StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Or will we just bypass and surround the places where Soddom Insane
wants to make a stand?

IMHO, Patton's strategy of isolating and bypassing enemy
cities to starve them should be employed here.

If we HAVE to do urban combat, we shouldn't send our
troops in to clear suspected buildings full of enemy soldiers.
Just drive a M109A6 Paladin 155mm howitzer up to the
doorway and do some direct fire into the building, like
we did in the last Big One (WWII) in Germany.

BIG Difference here is that we're far more concerned about civilian casualties in this war than we were in WWII. We can't go firing heavy arty in the streets despite how effective it was in WWII. (There was a movement amongst German officers to try and get the use of heavy arty used in urban comabt banned under the Geneva convention because they said it was like using chemeicla weapons. The toll was horrible.)

Bypassing the city and laying siege to it would be the best alternative save that if Sadaam holds out for any long period of time peaceniks and the like will start screaming that we're starving the Iraqi people....

Bush has got to PRAY that Sadaam's military will collapse as it did during the Gulf War.

Cut of their water, They are in the middle of the Desert and 90*F, they will die of thirst within a week

Hate to point this out but doing that would get us in HUGE FUCKING TROUBLE with every nation on the planet. You must be forgetting about the thousands of civilians in baghdad.

SyntaxVorlon wrote:Hate to point this out but doing that would get us in HUGE FUCKING TROUBLE with every nation on the planet. You must be forgetting about the thousands of civilians in baghdad.

We have EMP weapons. Nothing is getting out of baghdad unless it has
the Dept of Defense stamp on it's broadcast, so no CNN "reporters"
reporting live from Baghdad about the horrible suffering the civvie
population is suffering....

MKSheppard wrote:Or will we just bypass and surround the places where Soddom Insane wants to make a stand? IMHO, Patton's strategy of isolating and bypassing enemy cities to starve them should be employed here. If we HAVE to do urban combat, we shouldn't send our troops in to clear suspected buildings full of enemy soldiers.
Just drive a M109A6 Paladin 155mm howitzer up to the
doorway and do some direct fire into the building, like
we did in the last Big One (WWII) in Germany.

Ol' blood and guts was right in '44 and his strategy is right now. Saddam WANTS us to march into Baghdad..straight into his evil funhouse of snipers and naplam. Isolate the city, pummel it with 155's and JDAM's and then, after all of that send some Spec Ops guys in at night for quick raids to test the waters. My big worry is the political situation. Thelefty dipshits will scream bloody murder if we pummel their capital for weeks

Patton was right. Wasting Hasilip's VIII Corps on Brest was costly, time consuming, and worthless because the port was destroyed by the Germans. So he isolated the other coastal cities. I suggest we wait while shelling the Hell out of it while the Iraqis strave.

Seige it. It is not like the Americans/Brits lack the ability to wait the place out. Frankly I doubt Saddam will hole in Bagdad proper , he's more likely to go to ground in a presidential palace with a good bunker.

The proper way to handle Bagdad is to cut the city off and set up the world's largest displaced persons camp a few miles away. Tell the populace to get out and provide them with food and water when they get to the DP camp. With the civillian population gone the city can then be shelled as needed. There is no humanitarian convention about ordering civvies to get the hell away from a military target (especially if you plan on cutting food, water, and electricity).

City fighting should be done only in the most extreme of circumstances.

Except Saddam would never let them out. I'm sure if we surrounded the city and told the people we'd let them out, Hussein would order the Republican Guard to shoot any civilians trying to escape the city.

While we're on the subject of Iraq, how about a big "fuck-you" to France and Germany this week. While Rumsfeld is talking about lettng Hussein go into exile, tacitly letting the dicator know he can cut his losses and run instead of dying pointlessly in a war he can't win, Chirac and Schroder vow to present a united front against war, taking pressure OFF Hussein because France is worried about its oil contracts and Germany, so far as I can tell, is run by a bunch of complete assholes. Fucking ingrates. When Russia rises again, I recommend letting them have Western Europe this time.

The US won't feed enough troops into it to make it such a huge blood bath.

Would`nt it be simpler to have a sniper who could shoot Maddas oops i mean Saddam and put an end to it.

Montcalm wrote:Would`nt it be simpler to have a sniper who could shoot Maddas oops i mean Saddam and put an end to it.

He hasn't made a public appearance in years, has about 200 doubles, shows up at random times to enclosed appearances, requires everyone to be strip searched with there cloths washed before being taken to said appearances. In short, if you can fucking get a shot you could make a billion in Vegas, in a half hour.

RedImperator wrote:Except Saddam would never let them out. I'm sure if we surrounded the city and told the people we'd let them out, Hussein would order the Republican Guard to shoot any civilians trying to escape the city.

While we're on the subject of Iraq, how about a big "fuck-you" to France and Germany this week. While Rumsfeld is talking about lettng Hussein go into exile, tacitly letting the dicator know he can cut his losses and run instead of dying pointlessly in a war he can't win, Chirac and Schroder vow to present a united front against war, taking pressure OFF Hussein because France is worried about its oil contracts and Germany, so far as I can tell, is run by a bunch of complete assholes. Fucking ingrates. When Russia rises again, I recommend letting them have Western Europe this time.

How about a round of applause for Germany for being the voice of moderation?

Personally I don't think that you should go in until the UN finds conclusive proof of weapons WHICH SADDAM THEN REFUSES TO DISPOSE OF.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but DAMN people, you're talking about the invasion of a sovereign nation, and somehow you are the good guys?

weemadando wrote: I don't want to hijack the thread, but DAMN people, you're talking about the invasion of a sovereign nation, and somehow you are the good guys?

Clinton was about to invade Haiti and was also about to invade
North Korea during his term, but called off the forces when
diplomatic deals were reached....

weemadando wrote: How about a round of applause for Germany for being the voice of moderation?

Even france is sending the Charles De Gaulle carrier battlegroup
and sending about 15,000 troops. Germany OTOH, is sending
jack shit. Funny isn't it, when FRANCE is more warlike than Deutschland?

weemadando wrote:

RedImperator wrote:Except Saddam would never let them out. I'm sure if we surrounded the city and told the people we'd let them out, Hussein would order the Republican Guard to shoot any civilians trying to escape the city.

While we're on the subject of Iraq, how about a big "fuck-you" to France and Germany this week. While Rumsfeld is talking about lettng Hussein go into exile, tacitly letting the dicator know he can cut his losses and run instead of dying pointlessly in a war he can't win, Chirac and Schroder vow to present a united front against war, taking pressure OFF Hussein because France is worried about its oil contracts and Germany, so far as I can tell, is run by a bunch of complete assholes. Fucking ingrates. When Russia rises again, I recommend letting them have Western Europe this time.

How about a round of applause for Germany for being the voice of moderation?

Personally I don't think that you should go in until the UN finds conclusive proof of weapons WHICH SADDAM THEN REFUSES TO DISPOSE OF.

I don't want to hijack the thread, but DAMN people, you're talking about the invasion of a sovereign nation, and somehow you are the good guys?

A sovereign nation in violation of the 1991 cease-fire and Security Council resolution 1441, approved unanimously by the security council. There were clear gaps in the Iraqi report to the UN about its disarmament efforts, gaps which FRANCE ITSELF said were there, and these clearly violate resolution 1441.

And my point wasn't that Germany and France were being assholes for, in your words, "being the voice of moderation". My point is, exactly at the same time that the US was offering Saddam an escape hatch that could end this whole mess without a shot being fired, France and Germany made a move that essentially takes the pressure off of Saddam to use tht escape hatch, and, in the process, humiliating the doves in the Bush administration that convinced the president to go to the UN in the first place. This little show of defiance has made war MORE LIKELY, because Powell has lost face, Hussein is less likely to quit peacefully, and France/Germany's move is likely to have little to no impact on Bush's warplans.

BDZ. BDZ.

I for one am sick of the fucking peaceniks. Its a War we can't afford to coddle our enemies, newsflash, no matter how much these fucking wannabe hippies and anti war goons think they like Iraqis........

IRAQIS WOULD NOT PISS ON US IF WE WERE ON FIRE, Just like the American Flags they burn in the streets whenever Saddam needs a PR boost. They fucking hate us, its not because they're Arab its not because theyre Islamic, its because their opinion of us is a god damned Imperialist country. Of course if Iraq put in a new leader and regime they could sell all of that oil to us, drive gas prices down to about 42 cents and be rich like we've done to Saudi Arabia.

I for one would not shed a tear if we laid seige to their cities and starteed blasting the buildings, any Iraqi who didn't want to be part of it could turn themselves in to the US Forces, who would hand them over to the UN or REd Cross.

THen we move in and sell Rusty Icepicks to wealthy American investors who woulduse them to stab Saddam Hussein ($10 million apiece, and one on Ebay) in the Eyes/Throat/Genitals/etc. The murderous fucker and his murderous kids would be paraded down the streets of D.C. where Bush would personally oversee their execution like he did so many times in Texas.

Any country who wants to interfere can get the same treatment.

I say we lay siege. If the peaceniks start screaming remind them that a direct assault will be far more costly in terms of lives and if the Marines are knocking on the door of Saddam' bunker there is nothing he would not be willing to do.

I'm not sure if the Republican Guard could be incited to revolt, but if we laid siege and promised amnesty, something might be possible.

How many people would die by the end of a siege?
Remembering pictures I've seen of cities after WWII, maybe tac nuke for immediate end to fighting would be better if it's absolutely necessary to invade. Compared to fighting for weeks and the same number of people dead at the end.

Saddam`s son said if the US attack september eleven will look like a picnic.

just breed into their population and slowly take over

no muss no fuss

BDZ? Bomb them to stone age?
WTF???

WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ALL ARE???
GOD?
Bushler dosent care about the Iraqi people, NOT A FUCKING BIT.

THen we move in and sell Rusty Icepicks to wealthy American investors who woulduse them to stab Saddam Hussein ($10 million apiece, and one on Ebay) in the Eyes/Throat/Genitals/etc. The murderous fucker and his murderous kids would be paraded down the streets of D.C. where Bush would personally oversee their execution like he did so many times in Texas.

Any country who wants to interfere can get the same treatment.

God damnit fucking hell, this is THE reason why almost every country in the world HATES the USA, you fucking allmighty allpowerfull full of shit bastards. Well i got some news for you, Russia+China+France+Germany > USA. Yes, they do. Don't even fucking argue. They have much more soldiers than you, if it is not the Su-27, it's the chinese human waves. You cry about 2 dead soldiers? Wait till the toll reaches 500,000...

Necro99 wrote:BDZ? Bomb them to stone age?
WTF???

WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ALL ARE???
GOD?
Bushler dosent care about the Iraqi people, NOT A FUCKING BIT.

THen we move in and sell Rusty Icepicks to wealthy American investors who woulduse them to stab Saddam Hussein ($10 million apiece, and one on Ebay) in the Eyes/Throat/Genitals/etc. The murderous fucker and his murderous kids would be paraded down the streets of D.C. where Bush would personally oversee their execution like he did so many times in Texas.

Any country who wants to interfere can get the same treatment.

God damnit fucking hell, this is THE reason why almost every country in the world HATES the USA, you fucking allmighty allpowerfull full of shit bastards. Well i got some news for you, Russia+China+France+Germany > USA. Yes, they do. Don't even fucking argue. They have much more soldiers than you, if it is not the Su-27, it's the chinese human waves. You cry about 2 dead soldiers? Wait till the toll reaches 500,000...

My your full of shit.

Lets see
[1] Naval Supremacy, check
[2] Aerial Supremacy, check
[3] Ground Supremacy, not really but then only the US has the ability to actually move its troops anywhere.

Seggybop wrote:How many people would die by the end of a siege?
Remembering pictures I've seen of cities after WWII, maybe tac nuke for immediate end to fighting would be better if it's absolutely necessary to invade. Compared to fighting for weeks and the same number of people dead at the end.

No tacnukes. The center of Baghdad contains archaeological sites.

Necro, Sea, you're both being idiots. Going and blowing the Iraqis back to the stone age won't cure anything. It will just make the US look more like Imperialistic warmongers. Necro, as much respect as I have for the rest of the world, they could only win a war by using nukes, which is still MAD. When and if we go to war, there needs to be a simple, clearly defined objective. This objective will most likely be to remove Saddam Hussein from power. To do this, there are three necessary requirements. First, his military power must be whittled away/eliminated. A standard war should do this, pushing into Hussein's territory towards strategic goals such as oil fields, airfields, and military bases. Second, the citizens of Iraq must be treated humanely. No starvation, no soldiers misbehaving in the towns, NONE. Third, an interim government must be established to figure a way of governing that the Iraqi people will support. Not all people want a democracy; forcing it upon them will fail miserably. Once a permanent government is in place, the USA should remove all forces from Iraq and stay out of that nation unless they violate international law again.