There are to many posts made by the ignorant and America bashers
 

...to respond to and most of the posts are not deserving of a response.

These are the facts.

Like it or not the US is militarily engaged in conflict with Iraqi forces.

The ultimate outcome of this conflict is known. The US forces will take control of Iraq.

As in all wars, there will be death via accident, illness, and KIA.

As in all wars, there will be injuries, and WIA's.

As in all wars, there will be POW's and MIA's.

As in all wars the rules of War as defined by the Geneva convention will be broken by all combatants involved.

There will be propaganda, there will be intentional and unintentional mis-information put out by the conflicting parties, there will intentional and unintentional mis-information put out by the media.

Thus far the US has been taking baby steps but the US has the option to increase the use of force, Iraqi forces do not. I predictated that the US will have control of the country in less than 10 days, and nothing has happened to change my mind.

Fact: This war violates the UN charter.
ZoiNk

You don't know much about urban warfare? How will they conquer Bagdad in such a short time? Will take a few years if Bagdad won't surrender

There will be guerilla warfare in the city.. and a lot of lives lost.. on both sides.

agreed, and the funniest part is that shrub uses "the violation of UN sanctions" as his main justification to invade..


while not in 10 days, i seriously doubt that the invasion will take years... the iraqis will not be able to withstand an extended siege. i guess all those WMD are still too well-hidden for the iraqis to use against our troops... you would think if they had any they would definitely be using them before they go down..

Fact: Richard Simmons is gay.

http://www.kepplerassociates.com/images/simmons.jpg

Fact: Saddam has violated it more.

Fact: Redheads are horny.

Fact: The UN can go suck an egg.


If the UN lacks the balls to enforce it's own sanctions then that's the way it is.

theking 03-17-2003 02:25 AM

"Our forces will have control of the country in less than 10 days. There will not be the prolonged bombing campaign that took place during the first Gulf War."

:-)

Thank you -- General Mika.

General Mika LOL

most of them are Canadian...you'd think the first people in line to give a U.S. blowjob would be Canadians

fuckin jewbies

Actually it's taking to much time because we are being to concerned about the innocent people. We should just get on with it already and waste the whole fricken place already, Bagdad be gone.....:ak47:

This war will get uglier before it gets prettier. I wouldn't be surprised if the tactical nukes come into play soon on Baghdad.

The Pentagon knows they don't have much time to get the job done with this war politically. If it gets bogged down, they'll go nuclear to turn the tide.

This is going to get harder and harder to watch on TV.

What's up with the "embedded" term. Sick of hearing that.

No it hasnt. Read up on the resolutions formed after the Gulf War. The Iraqis have violated it so much, the americans can use many points to justify a war.

Obviously you dont read up on your UN history.

Who says its illegal, hypocritical france, germany, russia and china?

Wrong, on all counts. There will not be any urban warfare fought in the manner that you apparently visualize.

there isn't much room for american to use anything relating to the UN as an excuse for invasion, shrub has rendered UN opinion 'irrelevant'... dangerous precendent for the rest of the world (china)..

forget this scenario.

ehm.. no think a buncha Canadians actually support morons like you :(

A lot of people on this board do not have a clue. They think they do.
--------------------------------------------------------
This is so very true.


Thus far the US has been taking baby steps but the US has the option to increase the use of force, Iraqi forces do not.
--------------------------------------------------------
And the Iraq leaders I believe don't have a clue or are still scared shitless of Saddam, which is most likely it. Can't really blame them.

why am I a moron and how are Canadians supporting me? and with what?

There are only *3* reasons under UN rules for invading another countries soil.

A) Approval by then UN Security council
B) Mass Genocide
C) Self Defence after you have been invaded.
ZoiNk

:thumbsup Very true. Said it before on this board.

Well. how will they conquer Bagdad? you tell me, dear American Genarals?

And the UN gave their approval in at least 3 resolutions the last of which was 1441, but the legal eagles, will debate this untill hell freezes over.

With machine guns silly :1orglaugh

If it comes to having to take Baghdad via "urban warfare" the Infantry will not be on point. Our various gunships and other weapons platforms, will be on point. I personally think that any "urban warfare" will be limited, if any takes place.

Yes, it seems that fact is escaping the critics. Then again I'm not surprised...... the critics on this board seem a bit long on opinion and short on sense.


Fact is, U.S. forces are halting and backing off when they encounter Iraqi resistance. They first do what they can to encourage the Iraqi's to surrender peacefully. Up until now the U.S. forces have shown a lot of restraint as far as I'm concerned, but that's all about to end quick if they keep obeying Saddam's orders and causing U.S. casualties to mount.


They're about to find out what the full capabily of "technology" is.

There's a good chance there will be no urban warfare, like you said

And in that case, the only option is that bagdad surrenders, that I said. But if it didn't, it would take years

The real American Generals know, and I don't think they are going to be telling you fuck all mika. Why not relax, sit back, shut the fuck up, and watch how they do it?

mmkay?

I believe 1441 wouldn't have passed if there was a deadline in it otherwise, U.S. would probably include a deadline to avoid any future conflicts already. Very smart! :thumbsup

Right and then wrong. You did not pay attention.

Exactly. The phrase "serious consequences" in 1441 is a CYA phrase.

Whassup Pathfinder.

Mean you can't tell he/she is very selective.:1orglaugh reading, and see.

First, I don't support Bush's war just like you but comon man why the hell would you think it'd take years? It would take years if it was Vietnam with lots of patriot civillians fighting guerilla style against U.S. but Iraqis are no patriots I hope you realize that? Try to be a little more realistic. We like the war or not, we like U.S. aggression/occupation of Iraq or not U.S. will win this war indefinitely.

We'll see guys. we'll see.

And remember I said IF Bagdad won't surrender, it will take years

I think it's possible that it will surrender

Theking, helicopters cannot invade towns
CD, If you don't have any view on that matter, then you stfu . I dont need to listen how great the American real generals are supposed to be. Some veterans, for example, were highly against the war

is what Bush admin says now laughing 'hey we tricked ya morons!' :1orglaugh

Theking, you obviously confuse love of country with love of the current government that runs that country. There is a distinction here. Even in wartime, from the beginning of American history, dissent is what separates our country from many of the other countries out there.

Wrapping your dick in a flag does not make you a patriot.... Caring enough about your country to thoroughly analyze its actions does.:2 cents:

We will win but its sad that Americans will have to die. I think we should go back to the times when a leader waged war he rode in the front of the military into battle now thats a leader I can respect.

Boots on the ground invade towns. Gunships, (all gunships are not helicopters) and other weapons systems will do 90% of the "urban fighting". I repeat, the Infantry will not be on point. Any "urban fighting" will bear little resemblance to the movies you may have seen.

Being "for" or "against" the war has nothing to do with your present argument. Your question was to do with "how" they are going to take Bagdad, not if it was right to do so. You said with conviction that it would take years of urban warefare to do it, of which several people posted rebuttals.

That's when I suggested you simply shaddap and wait and see how the US generals do it. What, you think they haven't been planning and strategizing this for many months?? Then you, General mika comes in and says these professional military leaders are all idiots to think they can take Bagdad?


So how long have you been a General?

I was simply expanding my argument. there are as many scenarios as there are assholes of generals

you believe the Great Generals, and I believe what I see. That won't deny me from trying to analyze the situation and think with my own brain. When I call it a day, I'm glad I did some thinking of my own, whether I was wrong or right. You just listen to Franks, he knows it all

I do not suffer "confusion" and I, as much as anyone, and more than most, analyze the actions my government takes. It was with considered, and careful analysis, that I concluded that taking control of Iraq is the best option from a list of bad options.

Zoink, there *IS* a D

Break the terms of the ceasefire made with the USA and that has been broken, the war resumes. Just like the North Korean's just threatened to do with the US (albeit they are arguing pure BS as the reason the ceasefire was broken) Do you NOT know the Korean war is NOT officially OVER??

Get a grip, the war with Iraq NEVER officially ended... a ceasefire is just that. But legally the war has always been 'ON'. Just halted for Iraq to do the things they agreed to do (which they didn't).

IF Iraq had done the things THEN a formal agreement to a end of war would have been drawn up.

Kids! Sheesh, they think this is run by video game rules. Did ANY of you pay the slightest attention in Government classes or haven't you gotten that far in High School yet?

Maybe if they taught government class on the back of Lucky Charms boxes, more of these kids would understand the terms of engagment - ceasefire rulings. And to think some of these clowns are claiming to be college students. *sigh*

Nope. Gunships won't take snipers down. There are hundreds of thousands of buildings in bagdad. Soldiers dressed as civilian. Sniping any marine that enters

If that was the case I'd highly doubt we'd be hearing "Fuck UN!" "We will prevail" "You are either with us or you are against us! (Oops shouldn't have said that! Noone's with us meaning they are all against us meaning I have to fight wars against the entire world now)" :1orglaugh

True, I don't know but I really think they do not teach Government classes any longer, if they do I bet it's dam sure not called Government classes, that might offened someone.:helpme

What ever gave you the idea that a gunship will not take out a sniper? If it comes to "urban warfare" just watch, listen, and learn. I repeat that gunships and other weapon platforms will do 90% of the "urban fighting". End of trying to educate you.