Roundtable Topic: Will Baghdad become Stalingrad II?

Necro99 · Post by **Necro99** » 2003-01-25 01:52am

I second that.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-25 02:09am

Necro99 wrote:I second that.

Of course you do, any chance to escape having to back up your crazed bit of nationalism brought on by a third parties post is very good news for you.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-25 02:11am

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

Saddam himself said that the original Desert Storm would be "the mother of all battles". It turned out to be the mother of all ass-kickings.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-01-25 02:15am

Darth Wong wrote:
Montcalm wrote:Saddam`s son said if the US attack september eleven will look like a picnic.
Saddam himself said that the original Desert Storm would be "the mother of all battles". It turned out to be the mother of all ass-kickings.

He was correct in a way; Desert Saber saw the biggest tank battle since 1943 at Kursk. 800 M1A1's and Challengers reducing 300 T-72's to scrap didn't take very long though.

Necro99 · Post by **Necro99** » 2003-01-25 02:32am

Lets say they didint have much chance. The M1A1 is probably the best tank in the world (after the chiorny oriol http://www.armscontrol.ru/atmtc/Arms_sy ... el_MBT.htm ) and the T-72 is... Well... the most Common Tank in the world after the T-54/55.

HOWEVER, i would like to see how well a M1A1 would fare against an OPFOR modern tank like a T-80 or T-90. It would be pretty even, but the T-90 can fire ATGM's

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-01-25 03:37am

The politically correct world we live in, where the nations that threaten us aren't supposed to be treated badly.

You know why everyone hates the USA? Its because the state dept. doesn't have a form for nations to fill out titled "Application for Statehood"

Bash the USA as imperialistic and warmongering all you want but the fact of the matter is that these nations don't threaten the militaries and governments themselves they threaten fucking CIVILIANS. The job of a nation's military is to protect that nation's citizens. The way Uday shot off his mouth (A former drug addict who controlled a hefty chunk of the middle eastern black market and formerly an embarrassment to Saddam) we should be entitled to go in and startblasing anything waving a flag with only 3 stars on it.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-25 03:56am

Necro99 wrote:Lets say they didint have much chance. The M1A1 is probably the best tank in the world (after the chiorny oriol http://www.armscontrol.ru/atmtc/Arms_sy ... el_MBT.htm ) and the T-72 is... Well... the most Common Tank in the world after the T-54/55.

The Black Eagle is prototype that the Russian Army doesn't want. As such, it is completely impossible to guage its capabilities, and it's absurd to say it's better than the combat proven M1.

IMO, the best tank in the world is the Leopard 2A6, followed EXTREMELY closesly by the M1.

HOWEVER, i would like to see how well a M1A1 would fare against an OPFOR modern tank like a T-80 or T-90. It would be pretty even, but the T-90 can fire ATGM's

The T-72BM, T-80U and T-90 series can all shrug off NATO 120mm ammunition along their frontal 60 degree armor arc at normal battlefield ranges thanks to their heavy ERA. This was proved true in 1997 US Army tests. Also, stripped of their ERA (which isn't normally the case), their armor is much thicker and of higher quality composite construction than the export shit the Iraqis were using- compare the T-72B turret to the T-72M turret, you'll see what I mean.

The ammunition they'd use is also of a much superior quality than the Iraqi manufactured shit that the monkey model T-72M/M1s the Iraqi's were using, and their fire control is much better (laser rangefinders, digital ballistic computers, etc).

Pretty admirable for tanks that weigh some 20 tons less, but tank for tank, the M1 is still superior.

Sea Skimmer wrote:
He was correct in a way; Desert Saber saw the biggest tank battle since 1943 at Kursk. 800 M1A1's and Challengers reducing 300 T-72's to scrap didn't take very long though.

Now see if it was 800 T-80U versus 300 M1A1s then it'd be a battle to sing about.

unigolyn · Post by **unigolyn** » 2003-01-25 04:09am

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

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...

No, lefty morons in almost every country hate the USA, including in the USA itself.

Russia+China+France+Germany? Please eliminate the impotent cheese embargoists from that little list of yours, and Germany's military is a joke. Russia and China are human rights hellholes, and China is no match for the US. This leaves Russia, who has no interest in fighting the US, because conventional weapons wise they can't catch up technologically, and a nuclear exchange leads to MAD.

Bushler dosent care about the Iraqi people, NOT A FUCKING BIT.

Yes, he does. But he has no damn reason to. Saddam certainly gives fuck all about civilian casualties. The US won't be bombing anyone to the stone age. They'll be attacked with precision bombs and HPM weapons designed to minimize collateral damage.

And get this through your thick skull - a shithole run by a dictator is NOT a sovereign nation. The Iraqi people did NOT freely elect him, unless you seem to think that a 100% vote result is possible. Judging by that banner in your sig, you probably do. Instead of that hammer and sickle, why not try a swastika and call your group the Third Reich? You'd be pissing on a lot less graves that way.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-01-25 04:12am

unigolyn wrote:
Bushler dosent care about the Iraqi people, NOT A FUCKING BIT.
Yes, he does. But he has no damn reason to. Saddam certainly gives fuck all about civilian casualties. The US won't be bombing anyone to the stone age. They'll be attacked with precision bombs and HPM weapons designed to minimize collateral damage.

Just like you guys did the first time?

And get this through your thick skull - a shithole run by a dictator is NOT a sovereign nation. The Iraqi people did NOT freely elect him, unless you seem to think that a 100% vote result is possible. Judging by that banner in your sig, you probably do. Instead of that hammer and sickle, why not try a swastika and call your group the Third Reich? You'd be pissing on a lot less graves that way.

It is a sovereign nation. Its recognised by the UN. Its independant. And why don't you just shut your fucking pie hole you goddamn dubya-monkey.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-01-25 04:12am

Hmm, Look at what has happened in the past, human character hasn't changed all that much. You will be unfortunatly rarely suprised about current events.

unigolyn · Post by **unigolyn** » 2003-01-25 04:33am

weemadando wrote: Just like you guys did the first time?

Umm, who's this 'you guys'? I'm not from the states.

It is a sovereign nation. Its recognised by the UN. Its independant. And why don't you just shut your fucking pie hole you goddamn dubya-monkey.

So is North Korea. So is China. So is Cuba. The UN? The UN just elected LIBYA as the head of it's Human Rights Council or whatever the hell it's called. The UN recognized the Soviet Union, which was a criminal conglomerate of occupied countries. The UN can go fuck itself.

The point is that it's a nation of one delusional madman. The civilians everyone's so worried about don't have any say in what Saddam does, and if they do pipe up, they're sent off to jail, if they're lucky.

Speaking of Iraqi jails, the Honoured and Exalted Leader also RELEASES ALL PRISONERS as a political PR stunt. Not just political prisoners, but every criminal.

Sovereign nations have democratically elected governments. The rest are sovereign dictatorships.

Post by **weemadando** » 2003-01-25 04:43am

unigolyn wrote:So is North Korea. So is China. So is Cuba. The UN? The UN just elected LIBYA as the head of it's Human Rights Council or whatever the hell it's called. The UN recognized the Soviet Union, which was a criminal conglomerate of occupied countries. The UN can go fuck itself.

So, we'll just let everyone run ruckus again will we? What fun that will be, especially for you in Estonia.

The point is that it's a nation of one delusional madman. The civilians everyone's so worried about don't have any say in what Saddam does, and if they do pipe up, they're sent off to jail, if they're lucky.

Yes. And? Look at America and whats happened to those who speak out against the Bush regime. Look at the treatment of vulnerable minorities there.

Sure its more of a problem in Iraq, but is it enough of a reason to justify an attack on them? Obviously not as every other time that form of action has been proposed its been knocked back.

Speaking of Iraqi jails, the Honoured and Exalted Leader also RELEASES ALL PRISONERS as a political PR stunt. Not just political prisoners, but every criminal.

And? Its a PR stunt, no denying it. Thats not to say that it didn't work to gain the support of certain elements of the populace. It didn't have to fool anyone else.

Sovereign nations have democratically elected governments. The rest are sovereign dictatorships.

Semantics.

A note on the matter -

Saddam will happily sit and passively comply with anything that the UN asks him to do. When the US inevitably has had enough of it and attacks he'll suddenly jump up and start screaming about the oppressors etc... And it'll work. It will likely turn his own population and much of the Middle East.

And what reason does the Iraqi population have to trust the US? They left them for dead once. Who's to tell them that they won't do it again. Just because they are arab doesn't make them stupid, which is unfortunately what too many "stupid white men" think.

unigolyn · Post by **unigolyn** » 2003-01-25 04:57am

weemadando wrote:
So, we'll just let everyone run ruckus again will we? What fun that will be, especially for you in Estonia.

Oh, thank you, great and powerful United Nations for freeing us from the oppression of the evil russians. We're free because the US bankrupted the USSR, and that's the ONLY reason. And contrary to the UN, the US never recognized the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. More power to them.

Yes. And? Look at America and whats happened to those who speak out against the Bush regime. Look at the treatment of vulnerable minorities there.

Sure its more of a problem in Iraq, but is it enough of a reason to justify an attack on them? Obviously not as every other time that form of action has been proposed its been knocked back.

Yes, indeed, I just must have missed the tank treads crushing the poor anti-war protestors. I must have missed Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore being dragged off to a torture chamber under the Pentagon somewhere.

And? Its a PR stunt, no denying it. Thats not to say that it didn't work to gain the support of certain elements of the populace. It didn't have to fool anyone else.

It DID fool other people. On BBC's Talking Point, one dimwitted UK lefty said 'Well, at least Saddam's doing something, when all the US is doing is warmongering'. Tell that to the Afghani people who survive on US state-sponsored food aid, which constitutes almost 90% of the food aid going there, and that has been the situation well before 9/11.

Sovereign nations have democratically elected governments. The rest are sovereign dictatorships.
Semantics.

Semantics? Argue about it being semantics to the protestors killed on Tianenmen Square and the gassed Kurd children, argue about it being semantics to the people slaughtered in Africa by 'sovereign' warlords, argue about it being semantics to 6 million dead Jews, argue about it being semantics to my great-grandparents who were loaded on cattle trains and shipped to Siberia, where they died from malnutrition.

Saddam will happily sit and passively comply with anything that the UN asks him to do.

Do trying to bribe weapons inspectors and after they refuse, attempted poisoning attempts count among passive compliance with the UN?

When the US inevitably has had enough of it and attacks he'll suddenly jump up and start screaming about the oppressors etc... And it'll work. It will likely turn his own population and much of the Middle East.

And what reason does the Iraqi population have to trust the US? They left them for dead once. Who's to tell them that they won't do it again. Just because they are arab doesn't make them stupid, which is unfortunately what too many "stupid white men" think.

Umm, the US occupies Iraq, and the military government uses oil proceeds to actually buy medicine, food, schools, and actually make the country a somewhat passable place to live in. If they prefer poverty and constant fear of speaking out to that, then they ARE stupid. I don't think they are, though.

--edit: closed quote tag

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-01-25 04:59am

Saddam haasn't at back and complied once. If he had then maybe there wouldn't be over 200,000 American ass kickers lining up to take their shots at the Republican Guard.

Once Saddam is gone then the Iraqis can sell their fucking oil again, they can be a prosperous nation, they don't need the US to do it though. Once the US moves in and destroys the tyrants that threaten to kill US Civilians then we leave and let Iraq do hat it bloody well pleases, if they want us around thats another f'ing story but I doubt it.

As much as I hate Iraq, Israel has pissed me off muy much in recent conflicts. Yasser Arafat is a jerk but Israel is just asking for conflict. The only reason the Arab nations don't take over is because Israel whooped them in the course of a week and took all kinds of lands that took a whole lot of whining and complaining to get back.

unigolyn · Post by **unigolyn** » 2003-01-25 05:10am

Darth Fanboy wrote:Once Saddam is gone then the Iraqis can sell their fucking oil again, they can be a prosperous nation, they don't need the US to do it though. Once the US moves in and destroys the tyrants that threaten to kill US Civilians then we leave and let Iraq do hat it bloody well pleases, if they want us around thats another f'ing story but I doubt it.

Sorry, but I don't think that sort of fairness works. There'll be a new dictator in Saddam's place quicker than you can say 'Le roi est mort, vive le roi'. Or, even worse, fundie nutjobs will take over quicker than you can say 'Ayatollah'. In any case there'll be a civil war. What Iraq NEEDS is a military occupation that builds the country's economy up enough for the people to notice the benefits of living in a secular, westernized country. Nation building works, if it's done right. Compare the McArthur and Marshall plans to the CIA's half-assed puppet governments of the 60s and 70s. The worst mistake the US can make is repeating what it did in Afghanistan after helping them kick the Soviets out, which was jack shit.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-25 05:23am

unigolyn wrote:
Oh, thank you, great and powerful United Nations for freeing us from the oppression of the evil russians. We're free because the US bankrupted the USSR, and that's the ONLY reason. And contrary to the UN, the US never recognized the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic. More power to them.

Get off your high horse. You're free because the USSR let you go, the US didn't do jack crap to help you. The Russians like it or not were fucking magnanimous enough to completely give exactly HOW many countries independence? They could've crushed you under a tank tread if they wanted to. Be thankful that they weren't so evil as everyone in the West likes to think.

unigolyn · Post by **unigolyn** » 2003-01-25 05:35am

Vympel wrote:Get off your high horse. You're free because the USSR let you go, the US didn't do jack crap to help you. The Russians like it or not were fucking magnanimous enough to completely give exactly HOW many countries independence? They could've crushed you under a tank tread if they wanted to. Be thankful that they weren't so evil as everyone in the West likes to think.

What USSR? The one that collapsed because the Cold War bankrupted them? Yeltsin let us go, not the USSR. Save that 'not so evil' ditty to the millions who were killed by the Soviets. And there'll be a blizzard in hell before I'm thankful for being 'let go' because Russia had bigger fish to fry, such as its nonexistent economy.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-25 05:42am

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

You know that him having any weapons at all is reason enough to go to war...
Know why?

BECAUSE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO STOP BUILDING THEM AFTER HE LOST IN 91!
And he never did! Why in Bobs name do you think if he diposes of any we find he won't build more?

Cause of Inspectors? Piff! He fooled them once, he can do it agian if he trys(He fooled the current UN Inspector head...) and failing them just kick them out of the Country agian to build up more stuff

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-01-25 06:09am

unigolyn wrote:Sovereign nations have democratically elected governments. The rest are sovereign dictatorships.

A sovereign nation is in no way bound to be a democracy. And it's not your right to say countries what form of government they are to have.

And about the Germany/France/Europe thing: Rumsfeld did more for the German-French friendship with his idiotic "Old Europe" interview than the Elysee treaty

Right now, a vast majority of Germans are against the war, and the government would go down in smoking ruins if they actually did participate in the war, either with equpment or financially. So it's our right to say "No".

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-25 06:12am

unigolyn wrote:
What USSR? The one that collapsed because the Cold War bankrupted them? Yeltsin let us go, not the USSR. Save that 'not so evil' ditty to the millions who were killed by the Soviets. And there'll be a blizzard in hell before I'm thankful for being 'let go' because Russia had bigger fish to fry, such as its nonexistent economy.

Yes, the Russians couldn't afford to hang on to Estonia because of economic troubles. Must've been the elite Estonian resistance forces.

Maybe you should learn your history. It's truly amazing that an Estonian doesn't know that Yeltsin's Russia recognized Estonia on August 24, *followed* by Gorbachev's Soviet Union on September 6. You also apparently never heard of Gorbachev's prior referendum on whether the USSR was to break up or not.

As to your simplistic nonsense about the end of the Cold War being due to 'bankruptcy', maybe you should go take a Cold War history course. If the coup in Moscow had been successful, I wonder how long Estonia would've remained independent.

I mean fuck, I'm in Australia over here, really, this is just embarassing.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-25 06:15am

And about the Germany/France/Europe thing: Rumsfeld did more for the German-French friendship with his idiotic "Old Europe" interview than the Elysee treat

What did you expect him to say when France was at first falling over itself to say they would sign then switchs positions(As the French always do) agian and probably will at the last mintue

Hell we don't need people to go, We have the UK, As somone pointed out awhile back The US and the UK could collectivly conquire the entire World Save China if they REALY wanted

Occuiping would be hard but defeating the Armys would not...

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-25 06:21am

Mr Bean wrote: The US and the UK could collectivly conquire the entire World Save China if they REALY wanted

Occuiping would be hard but defeating the Armys would not...

Erm ... no.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-01-25 06:25am

Mr Bean wrote:
And about the Germany/France/Europe thing: Rumsfeld did more for the German-French friendship with his idiotic "Old Europe" interview than the Elysee treat
What did you expect him to say when France was at first falling over itself to say they would sign then switchs positions(As the French always do) agian and probably will at the last mintue

The thing is, France never really has a position you could nail them to.
They are very sophisitcated in diplomacy

unigolyn · Post by **unigolyn** » 2003-01-25 07:06am

Vympel wrote:Yes, the Russians couldn't afford to hang on to Estonia because of economic troubles. Must've been the elite Estonian resistance forces.

Where the fuck did I imply that WE had anything to do with it, if you don't count peaceful demonstrations involving nearly half the population of a country? So the tanks on the streets here were doing what exactly? I didn't see any red carpets of freedom rolled up on military transports. Yeltsin didn't want us, Gorbachev did.

Maybe you should learn your history. It's truly amazing that an Estonian doesn't know that Yeltsin's Russia recognized Estonia on August 24, *followed* by Gorbachev's Soviet Union on September 6. You also apparently never heard of Gorbachev's prior referendum on whether the USSR was to break up or not.

I know my history. *Followed* is exactly right. YELTSIN recognized us, and if you think Gorbachev had any clout left by September 1991 then you're dreaming.

As to your simplistic nonsense about the end of the Cold War being due to 'bankruptcy', maybe you should go take a Cold War history course. If the coup in Moscow had been successful, I wonder how long Estonia would've remained independent.

Red herrings your specialty? What the fuck does the coup have to do with the USSR collapsing? I lived in the damn thing and saw first hand what the Cold War did to the economy. Or do you think that Gorby tanked the USSR economy on purpose? Perestroika was an attempt to recover the sinking ship of the USSR, not some Machiavellian ploy of the brave premiere with a splotch on his head.

I mean fuck, I'm in Australia over here, really, this is just embarassing.

Well, sure, the arguments I didn't make and that you distorted ARE pretty embarassing. And yes, you ARE in Australia, so might I ask what you base your encyclopedic knowledge of the USSR collapse on?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-25 07:19am

unigolyn wrote:
Where the fuck did I imply that WE had anything to do with it, if you don't count peaceful demonstrations involving nearly half the population of a country? So the tanks on the streets here were doing what exactly? I didn't see any red carpets of freedom rolled up on military transports. Yeltsin didn't want us, Gorbachev did.

Red herring. You implied that Russia couldn't hang on to you because of 'bankruptcy'. This is bullshit.

I know my history. *Followed* is exactly right. YELTSIN recognized us, and if you think Gorbachev had any clout left by September 1991 then you're dreaming.

Tell me, if Gorbachev was so determined to keep you before that, why didn't he crush you?

Red herrings your specialty? What the fuck does the coup have to do with the USSR collapsing? I lived in the damn thing and saw first hand what the Cold War did to the economy. Or do you think that Gorby tanked the USSR economy on purpose? Perestroika was an attempt to recover the sinking ship of the USSR, not some Machiavellian ploy of the brave premiere with a splotch on his head.

Do you even know how stupid you sound? If the coup had been successful, you twit, there would have been no collapse. DER.

Well, sure, the arguments I didn't make and that you distorted ARE pretty embarassing. And yes, you ARE in Australia, so might I ask what you base your encyclopedic knowledge of the USSR collapse on?

Common knowledge, which you seem to be sorely lacking.