of Saddam Hussein & His Regime.

Regime is a really cool word...

in other words, "kill everyone that doesn't surrender" -- which could be most of the population

???

---

According to "Gulf War Air Power Survey" by Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, (a report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force; 1993-ISBN 0-16-041950-6), there were an estimated 10- 12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war. This analysis is based on enemy prisoner of war reports.

The Iraqi government says 2,300 civilians died during the air campaign.

One infamous incident during the war highlighted the question of large-scale Iraqi combat deaths. This was the `bulldozer assault' in which two brigades from the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized)--The Big Red One--used plows mounted on tanks and combat earthmovers to bury Iraqi soldiers defending the fortified "Saddam Line."

While approximately 2,000 of the troops surrendered, escaping burial, one newspaper story reported that the U.S. commanders estimated thousands of Iraqi soldiers had been buried alive during the two- day assault February 24-25, 1991.

However, like all other troop estimates made during the war, the estimated 8,000 Iraqi defenders was probably greatly inflated. While one commander thought the numbers might have been in the thousands, another reported his brigade buried between 80 and 250 Iraqis. After the war, the Iraqi government found 44 bodies.

FRONTLINE interview with Bernard Trainor
FRONTLINE interview with Rick Atkinson
"The Gulf War: How Many Iraqis Died?" by John G. Heidenrich, Foreign Policy, March 1993
"Buried Alive" by Patrick J. Sloyan, Newsday, September 12, 1991.

theking · 03-24-2003, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

No, you're not wrong. I listed those in my statement above.

But you still avoided my question. Are you going to answer? Are the Allied troops seriously outnumbered? And where do you get your information?

At the beginning of this war the Iraqi Army was estimated to be 400,000.

theking · 03-24-2003, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stocktrader23

No you aren't wrong. Regardless of how much people say otherwise here we are facing more resistance than we expected. Our news keeps saying soldiers are pretending to be civilians etc, but there are several independant journalists reporting that many civillians from Iraq and the surrounding area are against the US. They are causing problems.

The military commanders have not run into anymore resistance than expected. All resistance up to this point in time has been light resistance. There have not been any major battles, period.

stocktrader23 · 03-24-2003, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

The military commanders have not run into anymore resistance than expected. All resistance up to this point in time has been light resistance. There have not been any major battles, period.

Do you ignore everything you see? Ok, I didn't say they were met with resistance that is a big deal on the entire scale of things but even the military, former commanders, etc are saying the resistance outside of Baghdad is MORE THAN EXPECTED. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

Sly_RJ · 03-24-2003, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

At the beginning of this war the Iraqi Army was estimated to be 400,000.

No shit? How many do you think are left? And what do you think our kill rate is?

theking · 03-24-2003, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

No shit? How many do you think are left? And what do you think our kill rate is?

The bulk of them are left. There has yet to be any major battles. I did see a report today that the air sorties that are being flown today would be for the purpose of taking out Iraqi Divisions that are arrayed from 20-35 miles outside of Iraq. Up until this point in time the bombing that has been done has not been fully directed upon Iraqi forces. This is necessary as our main force will soon be within fighting range of these Iraqi forces.

playa · 03-24-2003, 02:18 PM

The problem is that these embbeded journalist are reporting from their non- military perspective,and blow things out of proportion,

theking · 03-24-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stocktrader23

Do you ignore everything you see? Ok, I didn't say they were met with resistance that is a big deal on the entire scale of things but even the military, former commanders, etc are saying the resistance outside of Baghdad is MORE THAN EXPECTED. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

I do not ignore it, I, unlike you, place no importance upon it. Former commanders are not current commanders, but they are entiltled to an opinion. If it satisfies you any at all, I do have a concern about this whole affair, and that is, we went in light in the ass. Because of the decision by Turkey the entire scope and force of the campaign is not in play. I did see a report today that the 4th Armored Division is supposed to arrive in Kuwaite "soon" and will be deployed on the tail of our current main forces that the Iraqis are stinging. This Division is a major machine of war and will fill in the gaps in our logistical tail, but it was originally to have been deployed and drive to Baghdad from the north.

digi · 03-24-2003, 02:24 PM

i just saw some short interviews with people in bagdad, they were pretty pissed off at the usa.

TheFLY · 03-24-2003, 02:25 PM

Seems like Saddam's best attack plan would be to get all 400,000 soldiers in civilian clothes in Baghdad -- you could hold off an enemy indefinitely as long as there is enough food and ammo... and considering they had 12 YEARS to prepare -- you can only imagine that IRAQ is well prepared to defend itself...

theking · 03-24-2003, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by playa
The problem is that these embbeded journalist are reporting from their non- military perspective,and blow things out of proportion,

Correct, and the more adjectives they use and the more the story is exploited the more viewers tune in. The days of objective reporting are over forever.

playa · 03-24-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by digi
i just saw some short interviews with people in bagdad, they were pretty pissed off at the usa.

lol, well DUH, are you that simple minded

Do YOU really think and a person will publicly say they support the US on Iraqi TV??? especially when its known fact that Sadam will prollykilled them and their familes

chupacabra · 03-24-2003, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Do YOU really think and a person will publicly say they support the US on Iraqi TV??? especially when its known fact that Sadam will prollykilled them and their familes

so your pretty sure then that the iraqi people are all just bursting w/ joy that the US is once again bombing their cities, and trying very hard to contain themselves..? huh..

directfiesta · 03-24-2003, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chupacabra

so your pretty sure then that the iraqi people are all just bursting w/ joy that the US is once again bombing their cities, and trying very hard to contain themselves..? huh..

didn't you see all the iraqis along the road waving kisses and throwing flowers to the coalition forces????

stocktrader23 · 03-24-2003, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

I do not ignore it, I, unlike you, place no importance upon it. Former commanders are not current commanders, but they are entiltled to an opinion. If it satisfies you any at all, I do have a concern about this whole affair, and that is, we went in light in the ass. Because of the decision by Turkey the entire scope and force of the campaign is not in play. I did see a report today that the 4th Armored Division is supposed to arrive in Kuwaite "soon" and will be deployed on the tail of our current main forces that the Iraqis are stinging. This Division is a major machine of war and will fill in the gaps in our logistical tail, but it was originally to have been deployed and drive to Baghdad from the north.

Light in the ass we are. No major significance but it's unusual to say the least.

playa · 03-24-2003, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by chupacabra

so your pretty sure then that the iraqi people are all just bursting w/ joy that the US is once again bombing their cities, and trying very hard to contain themselves..? huh..

no i don't believe everything i see on tv,
i gather my own facts and make my own conclusions,

if you want to know my theory i will be more than happy to talk bout my opinion

stocktrader23 · 03-24-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by playa

lol, well DUH, are you that simple minded

Do YOU really think and a person will publicly say they support the US on Iraqi TV??? especially when its known fact that Sadam will prollykilled them and their familes

Are you so simple minded to think they all want us there? If so, you are sadly mistaken. There are some that want us there and some that don't. The ones that don't will have no problems taking arms to defend their homeland.

mika · 03-24-2003, 03:02 PM

Someone asked for Iraqi numbers

I recall 370,000-390,000 troops

That includes all, including the elite forces and the lousy militia..

Elite guards have been estimated at 70,000

Theking, you're the one who belongs to that "3rd category" soon. your 10 day forecast is ridiculous, as you will see!

Libertine · 03-24-2003, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mika

Theking, you're the one who belongs to that "3rd category" soon. your 10 day forecast is ridiculous, as you will see!

It all depends on the battle of Baghdad. If they manage to kill of the head of the military (Saddam cs) quickly, it won't take very long.

mika · 03-24-2003, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by punkworld

It all depends on the battle of Baghdad. If they manage to kill of the head of the military (Saddam cs) quickly, it won't take very long.

Yep I agree. If Bagdad surrenders then it's fast.

Well ,theking's 10 days is unconditional and that is just not gonna happen..

playa · 03-24-2003, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by stocktrader23

Are you so simple minded to think they all want us there?

There are some that want us there and some that don't.

with that answer, You must be a genious,

Question to Stocktrader- So is How is Sadam Doing?

Answer from Stocktrader- Well he is either dead or alive

stocktrader23 · 03-26-2003, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by playa

with that answer, You must be a genious,

Question to Stocktrader- So is How is Sadam Doing?

Answer from Stocktrader- Well he is either dead or alive

Ok so you are that simple minded. Let me try again...

Some (as in not all) want us there while some (as in not all) don't.

<img src="http://www.hot.ee/mastap/bush_files/bush_headupass.gif">

Fletch XXX · 03-26-2003, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by stocktrader23

I suppose you really think that is it huh?

no.

could be about oil.

could be all about jesus as far as I know.

could have something to do with the Skull and Bones.

who knows, but that IS what the objective is said to be.

i just cant wait until its over.

ManKind · 03-26-2003, 09:20 AM

do not ignore it, I, unlike you, place no importance upon it. Former commanders are not current commanders, but they are entiltled to an opinion. If it satisfies you any at all, I do have a concern about this whole affair, and that is, we went in light in the ass. Because of the decision by Turkey the entire scope and force of the campaign is not in play. I did see a report today that the 4th Armored Division is supposed to arrive in Kuwaite "soon" and will be deployed on the tail of our current main forces that the Iraqis are stinging. This Division is a major machine of war and will fill in the gaps in our logistical tail, but it was originally to have been deployed and drive to Baghdad from the north.

ManKind · 03-26-2003, 09:40 AM

But you still avoided my question. Are you going to answer? Are the Allied troops seriously outnumbered? And where do you get your information?

theking · 03-26-2003, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManKind
But you still avoided my question. Are you going to answer? Are the Allied troops seriously outnumbered? And where do you get your information?

Coalition forces are outnumbered. In my opinion, coalition forces are not seriously outnumbered, though it is always preferrable not to be outnumbered.

Paul Markham · 03-26-2003, 10:21 AM

I think one of the factors that is the biggest problem is;

Saddam Hussien does not give a damn who he kills or how many die so he can stay in power. Bush wants this war to be won with the minimum of casualties.

One leader will send 100,000 people on a suicide mission as martyrs. The otherside is naming individual deaths as if each one are mistakes and tragedies.

03-24-2003, 01:31 PM	#1
TheFLY So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: http://www.thefly.net/ --- Quit your job and live off steady traffic. Posts: 11,856	List of factors that could deter US military Just post common sense stuff try to be serious for once... 1. They are on foreign soil, foreign climate, conditions, etc. 2. They can't kill civilians, and the world is watching for injustices. 3. Their mission is unclear (fighting for freedom?) 4. Suicide attackers 5. Coalition forces are outnumbered 6. Coalition is fighting multiple invisible enemies. 7. Coalition has more to lose in terms of quality of life, pampering... 8. Coalition bogged down by supplies and protective chemical gear? 9. Coalition can't destroy the city or the infrastructure. Maybe you guys can elaborate on all this -- it just seems to me that on foreign soil, something could go terribly wrong... Think about how many years IRAQ has had to prepare for this war strategically -- and for a man as shrewd as Saddam with nothing to lose, I can only imagine a worst possible scenario... mass carnage.

03-24-2003, 01:34 PM	#3
DarkJedi No Refunds Issued. Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: GFY Posts: 28,300	Last edited by DarkJedi; 03-24-2003 at 02:02 PM..

03-24-2003, 01:39 PM	#7
Thrawn$ Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mtl Posts: 4,596	having ennemies Behind and front of them __________________ Tracking 202 \| Start Tracking PPC Campaigns Like A Pro

03-24-2003, 01:40 PM	#8
Thrawn$ Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Mtl Posts: 4,596	the wrong guys always loose! like movies __________________ Tracking 202 \| Start Tracking PPC Campaigns Like A Pro

03-24-2003, 01:44 PM	#10
BRISK Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 12,240	Coalition forces have no training to defend against the fierce attack goats in the Iraqi military. __________________ I post on GFY so that when people ask me what I do, I can tell them that I work with the mentally retarded.

03-24-2003, 01:32 PM	#2
Juicy D. Links So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: N.Y. -Long Island -- Posts: 122,992	Fly has gonnorea of the anus

03-24-2003, 02:18 PM	#22
playa Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: atlanta, GA Posts: 6,432	The problem is that these embbeded journalist are reporting from their non- military perspective,and blow things out of proportion,

03-24-2003, 02:24 PM	#24
digi Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: ON, Canada Posts: 1,314	i just saw some short interviews with people in bagdad, they were pretty pissed off at the usa.

03-24-2003, 02:25 PM	#25
TheFLY So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: http://www.thefly.net/ --- Quit your job and live off steady traffic. Posts: 11,856	Seems like Saddam's best attack plan would be to get all 400,000 soldiers in civilian clothes in Baghdad -- you could hold off an enemy indefinitely as long as there is enough food and ammo... and considering they had 12 YEARS to prepare -- you can only imagine that IRAQ is well prepared to defend itself...

03-24-2003, 03:02 PM	#33
mika Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Finland Posts: 1,561	Someone asked for Iraqi numbers I recall 370,000-390,000 troops That includes all, including the elite forces and the lousy militia.. Elite guards have been estimated at 70,000 Theking, you're the one who belongs to that "3rd category" soon. your 10 day forecast is ridiculous, as you will see!

03-26-2003, 09:20 AM	#39
ManKind So Fucking Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 73	do not ignore it, I, unlike you, place no importance upon it. Former commanders are not current commanders, but they are entiltled to an opinion. If it satisfies you any at all, I do have a concern about this whole affair, and that is, we went in light in the ass. Because of the decision by Turkey the entire scope and force of the campaign is not in play. I did see a report today that the 4th Armored Division is supposed to arrive in Kuwaite "soon" and will be deployed on the tail of our current main forces that the Iraqis are stinging. This Division is a major machine of war and will fill in the gaps in our logistical tail, but it was originally to have been deployed and drive to Baghdad from the north.

03-26-2003, 09:40 AM	#40
ManKind So Fucking Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 73	But you still avoided my question. Are you going to answer? Are the Allied troops seriously outnumbered? And where do you get your information?

03-26-2003, 10:21 AM	#42
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	I think one of the factors that is the biggest problem is; Saddam Hussien does not give a damn who he kills or how many die so he can stay in power. Bush wants this war to be won with the minimum of casualties. One leader will send 100,000 people on a suicide mission as martyrs. The otherside is naming individual deaths as if each one are mistakes and tragedies. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70