Saddam is purging Kirkuk at this very moment.

[MKSheppard]

But planners do. My post was in support of Marina's earlier assertion that this "will be no Stalingrad."

Tell that to the Red Army and Wehrmacht planners who thought that
Stalingrad would simply be bypassed.

[Stuart Mackey]

Besides the point- the average civilian does not know this.

But planners do. My post was in support of Marina's earlier assertion that this "will be no Stalingrad."

Yeah, well done for voiding your own argument.
What planners know and people know are two diffeent things, which is why they are leaving. Even if it is not a new Stalingrad, do you seriously think that anyone there wants to be collatoral damage?

[Vympel]

But planners do. My post was in support of Marina's earlier assertion that this "will be no Stalingrad."

And that assertion that she made was still irrelevant to the main argument at hand- which is the danger that a civilian percieves when she sees troops filling a city to the brim and fortifying it.

Urban warfare negates many of the advantages of the US Army. They still have the advantage of being far greater quality infantry than the Iraqis- but all the airpower in the world is worthless- unless you want to turn the city into rubble. It will be an infantry battle. Precision air strikes with 2,000lb bombs have no place in a city.

[Darth Wong]

Urban warfare negates many of the advantages of the US Army. They still have the advantage of being far greater quality infantry than the Iraqis- but all the airpower in the world is worthless- unless you want to turn the city into rubble. It will be an infantry battle. Precision air strikes with 2,000lb bombs have no place in a city.

Shhhhh!!! Don't shatter his illusion that you can take and hold cities with sanitized air wars! It might break his brain.

[MKSheppard]

Shhhhh!!! Don't shatter his illusion that you can take and hold cities with sanitized air wars! It might break his brain.

Or the Duchess' brain too!

[Vympel]

Shhhhh!!! Don't shatter his illusion that you can take and hold cities with sanitized air wars! It might break his brain.

Kirkuk might not even be attacked after all, with what Shep just posted about the US giving up on Turkey. But in Baghdad- thousands dead is the lower limit. I guess the question is how far the Republican Guard will go and how far the US military will go to win.

[Ted]

Shhhhh!!! Don't shatter his illusion that you can take and hold cities with sanitized air wars! It might break his brain.

You know, for some reason I always thought he was a female.

[Axis Kast]

And that assertion that she made was still irrelevant to the main argument at hand- which is the danger that a civilian percieves when she sees troops filling a city to the brim and fortifying it.

Urban warfare negates many of the advantages of the US Army. They still have the advantage of being far greater quality infantry than the Iraqis- but all the airpower in the world is worthless- unless you want to turn the city into rubble. It will be an infantry battle. Precision air strikes with 2,000lb bombs have no place in a city.

My statements related only to Stalingrad’s relevance. I was discussing our military’s clear knowledge that his will be no Stalingrad – not the fleeing civilians’.

And urban warfare in real-time might change all of our perceptions. We will be able to guide formations on an individual basis, bypassing certain threats and tackling others from afar.

Airpower will help soften obviously fixed defenses and certain bunkers. We’re talking about putting precision-guided munitions through the windows or at the doorstep of some of the most heavily-defended structures. Dangerous for civilians? Absolutely. A risk our military will likely take to save American lives? Again, I believe so.

And even if this is an utter “infantry battle” in every sense of the term, I can’t foresee more than a few hundred casualties. Nothing over the two thousand mark.

Shhhhh!!! Don't shatter his illusion that you can take and hold cities with sanitized air wars! It might break his brain.

When did I make a statement of this sort?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And that assertion that she made was still irrelevant to the main argument at hand- which is the danger that a civilian percieves when she sees troops filling a city to the brim and fortifying it.

No, not really - The average Iraqi's perception of American technological abilities in combat is inflated over what they actually are.

[MKSheppard]

No, not really - The average Iraqi's perception of American technological abilities in combat is inflated over what they actually are.

I can imagine you working with the USAF BDA team in Serbia.

"Ok, the F-16 guy says he blew up a T-72. Anyone see a T-72 hulk?"

*someone picks up a scorched piece of metal*

"Sir, I don't think he destroyed a T-72."

*on the scorched piece of metal, it says: "M-18 HELLCAT, Made with pride in Detroit, 1944"

[Next of Kin]

Ethnic cleansing is different from genocide - It's removing an ethnicity from an area, which can involve either deportations or mass murder. This does fit into the first category - Saddam's men are driving the Kurds out of Kirkuk.

Furthermore, this would not be happening if Saddam had been already removed. The reason it is happening is because of this idiotic theory Chirac and Schroeder have: that if American troops sit on the borders to Iraq, it will intimidate Saddam into allowing the inspectors to work freely. However, as American troops sit on the borders, Saddam is responding by taking defensive measures like this one.

The Chirac/Schroeder method of disarmament - albeit indirectly - is leading to ethnic cleansing. Had we ignored the UN and gone in during last November, this would not be happening. Had the French and Germans not held us up in the Council, this would not be happening. But they have, because of their own stupid arrogance, and this is the result.

Gee, Duchess, when Saddam was killing his own people in the late 80s I didn't see too many western nations sound the alarm and prepare for invasion. What's that you say? Oh yes, you're right, the United States was an ally of Iraq at the time.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Gee, Duchess, when Saddam was killing his own people in the late 80s I didn't see too many western nations sound the alarm and prepare for invasion. What's that you say? Oh yes, you're right, the United States was an ally of Iraq at the time.

Circumstances change. Isn't it nice someone is taking offense at this right now? It could be that nobody would be, which would be worse than a hypocritical action by a few countries. I see nothing wrong with the USA taking a position it didn't previously take - It's simply able to do so now. Hypocrisy is part of human nature, and on the level of the nation State is a high art and science. Isn't it nice that the end result of it in this case will be that some people are helped? Isn't that all we can really hope for? Anything else is unrealistic considering human nature.

[Vympel]

No, not really - The average Iraqi's perception of American technological abilities in combat is inflated over what they actually are.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

"Don't worry, America has very advanced weapons, we are safe where we are, right in the warzone!"

It also flatly contradicts the article that YOU posted: "How could we remain? Saddam's military is everywhere in Kirkuk," he said. "In a war, it could become a very bloody place."

[MKSheppard]

Hypocrisy is part of human nature, and on the level of the nation State is a high art and science.

AH, so it's OK to let Pinochet "dissapear" hundreds of people "in the name
of the state", since they're all marxists, but not OK for Serbia to put down
a violent terrorist group called the KLA, or Saddam to tell his secret police
to keep tabs on the SAME PEOPLE WHO REBELLED AGAINST HIM 12 YEARS AGO?

Jesus Christ, only a Federation-trained officer would NOT keep tabs on
the Kurds. You'd have to be brain dead NOT to.

Can you honestly imagine this conversation taking place, Duchess?

Saddam's Secret Police leader:
"Sir, we're about to be attacked by the United States in a war...what should
we do concerning those Kurds? After all, after the last war led by the US,
they rebelled against us."

Saddam:
"Naa, don't do anything, that would be ethnic cleansing."

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

"Don't worry, America has very advanced weapons, we are safe where we are, right in the warzone!"

It also flatly contradicts the article that YOU posted: "How could we remain? Saddam's military is everywhere in Kirkuk," he said. "In a war, it could become a very bloody place."

Let's focus on that for a moment:

Saddam's military is everywhere in Kirkuk,"

We already know Saddam likes to place military forces in civilian areas to cause casualties. Smart bombs can avoid civilian areas, and our command and control tactically is good enough to keep from getting bogged down, perhaps - But what happens if Saddam has is troops stationed in among the civilian homes, right inside of them, from the start?

Then it is more problematic, and the quote implies he's doing that. Forced seizure of residences without recompense, which is a very serious offense against the rights of an individual (as I've already stated).

[Vympel]

Circumstances change. Isn't it nice someone is taking offense at this right now? It could be that nobody would be, which would be worse than a hypocritical action by a few countries. I see nothing wrong with the USA taking a position it didn't previously take - It's simply able to do so now. Hypocrisy is part of human nature, and on the level of the nation State is a high art and science. Isn't it nice that the end result of it in this case will be that some people are helped? Isn't that all we can really hope for? Anything else is unrealistic considering human nature.

At what bloody price? This pisses me off no end- someone living in the cushy West gushing about how wonderful it is that some people might be helped (emphasis on might- I don't see a military puppet state in Iraq for the next few years doing wonders for anyone, truth be told), ignoring the thousands of people who will lose their lives, and the many thousands more who will be embittered and will hate the West even more for what was done to their homes and their families.

Hypocricy may be part of human nature, but that doesn't mean it should be excused- and you are still the biggest hypocrite on this board. You care nothing for other Kurds or other people who have been ground under a boot, but cynically hold up the plight of the Kurds in Iraq prior to a war that everyone knows must occur and make yourself out to be some moral crusader. Ugh, the stench.

[Vympel]

We already know Saddam likes to place military forces in civilian areas to cause casualties. Smart bombs can avoid civilian areas, and our command and control tactically is good enough to keep from getting bogged down, perhaps - But what happens if Saddam has is troops stationed in among the civilian homes, right inside of them, from the start?

Considering that the Kurds are being ALLOWED TO LEAVE, you have no argument.

Then it is more problematic, and the quote implies he's doing that. Forced seizure of residences without recompense, which is a very serious offense against the rights of an individual (as I've already stated).

Let me get this straight- their very LIVES are in danger, and you pull out fucking property rights? Are you insane?!

[MKSheppard]

Smart bombs can avoid civilian areas

AHHAHAHAHAHHHAHA


2,000 LBS of HE isn't very "selective"

Edit:

The effective blast radius of a 2,000 lb bomb, which is what most
Guided bombs are built off of, is one to two MILES.

[Darth Wong]

Forced seizure of residences without recompense, which is a very serious offense against the rights of an individual (as I've already stated).

I really need to record some of this stuff you're posting in case we ever lift that moratorium on Israel/Palestine threads.

[Vympel]

I really need to record some of this stuff you're posting in case we ever lift that moratorium on Israel/Palestine threads.

We should lift the moratorium immediately, this is priceless gold mine of hypocricy.

[Crown]

We already know Saddam likes to place military forces in civilian areas to cause casualties. Smart bombs can avoid civilian areas, and our command and control tactically is good enough to keep from getting bogged down, perhaps - But what happens if Saddam has is troops stationed in among the civilian homes, right inside of them, from the start?

Then it is more problematic, and the quote implies he's doing that. Forced seizure of residences without recompense, which is a very serious offense against the rights of an individual (as I've already stated).

Then this is an example of Saddam reacting to the threat of WAR not to the threat of weapons inspectors. Duchess how in the world do you place blame on this on Chirac/Shroeder? The US still needed the time to build up it's weapons and even if the UN was 100% backing the US, it would still need to take time to deploy its forces. Thus Saddam would have done this anyway. This is the result of Bush not France or Germany. Do you get that? Saddam is preparing for war you short sighted hypocrite. For fucks sake.

[MKSheppard]

I really need to record some of this stuff you're posting in case we ever lift that moratorium on Israel/Palestine threads.

*right clicks and saves entire thread ASAP*

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I really need to record some of this stuff you're posting in case we ever lift that moratorium on Israel/Palestine threads.

Oh, there's no question that Israel is violating certain rights of the Palestinians. But there's a difference, Mike, and it comes with my philosophy:

I think that different standards apply inside of countries than in relations between countries. That is to say, I am holding the Iraqi government to a much higher standard than the Israeli government because the Iraqi government is doing this to their own people. The Israelis are fighting in a territory which they never annexed - So they are not dealing with their own people, and different standards apply. Had they annexed Gaza and the West Bank after the Six Days War I would be exceptionally vigorous in my condemnation of their treatment of the Palestinians today. I also think that treatment would be unnecessary, but that's an opinion based on evidence of the condition of the Israeli Arabs, and not really relevant to my stance.

To put it simply, it may be a semantics quibble for you, but for me there is a huge and defineable difference between the duty of the State to its own people, and people in other States. I furthermore recognize the duty of the State to be moral to its own people, because the State - the modern nation-state - is an entity as a projection, a gestalt of the people, and because the body of the nation's citizenry is always the strongest resource - Even when they are subjects in an Oriental Despotism, as opposed to the free citizens of a modern representative democracy, or a direct democracy of a classical greek city-state.

In the international realm, however, that very same duty of the State to its people - to protect them and insure their success, because they are the life of the State - also demands that the people of other States are irrelevant in comparison to them. The lives of everyone else on Earth should not be worth the life of a single American Citizen to the American Government, but the government should recognize its moral duty to save that citizen.

[MKSheppard]

Oh, there's no question that Israel is violating certain rights of the Palestinians. But there's a difference, Mike, and it comes with my philosophy:

[long winded shit snipped]

And people wonder why I slammed Duchess for "verbal dirrahrea"?

EDIT: She is the conservative political thinker equivalent of DickStar on
this board: She bangs out endless reams of bullcrap, which has the effect
of causing people to fall asleep and ignore the fallacies and bullshit
she types out.

[Vympel]

Oh, there's no question that Israel is violating certain rights of the Palestinians. But there's a difference, Mike, and it comes with my philosophy:

I think that ....

So because Israel has never said: "we annex this territory", even though they behave as if they have by supporting and defending Jewish settlers, while denying the Palestinians their rights, it's whether they actually legally have admitted they've annexed the territory that matters. What a load of legalistic nit-picking bullshit.