Why the Gulf War wasn't a real war

[Oberleutnant]

People also forgetting, the civilians may not fight for Saddam but they will fight for themselves, their family and for their country.

Actually, this is what happened to some in Mogadishu in 1993, when Rangers and Delta launched their operation to capture Aidid's lieutenants. When the civilians realized that their homes had become a warzone between non-Somalli and Somali, they joined to help their countrymen en masse, especially after their relatives and friends were being killed in the crossfire.

[HemlockGrey]

But it didn't happen in Afganistan. I doubt that Iraqi civilians will take up arms and fight against Americans in Operation Kick Iraq's Asss.

And if they do, Shrub will have no compunction against slaughtering them en masse, and he if he does, I will have no compassion for the Iraqis- if they fight and die, well, their own damn fault.

[HemlockGrey]

But it didn't happen in Afganistan. I doubt that Iraqi civilians will take up arms and fight against Americans in Operation Kick Iraq's Asss.

And if they do, Shrub will have no compunction against slaughtering them en masse, and he if he does, I will have no compassion for the Iraqis- if they fight and die, well, their own damn fault.

[Admiral Piett]

People also forgetting, the civilians may not fight for Saddam but they will fight for themselves, their family and for their country. And that is why I believe the civilian losses will be very high in this coming war.

I would not worry about that.More likely they are so fed up by Saddam that they will welcome anyone who has killed him with open arms.

[Oberleutnant]

People also forgetting, the civilians may not fight for Saddam but they will fight for themselves, their family and for their country. And that is why I believe the civilian losses will be very high in this coming war.

I would not worry about that.More likely they are so fed up by Saddam that they will welcome anyone who has killed him with open arms.

It depends on the region in Iraq. The Shia muslims in the south have suffered most under Saddam's rule (Kurds not included) and they would probably gladly see a change of power... But look at the Iraqi opposition - it's shite, plus many still remember the last time when Uncle Sam promised their support in overthrowing their beloved leader, and its consequences as Republican T-72s rolled to the streets crushing 'em totally. The problem is that they don't trust USA at all.

Iraq and Afganistan on the other hand are totally different scenarios. Methinks they cannot be compared.

If Iraqi civilians grab their AK-clones and WWII-era rifles they'll be fucked, but imagine what sort of PR loss it would be to the USA. I don't mean to offend any Americans, but in the past your people hasn't always been able to cope with own losses. Hemlock, you might not care if thousands of Iraqi die, but how about your other countrymen or rest of the world, especially the Arab countries? USA can't afford to lose their foreign support.

[Lord Pounder]

Once again reports of the Elite Republican Guard are comming up. The Republican guard didn't do much in pt. 1. They went from "the Elite Republican Guard" to "The Rebublicans are making this shit up about their being guards". Thanks Bill Hicks.

[MKSheppard]

en amsse and Saddam does not step down then we would be left with the task of attacking Baghdad, a massive MOUT that would be in scale similair to the taking of Seoul in 1950 which cost thousands of lives.

Christ, Burnett, no offense intended, but for once, stop wanking off to
the USMC's song and tune. I know the Corps has been trying to grab
the MOUT role all for itself, but stop and think for a moment. Do we
REALLY need Baghdad in the greater scheme of things?

If we don't take baghdad in a day or two of fighting, I'd pull back and encircle
the city and bomb and shell the hell out of it. I'm not pissing away the
lives of my men for a few fucking square miles of real estate that has
no real value other than being a death trap for my men.

The Iraqis will find it real fucking hard to keep fighting when they're
dropping to the ground dead from starvation and disease while my
forces are well fed and happy in their fortifications ringing Baghdad
a few months later

[MKSheppard]

With all those civilians simply carpetbombing the place is not an option.
And if there is someone willing to use his own population as hostage,that is certainly Saddam,so do not count on him letting everyone leave the city if preventing that is in his power.

Too fucking bad. I'd send in the B-52s on ARC LIGHT missions and toast
the entire city to the ground rather than see Americans dying because
the other side is using their own civilians as human shields.

[MKSheppard]

[RANT ON]

If burnett had his way, we'd have fought the PGW of 91 the SAME EXACT
WAY THE IRAQIS WANTED US TO FIGHT IT.

Wow, our casualties would have been HORRENDOUS if we had had our
soldiers march towards the Iraqi trenches in lockstep, singing the Battle
HYmn of the Republic as they get mown down by HMGs and blinded
by mustard gas...

Which is what the Iranian tactics were all about in the 8 year war between
them and Iraq in the 80s.//

Gee, we really should have accomodated those poor Iraqis by fighting them
in the exact way they wanted us to fight - WWI style.

[/RANT OFF]

If Hitler hadn't been so obsessed with Stalingrad, the Summer Campaign
of '42 would have been a smashing success as they washed across
the Volga and into the Caucasus mountains, slicing Uncle Joe's oil supply
off in a masterstroke....but instead, Hitler got hoodwinked by the illusory
propaganda prize of stalingrad the way the USMC is with MOUT.

[CmdrWilkens]

en amsse and Saddam does not step down then we would be left with the task of attacking Baghdad, a massive MOUT that would be in scale similair to the taking of Seoul in 1950 which cost thousands of lives.

Christ, Burnett, no offense intended, but for once, stop wanking off to
the USMC's song and tune. I know the Corps has been trying to grab
the MOUT role all for itself, but stop and think for a moment. Do we
REALLY need Baghdad in the greater scheme of things?

Do you think I'm marching to some prescribed song and dance. Fuck you Mark. I'm dealign with the very real fact that THIS time around we have to go after Saddam and his regieme which means occupation, you cannot occupy the country unless you control the capital city. if you somehow think that this war can be won by moving in troops and then carpet bombing 5 million people into more of a homeless destitute mass than they already are I remind you of the wonderful way the USSR showed us in Afghanistan.

I mean sure if we need to take out some militants the ebst way to do it is to decimate the civiian populace that would otherwise have welcomed us. Sure lets take a hugenation, decapitate its central beauacracy then pretend that it will right itself and come peacefully into the modern world without massive terrorist strikes against occupying troops.

If we don't take baghdad in a day or two of fighting, I'd pull back and encircle
the city and bomb and shell the hell out of it. I'm not pissing away the
lives of my men for a few fucking square miles of real estate that has
no real value other than being a death trap for my men.

The Iraqis will find it real fucking hard to keep fighting when they're
dropping to the ground dead from starvation and disease while my
forces are well fed and happy in their fortifications ringing Baghdad
a few months later

When you see the international pariah we become after letting 5 million civilians die andthe resulting loss of any support in the arab world then you might understand. Oh yes and those Arab nations will then cut our overland supply routes leaving our forces as badly underfed and udnersupplied as ourenemies only we would be several hundredmiles behind enemy lines inside a coutnry thathates us for starving them to death. Get off your horse Curtis LeMay and face rality.

[CmdrWilkens]

[RANT ON]

If burnett had his way, we'd have fought the PGW of 91 the SAME EXACT
WAY THE IRAQIS WANTED US TO FIGHT IT.

I find it amazing that you take my comments on how this next war MIGHT be fought to mean something about Desert Storm. Fuck off Ryan and start learning that each war is unique in its goals and the requirements neccessarry to fufill those goals.

[Admiral Piett]

I doubt that the arab nations would be in the position of cutting the supplies
to the american army.Kuwait could simply be occupied and from there and the south of Iraq supplies could be sent to the troops (well I suppose at least).I do not think also that the terrorist strikes would be "massive" (at the beginning at least).
But it would still be a total defeat.
Some of the short terms goals (removing Saddam,securing the oil) would be satisfied but all the others would go out of the window.Making Iraq an happy client state would become next to impossible everywhere.Pro terrorists propaganda would receive an incredible boost.And so on.Basically it would kill all the reasons you waged war in first place.

[Perinquus]

Many people already think GWB is only starting a war to get the oil and a sudden action like the one suggested in the article would only gain Saddam more support, especially among facist left wing Europe.

You do realize that the last part is totally hypocritical?

FASCIST are RIGHT WING, COMMIES are LEFT WING.

Idiot.

I'm not sure how that characterization ever came about, since Fascism is an offshoot of socialism (a left wing political ideology). Benito Mussolini started out as a Marxian socialist. He veered off into fascism after WWI proved to everybody how strong national loyalties were (the most extreme Marxists believed [wrongly] that class, not nationality would be the biggest factor). All fascism is is national socialism, but it's still socialism, and is therefore actually left wing.

[Admiral Piett]

All fascism is is national socialism, but it's still socialism, and is therefore actually left wing.

Unless you classify any statal intervention in the economy as socialism,and then even the US is a socialist country,that is untrue.Words are words.
The actual policies of the fascist regime were conservative (pro church,pro businness etc).The movement itself started with bunches of small burgeois WW1 veterans,often on the payroll of the landowners, going around beating peasants on strike.

[Perinquus]

All fascism is is national socialism, but it's still socialism, and is therefore actually left wing.

Unless you classify any statal intervention in the economy as socialism,and then even the US is a socialist country,that is untrue.Words are words.
The actual policies of the fascist regime were conservative (pro church,pro businness etc).The movement itself started with bunches of small burgeois WW1 veterans,often on the payroll of the landowners, going around beating peasants on strike.

Actually, the father of Fascism, Benito Mussolini was the son of a blacksmith, who had been a member of the First International, along with Marx and Engels. He leaned toward anarchism and was an admirer of the Russian radical Bakunin. In his youth he was secretary of a socialist group in Gualtieri. In 1909 he took a job as editor of a socialist newspaper in Trentino, and later, of another paper published in Forli, titled La Lotta di Classe ("The Class Struggle"). He established himself as a leading voice in the party's radical left wing.

Mussolini eventually broke from the pure faith for a number of reasons. Chief among them was that he begrudged the socialists their pacifism during WWI, nonetheless, his socio/political/economic ideas were very much cut from the socialist cloth, and called for "land to the peasants" and workers' representation in management, progressive tax on capital, expropriation of land and factories, greater inheritance taxes and confiscation of "excessive profits". He also called for nationalization of the armaments industry. This sort of stuff is right out of the socialist playbook, and is by no means "conservative".

Another reason Mussolini broke away was that the socialist party had kicked him out for espousing nationalism among other things, and many of his ideological differences can be traced to his pique over having been given the sack. Nevertheless, he was always quick to remind people that he was prepared to assimilate everything vital to the socialist tradition.

As for Hitler and the Nazis, economically, they followed very much in Mussolini's footsteps, and they weren't really as pro-church as you might think. While Hitler professed Catholicism for most of his life, he and the Nazis made real efforts to undermine the authority of the church in German society. Hitler came to consider Christianity a religion of weaklings, and felt that it would sap the spirit of the pure Aryan man, and would hinder his goal of creating a master race of Nordic warrior-supermen. There was a lot of pagan nihilism about Nazi ideology; it was distinguished by nationalism, and a bunch of harebrained pseudoscientific nonsense about a master race - but economically, it was left wing style socialism.

[Colonel Olrik]

Perinquus: Salazar and Franco. Two fascists who followed the "God, family and fatherland" motto. Protected the Church and an elite of capitalists, and prevented any kind of workers rights. Had an youth's militia to indoctrinate the young in the nation values. Had a murderous policy of communist prosecution.

One word describes them: Fascists.

[Perinquus]

Perinquus: Salazar and Franco. Two fascists who followed the "God, family and fatherland" motto. Protected the Church and an elite of capitalists, and prevented any kind of workers rights. Had an youth's militia to indoctrinate the young in the nation values. Had a murderous policy of communist prosecution.

One word describes them: Fascists.

I'm quite aware of Franco and Salazar. I'm also aware that they weren't really like Hitler and Mussolini. They were far more Spanish and Portuguese nationalists than they were socialists, and were simply not very ideologically motivated. Insofar as they were ideologically motivated it was a negative motivation, i.e. they were more against Soviet-style communism than they were for anything in particular. As a result, their regimes ended up being more or less commonplace military dictatorships, rather than the ideologized regimes of Italy and Germany. There is a better word to describe them: Dictators.

[Colonel Olrik]

I'm quite aware of Franco and Salazar. I'm also aware that they weren't really like Hitler and Mussolini.

They simpathised with them, and had many points in common, nonetheless. Salazar was not an insane maniac, but still had delusions of grandeur. He wanted an empire. In fact, he conducted a huge war effort to keep one (a 10 million people country holding an area of the size of Continental Europe).

They were far more Spanish and Portuguese nationalists than they were socialists, and were simply not very ideologically motivated.

Their ideas of God, family and fatherland, of protecting the industry over the workers rights, are described as fascist. It's a definition. Maybe your idea of fascist is different, but in Europe that's what it means. Open a history book about Portugal. It has a chapter about the fascist regime.

Insofar as they were ideologically motivated it was a negative motivation, i.e. they were more against Soviet-style communism than they were for anything in particular.

True, and against democracy in general.

As a result, their regimes ended up being more or less commonplace military dictatorships, rather than the ideologized regimes of Italy and Germany. There is a better word to describe them: Dictators.

True enough. they were dictators. But they had an ideology behind them. A specific view of their perfect country. An Empire of indoctrinated citizens, faithful to the Church and obedient to the all powerful government. Salazar regime had enough features to be described as fascist. The fact that some of them could be lacking doesn't make that less true.

[Perinquus]

Always remember that Salazar and Franco were imitators. Fasicsm was created in Italy, and it was followed most closely in its example by Germany. As Joshua Muravchik wrote in his recent book about socialism:

However fierce they grew in their antipathy to communism, the Fascists never ceased mimicking it, implicitly underscoring their claim to be the true or superior heirs to the same legacy.

Hell, a group of Fascist blackshirts called themselves "The Cheka", after the original Societ secret ploice, and forerunner to the KGB.

The idea of fascists being on the right probably comes from Mussolini deliberate attempts to distance himself from that party after they gave him the boot. He claimed to embrace the far right, but his policies and actions show his true colors. He was a leftie. True fascism, as defined by its own creators was a distinctly socialist, left wing ideology, which makes it ironic that it's considered the party of the extreme right today.

[Admiral Piett]

True fascism, as defined by its own creators was a distinctly socialist, left wing ideology, which makes it ironic that it's considered the party of the extreme right today.

What the propaganda says and personal histories are is releveant up to a certain point.Protection of the church and the capital,expansionist foreign
policy (Africa) and so on are facts.Some of his policies may have been leftist,sort of,but the general trend is that.
Putin is an ex KGB operative.Eltsin is an ex CPSU member.But I would esitate to describe them as communists.

[Lord Pounder]

My personal defination of facism is "Imposing your will over a majority of people and ignoring what if good for them in favour of maintaining a status quo" That is Left Wing Europe to a T

[Vympel]

My personal defination of facism is "Imposing your will over a majority of people and ignoring what if good for them in favour of maintaining a status quo" That is Left Wing Europe to a T

That's a pretty ridiculous definition of facism don't you think

Define Left Wing Europe?

[Lord Pounder]

It still stands, if you don't like it suck me sideways bitch.

[Vympel]

The only way you're going to get Saddam is if you occupy Baghdad, which is where he's going to stay if he knows how to survive (he definitely knows how to do that).

Surrounding the place and laying siege won't work- the objective is regime change- you won't be changing anything by just sitting there.

Shep's suggestion of flattening the place with ARC LIGHT missions is certainly not on- it's politically impossible. War does not occur in a vaccum.

Unlike Stalingrad, Baghdad has much more value- we're not talking about Hitler's mistake in focusing on Stalin's City when his objective was the destruction of the Soviet Union in general and occupying the Caucasus specifically- we're talking about regime change.

There will be casualties of that there can be no doubt.

[Vympel]

It still stands, if you don't like it suck me sideways bitch.

Concession Accepted.