StarDestroyer.Net BBS

ROFL (US is going to kick some serious ass in Iraqi)

LOL

You know, if the US government could charge royalties for any and all war related footage the thing would pay for its self.

Oberleutnant wrote:

neoolong wrote:You think Saddam's the hero of the piece? WTF?

If George Bush dumber decides to attack Iraq, this time it won't be that easy. Don't even think that I'm not serious about this - because I'm not.

Whoa, a triple negative!

Sea Skimmer wrote:LOL

You know, if the US government could charge royalties for any and all war related footage the thing would pay for its self.

As long as they are not going to make any action figures of the war I'm happy.

Oberleutnant wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:LOL

You know, if the US government could charge royalties for any and all war related footage the thing would pay for its self.

As long as they are not going to make any action figures of the war I'm happy.

Actually a company has made Bush and Bin Laden action figures.

my social studies teacher handed that round few days ago.

Mike_6002 wrote:ROFL (US is going to kick some serious ass in Iraqi)

Tell you what, if and when I'm sweltering in the middle of the fucking desert being shot at while trying to bridge the Euphraetes I'll tell you how much ass we're kicking.

CmdrWilkens wrote:

Mike_6002 wrote:ROFL (US is going to kick some serious ass in Iraqi)

Tell you what, if and when I'm sweltering in the middle of the fucking desert being shot at while trying to bridge the Euphraetes I'll tell you how much ass we're kicking.

Should be real fun of Iraq uses its BC weapons and America carries through with its in 1991 threat to destroy every dam in Iraq. Hopeful the Army brass will remember 1945 and just wait for the waters to lower.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:

Mike_6002 wrote:ROFL (US is going to kick some serious ass in Iraqi)

Tell you what, if and when I'm sweltering in the middle of the fucking desert being shot at while trying to bridge the Euphraetes I'll tell you how much ass we're kicking.

Should be real fun of Iraq uses its BC weapons and America carries through with its in 1991 threat to destroy every dam in Iraq. Hopeful the Army brass will remember 1945 and just wait for the waters to lower.

I won't go into the specifics that I know, which are damn few enough since I hold no real rank, but crossing the Euphraetes and or the Tigris would be virtually impossible unless the US either destroyed the damns several days ahead of time or controlled them with ground forces before an actual crossing were to begin.

CmdrWilkens wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote: Tell you what, if and when I'm sweltering in the middle of the fucking desert being shot at while trying to bridge the Euphraetes I'll tell you how much ass we're kicking.

Should be real fun of Iraq uses its BC weapons and America carries through with its in 1991 threat to destroy every dam in Iraq. Hopeful the Army brass will remember 1945 and just wait for the waters to lower.

I won't go into the specifics that I know, which are damn few enough since I hold no real rank, but crossing the Euphraetes and or the Tigris would be virtually impossible unless the US either destroyed the damns several days ahead of time or controlled them with ground forces before an actual crossing were to begin.

I would expect so, though not all of them would need to be taken or breached. Only a couple have enough water to have a serious effect down river and both water ways are already artificially low because so much water is diverted. They could rise quite a bit and not create any new problems.


The US army doesnt exactly haul around very much bridging gear now a day though, is it still even held a the divisional level? It took weeks to build that bridge in Bosnia, and only then after using a Ch-47 swarm to move everything because of mud.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote: I won't go into the specifics that I know, which are damn few enough since I hold no real rank, but crossing the Euphraetes and or the Tigris would be virtually impossible unless the US either destroyed the damns several days ahead of time or controlled them with ground forces before an actual crossing were to begin.

I would expect so, though not all of them would need to be taken or breached. Only a couple have enough water to have a serious effect down river and both water ways are already artificially low because so much water is diverted. They could rise quite a bit and not create any new problems.


The US army doesn’t exactly haul around very much bridging gear now a day though. It took what, a month to build that bridge in Bosnia, and only then after using a Ch-47 swarm to move everything because of mud.

Well I said I wouldn't go into specifics but I'll lie a little bit and address the points.

1) You don't need for the damn to start washing out banks or making currents unstable, all you need is a slow steady rise in the water level. If you let out just a bit extra water (when we're talking about millions of gallons a bit is still big) what you do is start swamping the embankments just a little. Now this doesn't wash out the bridge...it sinks the anchor points and bogs down a full engineer detachment just to get the equipment operable.

2) The reason the Bosnia lift went so wrong was poor planning on the part of higher headquarters, the river had been flooding or high for weeks and against advice they jumped across with the engineers telling them they'd need a miracle.

3) Most of the bridging I would do will likely be pontoon bridging which doens't actually create a bridge. Rather you setup ramps on both banks and proceed to use 2-4 sections of floating bridge to ferry vehicles back and forth thus presenting less of a target and allowing some degree of manueverability.

CmdrWilkens wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote: I won't go into the specifics that I know, which are damn few enough since I hold no real rank, but crossing the Euphraetes and or the Tigris would be virtually impossible unless the US either destroyed the damns several days ahead of time or controlled them with ground forces before an actual crossing were to begin.

I would expect so, though not all of them would need to be taken or breached. Only a couple have enough water to have a serious effect down river and both water ways are already artificially low because so much water is diverted. They could rise quite a bit and not create any new problems.


The US army doesn’t exactly haul around very much bridging gear now a day though. It took what, a month to build that bridge in Bosnia, and only then after using a Ch-47 swarm to move everything because of mud.

Well I said I wouldn't go into specifics but I'll lie a little bit and address the points.

1) You don't need for the damn to start washing out banks or making currents unstable, all you need is a slow steady rise in the water level. If you let out just a bit extra water (when we're talking about millions of gallons a bit is still big) what you do is start swamping the embankments just a little. Now this doesn't wash out the bridge...it sinks the anchor points and bogs down a full engineer detachment just to get the equipment operable.

2) The reason the Bosnia lift went so wrong was poor planning on the part of higher headquarters, the river had been flooding or high for weeks and against advice they jumped across with the engineers telling them they'd need a miracle.

3) Most of the bridging I would do will likely be pontoon bridging which doens't actually create a bridge. Rather you setup ramps on both banks and proceed to use 2-4 sections of floating bridge to ferry vehicles back and forth thus presenting less of a target and allowing some degree of manueverability.

Intresting. I won't be surprised if the 101 ships out for the gulf in the coming months.

I'm aware of ferrying operations. But while that can get an assault force across, you'd be hard pressed to get any signficant number of logistics trucks across that way. At some point a bridge

Evidently the Soviets thought even full bridges where so limited they attempted to build a ponton bridge that could take a 2000 ton train!It didn't work IIRC, but they did build a fixed bridging kit which could be assembled somehwat quickly that could take a large train.

Course thats the same country that built a 1.1 mile long single lane pontoon bridge across the Volga..

Should be real fun of Iraq uses its BC weapons and America carries through with its in 1991 threat to destroy every dam in Iraq. Hopeful the Army brass will remember 1945 and just wait for the waters to lower.

On Col. David Hackworths website, he was mentioning that Iraq might blow the dams on purpose to slow down American forces. Considering what he did with the oil wells in the first war I would not put it past him.

What do you guys think?

Oberleutnant wrote:

neoolong wrote:You think Saddam's the hero of the piece? WTF?

Of course. At least there is a one nation in the world that has the guts to oppose the will of the zionists and their lakeys in USA and UN. I ask you, can you show me any unbiased evidence about the 'horrific things' that the so called murderous regime in Baghdad has done?

Everything you hear about Iraqis having weapons of mass destruct are lies fabricated by Israel or CIA. The only thing what you Americans want is the oil in Iraq. You are all such hypocrites and your country doesn't even have a culture! Come to Europe and you see real cultures and better lifestyle.

If George Bush dumber decides to attack Iraq, this time it won't be that easy. Don't even think that I'm not serious about this - because I'm not.

Black and White Fallacy. So because the Israel or CIA are evil, then it automatically means that Saddam is a hero, eh? What about the Kurdis? What about the fact that Saddam is a dictator?

Look, Israel and the US could have dirty hands, but it doesn't make their enemy (in this case Saddam) a clean hero. By logic, being enemy of something "evil" does not automatically makes you "good".

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Oberleutnant wrote:

neoolong wrote:You think Saddam's the hero of the piece? WTF?

Of course. At least there is a one nation in the world that has the guts to oppose the will of the zionists and their lakeys in USA and UN. I ask you, can you show me any unbiased evidence about the 'horrific things' that the so called murderous regime in Baghdad has done?

Everything you hear about Iraqis having weapons of mass destruct are lies fabricated by Israel or CIA. The only thing what you Americans want is the oil in Iraq. You are all such hypocrites and your country doesn't even have a culture! Come to Europe and you see real cultures and better lifestyle.

If George Bush dumber decides to attack Iraq, this time it won't be that easy. Don't even think that I'm not serious about this - because I'm not.

Black and White Fallacy. So because the Israel or CIA are evil, then it automatically means that Saddam is a hero, eh? What about the Kurdis? What about the fact that Saddam is a dictator?

Look, Israel and the US could have dirty hands, but it doesn't make their enemy (in this case Saddam) a clean hero. By logic, being enemy of something "evil" does not automatically makes you "good".

*shoots himself in the head*

Oberleutnant wrote:You certainly have good manners. Since when did using sarcasm became illegal? In my opinion putting a smiley at the end of my post was totally unneccessary. Apparently I was wrong.

EDIT: Oops, I misunderstood you two. I thought that you were attacking me for talking too much. Seriously, did you think that I was spouting that shit for real?

I thought my post was so the over top that it would have been noticeable. I even used some of the most commonly used attacks of the USA bashers. It's good to read all posts in the thread before replying anything.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

Should be real fun of Iraq uses its BC weapons and America carries through with its in 1991 threat to destroy every dam in Iraq. Hopeful the Army brass will remember 1945 and just wait for the waters to lower.

On Col. David Hackworths website, he was mentioning that Iraq might blow the dams on purpose to slow down American forces. Considering what he did with the oil wells in the first war I would not put it past him.

What do you guys think?

In my opinion if Saddam feels his position threattened, as would be surely the case here, god knows what he might do. I wouldn't rule out blowing up the dams nor the use of biological/chemicals weapons against the attackers or Iraq's neighbours.

If Saddam manages to keep the military under his control, he might try to fortifcate them in cities. Urban combat would inflict lots of casualties, probably even to the American/British side. The odds would certainly be more even for the Iraqi, who would have very little hope in engagements in open terrain with Apaches and Tornados attacking from the air ... not to mention the armour combat.