StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A few basic facts and opinions.

First of all it cannot be in anycase something on the scale of Stalingrad,at least in terms of military casualties.
Saddam would just have 20.000 troops for the defense of the capital, if I recall correctly,so there are not just the numbers for a StalingradII.
These are however taken from its own clan and are well compensated and probably brainwashed.They might surrender at the first cannon shot or might fight,in anycase you cannot be sure that they will choose the first option like instead you would be about the average iraqui conscript.

Second.Saddam is a son of a bitch.If he could use his own population as hostages, he would.So do not count on him happily letting everyone out if he could do otherwise.The question is:will he have the power to prevent them from leaving?Baghdad has five millions of inhabitants,keep this in mind.
Also is crossed by a river,in case you missed that.

Third.The Iraqui population is probably so fed up by Saddam that would welcome everyone that freed them from him with open arms.That at least is what I can get from interviews with exiled iraquis etc.At least is likely that they hate you less than they hate Saddam.Provided however that you treat them decently.During WW2 in many places of the Soviet Union (mr Sheppard,correct me if I am wrong) the germans were initially welcomed as liberators.Later things changed.
Starving five millions of people to death,because Saddam and his forces will be the ones to eat while th others will starve,is a non option for the goals that the White House has.Or that we presume it has,at least.

Fourth.The goals of the war.WMD are just a pretext.His four CBW tipped SCUDs that he may or he may (he probably have them in anyway) not have hidden is some cave are not an issue.Not at least more than the NK ones aimed against your airfields in South Korea.And you will not go at war with North Korea for just that.Bush wants regime change to solve a crisis that has been going on too much,and the control of the country would give you many advantages,such as the possibility of putting pressure on the Saudis.I am sure that the Duchess can develop on this better than I can do.Suffice to say that in order to fulfill these goals starving to death/nuking several millions of iraqui people is not an option.So please,stop masturbating on the case of a tactical nuke,it is not healthy.
Also in urban combat some civilian losses are unavoidable.If civilians and troops are in the same bloc,there is no JDAM that holds.Civilians are going to die.

Fifth
The USA is the most powerful nation state in the world.Only the EU has an economy of roughly the same size (take the CIA factbook and do the math if you do not believe me),and the EU will not have an unified military for, well decades probably,if ever.Equally China will not be a match for you for decades,and short of a big regime change,they cannot care less about you killing civilians in Iraq.So in theory you can go in Iraq,gas or impale everyone on sight and no one is in the position of making,or is going to make,a fuss about that.Considered the size of your economy it is likely that no one will seriously embargo you, either.
HOWEVER,it is not like such a thing would not have consequences.
Maybe you forgot that but there is a certain bearded individual who is currently hiding somewhere making mock of you and all your military power has not yet enabled you to put their hands on him.
This is just to remember that having the biggest stick is not everything.

Admiral Piett wrote: Maybe you forgot that but there is a certain bearded individual who is currently hiding somewhere making mock of you and all your military power has not yet enabled you to put their hands on him.
.

Note, with this I do not mean the Osama would retaliate against what you would do in Iraq.He would try to kill you in anycase.But I simply mean that military power alone is not enough for everything.And Osama is just an example.

Mr Bean wrote: 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...

I believe that that post contained more bullshit than the entirity of DarkStars stay at SD.net.

Excuse me while I go and vomit on starving puppy.

Admiral Piett wrote:A few basic facts and opinions.

First of all it cannot be in anycase something on the scale of Stalingrad,at least in terms of military casualties.
Saddam would just have 20.000 troops for the defense of the capital, if I recall correctly,so there are not just the numbers for a StalingradII.
These are however taken from its own clan and are well compensated and probably brainwashed.They might surrender at the first cannon shot or might fight,in anycase you cannot be sure that they will choose the first option like instead you would be about the average iraqui conscript.

I don't think a single person has said that it would be a Stalingrad 2, with the exception of Saddam.

Second.Saddam is a son of a bitch.If he could use his own population as hostages, he would.So do not count on him happily letting everyone out if he could do otherwise.The question is:will he have the power to prevent them from leaving?Baghdad has five millions of inhabitants,keep this in mind.
Also is crossed by a river,in case you missed that.

Of course he'll use civilians as shields. So would anyone about to be invaded in this day and age. And he'll let the western media do his propaganda work for him. And how many civilians are going to be happy to see the "friendly forces" if their homes are being shelled and bombed 24/7? Too many of you are assuming that the moment anyone sees an American flag that they spontaneously burst into a rendition of "Star Spangled Banner" and salute the flag. Ladies and Gentleman, the world DOES NOT work that way.

Third.The Iraqui population is probably so fed up by Saddam that would welcome everyone that freed them from him with open arms.That at least is what I can get from interviews with exiled iraquis etc.At least is likely that they hate you less than they hate Saddam.Provided however that you treat them decently.During WW2 in many places of the Soviet Union (mr Sheppard,correct me if I am wrong) the germans were initially welcomed as liberators.Later things changed.

They are also fed up with the west starving them and even more pissed off with the west leaving them for dead at the end of the Gulf War, leaving Saddam in power and not giving them any help in rebuilding. Why should they think that this time will be any different? Oh thats right, they watch CNN and Fox and eat apple pie. Of course, how stupid of me.

Starving five millions of people to death,because Saddam and his forces will be the ones to eat while th others will starve,is a non option for the goals that the White House has.Or that we presume it has,at least.

You're forgetting that the White House has been indirectly starving them to death for the past 11 years. Whats another few months?

Fourth.The goals of the war.WMD are just a pretext.His four CBW tipped SCUDs that he may or he may (he probably have them in anyway) not have hidden is some cave are not an issue.Not at least more than the NK ones aimed against your airfields in South Korea.And you will not go at war with North Korea for just that.Bush wants regime change to solve a crisis that has been going on too much,and the control of the country would give you many advantages,such as the possibility of putting pressure on the Saudis.I am sure that the Duchess can develop on this better than I can do.

If regime change is such an important thing then why was it not done in 1991? Why does the Shrub regime hide behind the rhetoric of "rogue states", "terrorism" and WMD related fear mongering? Because people fall for it. And the the American public at the moment love only one thing more than a good terrorist scare in the media. And thats someone to blame it on. Congratulations, we have a scape goat.

Suffice to say that in order to fulfill these goals starving to death/nuking several millions of iraqui people is not an option.So please,stop masturbating on the case of a tactical nuke,it is not healthy.
Also in urban combat some civilian losses are unavoidable.If civilians and troops are in the same bloc,there is no JDAM that holds.Civilians are going to die.

I'll ask again... How is 500lbs of HE dropped from 2 miles up any more discriminating than flying a plane into a building? Its all about "spinning" the war in the media. Remember in 1991 when you had the images of the "smart" bombs hitting just after a car had cleared the bridge, or a guy had run out of the building. Its all about the image. And you only see what they want you to see. 500lbs of HE > Oklahoma City. Think about it.

Fifth
The USA is the most powerful nation state in the world.Only the EU has an economy of roughly the same size (take the CIA factbook and do the math if you do not believe me),and the EU will not have an unified military for, well decades probably,if ever.Equally China will not be a match for you for decades,and short of a big regime change,they cannot care less about you killing civilians in Iraq.So in theory you can go in Iraq,gas or impale everyone on sight and no one is in the position of making,or is going to make,a fuss about that.Considered the size of your economy it is likely that no one will seriously embargo you, either.

Actually I'd be concerned about the France/Germany voting bloc pulling a powerplay in the EU in an effort to swing trade embargoes etc on the US if they should invade Iraq without a UN sanction (thus meaning they are the aggressor nation). Not everyone who doesn't speak English is a moron. These people have been politicking for millenia more than you.

HOWEVER,it is not like such a thing would not have consequences.
Maybe you forgot that but there is a certain bearded individual who is currently hiding somewhere making mock of you and all your military power has not yet enabled you to put their hands on him.
This is just to remember that having the biggest stick is not everything.

Perhaps they are compensating for something?

weemadando wrote:
I don't think a single person has said that it would be a Stalingrad 2, with the exception of Saddam.

Mk Sheppard wrote:
Will Baghdad become Stalingrad II?

weemadando wrote:
And how many civilians are going to be happy to see the "friendly forces" if their homes are being shelled and bombed 24/7?

That is the point I was making.

weemadando wrote:
Too many of you are assuming that the moment anyone sees an American flag that they spontaneously burst into a rendition of "Star Spangled Banner" and salute the flag. Ladies and Gentleman, the world DOES NOT work that way.

They are also fed up with the west starving them and even more pissed off with the west leaving them for dead at the end of the Gulf War, leaving Saddam in power and not giving them any help in rebuilding. Why should they think that this time will be any different? Oh thats right, they watch CNN and Fox and eat apple pie. Of course, how stupid of me.

Saddam has been oppressing them since before that.And do not forget that they might see the 365 palaces that he has built or is building while the rest of the population is starving.They may hate the USA,but I bet that they hate Saddam more.

weemadando wrote:
You're forgetting that the White House has been indirectly starving them to death for the past 11 years. Whats another few months?

Yes,starving directly to death five millions of people in few months would be much worse than one million indirectly in ten years,if you are planning to occupy the country.

weemadando wrote:
If regime change is such an important thing then why was it not done in 1991?

It was an error of calculation at the time.

weemadando wrote:
Actually I'd be concerned about the France/Germany voting bloc pulling a powerplay in the EU in an effort to swing trade embargoes etc on the US if they should invade Iraq without a UN sanction (thus meaning they are the aggressor nation). Not everyone who doesn't speak English is a moron. These people have been politicking for millenia more than you.

The USA could in theory raze to ground the UN.And no one is in the position of making a fuss about it.
The USA is...what?The 25% of the world economy? Embargoing it would not be a sensible thing.Sure there will be a lot of political bullshit in the air.But nothing that,for example,will create massive problems to the currently weak german economy will be put in force.Expect nothing more than symbolic measures.Of course in the long term things may be different.

One should remember that the Iraqis have already been spontaneously bursting out into cheers of support for America - During the release of the prisoners, when Saddam almost lost control of his power. There were several tense moments there when guards, and people looking for their loved ones alike, quite vocally declared their support for the USA on the grounds of at least one of Saddam's prisons. Had his control not been so absolute, Iraq might have turned into a Rumania right then and there.

Saddam, I suspect, will maintain his defence in Tikrit, which is his home town and where his tribal ties are strongest. In Tikrit alone out of all Iraq, the people may fight for him, because those ties mean a great deal still in Iraq, and the Iraqi President, more in the style of a King of Babylon or Assyria or an Arab Caliph, treats his family well, and the rest of his country with a peculiar brand of harsh randomness punctuated by mercy that can only be called "justice" by the mercurial standards of the region.

Saddam has the following troops, as definitely reliable: The Special Guard (Consisting of 13 mechanized battalions and 2 "Rapid Intervention" Brigades), which I suspect will be dug-in inside Baghdad as a deception as to his locale. The Regular Guard, consisting of 8-9 divisions, will likely be divided between Tikrit and Baghdad; and Saddam, with what might vary from a special forces brigade, to a small guard of picked men, will instead rely primarily on a levy of irregulars from his amongst his own clan ties to defend the inner city there.

These forces can in turn be reliably supported by up to 150,000 paramilitary troops (This number, however, may be highly inaccurate), which range from heavily armed security forces, to muslim fanatics armed in-country, to Iranians in opposition to the current government of that nation who are under Saddam's wing since the First Persian Gulf War. They will have the spirit to fight, but however be even more poorly equipped and disorganized than the Iraqi military on average.

Finally, Saddam has his army, which consists of around five corps on a three-four division organization per corps. This force, though better equipped than the irregulars, does not have the same equippage as the Guard, and is hopeless in morale. Another rather large problem is that the vast majority of the divisions are foot infantry. One possibility Saddam has for increasing it that I've considered is to distribute these units based on where they were raised. Clan loyalties may make the men stand and fight for immediately local terrain where nationalism would not compel them.

The problem with this is that it would create a static defence force of disunified forces dispersed throughout Iraq which wouldn't budge from their assigned locations. For security purposes it's also a bad idea; and considering the officers are exclusively Sunni Arab, would not entirely solve motivational problems regardless. Saddam must recognize that his Regular Army will probably simply surrender enmasse, and with that in mind position the most loyal units where they can do some good before collapsing, but without causing a threat. The others are nothing more than targets to absorb our missiles.

Saddam is certainly capable of causing casualties in the assaults on Tikrit and Baghdad, especially since we will have to use care to dislodge his troops from urban positions to avoid civilian casualties.

Minimizing civilian casualties down to a few thousand, we may very well have to use tactics which could let Saddam drag out the battle for the cities for weeks or months, and inflict an effective ratio upon us which may only disfavour him by a matter of 4 to 1 (Our casualties period being one; his casualties killed being four); particularly if he uses gas and biological weaponry.

Alternatively, we could imitate the Russians at Grozny, except with our technology, at which time casualties to our forces would be considerably reduced, but civilian casualties might be noticably increased (I should note that civilian casualties, does not necessarily mean killed).

This analysis is highly pessimistic and conservative.

Ultimate victory, however, and our ability to turn Iraq into a working democracy - both with intelligent leadership - are not in doubt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr Bean:
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.

Realy?

The US and UK possess the worldest Finest two fleets, togther having enough submarines and surface ships to deny the Seas and the Air to Europe. Instigate a Russia/China War to pin down your two biggest threats,

Who can fight back in South America? Or Africa? These can be brought under our heel last France and Germany are heavly Oil-Dependant and the US has sufficent Stockpiles to weather most any crises and are effectly out of Reach of Germany and France.

Assuming Canaida stays out of it(Possible but not likley unless they are brought in)

With China/Russia pinned down fighting each other and The European mainland strangled into submission(Know the number of Oil Based Powerplants through-out Europe? quite a few)


Its not only possible its winnable with only a few things nessary to go your way

Nuclear weapons are not an opition unless you want Complete Hellfire, UK has enough nukes to deal with anything no to mention US Nuke Subs


But seriously lets debate it, Exuclding the Nuclear Helfire Opition(Which on a war this scale means everyone looses) what Option would Germany/France have to fight back?

Mr Bean wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr Bean:
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.

Realy?

The US and UK possess the worldest Finest two fleets, togther having enough submarines and surface ships to deny the Seas and the Air to Europe. Instigate a Russia/China War to pin down your two biggest threats,

Who can fight back in South America? Or Africa? These can be brought under our heel last France and Germany are heavly Oil-Dependant and the US has sufficent Stockpiles to weather most any crises and are effectly out of Reach of Germany and France.

Assuming Canada stays out of it(Possible but not likley unless they are brought in)

With China/Russia pinned down fighting each other and The European mainland strangled into submission(Know the number of Oil Based Powerplants through-out Europe? quite a few)


Its not only possible its winnable with only a few things nessary to go your way

Nuclear weapons are not an opition unless you want Complete Hellfire, UK has enough nukes to deal with anything no to mention US Nuke Subs


But seriously lets debate it, Exuclding the Nuclear Helfire Opition(Which on a war this scale means everyone looses) what Option would Germany/France have to fight back?

But if other arab nation join in on the side of Saddam this time even Kuwait might be in Iraq`s corner.

Mr Bean wrote:But seriously lets debate it, Exuclding the Nuclear Helfire Opition(Which on a war this scale means everyone looses) what Option would Germany/France have to fight back?

This is completely mismatched and you know it, Germany's military is designed purely for defensive actions, and France and Germany are both smaller than an individual US state.

Personally I don't have a problem with the US having the military they have, but I do have a problem with the US leaders and how they want to deploy it.

But that's probably due to me being a 'liberal communist'

weemadando wrote:

Mr Bean wrote: 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...

I believe that that post contained more bullshit than the entirity of DarkStars stay at SD.net.

Excuse me while I go and vomit on starving puppy.

You're correct, we couldn't conquer the world. Said war would go nuclear very, very quickly (on the opfor). However, it is entirely possible that the USAF would be able to destroy the opposing C4I network in a suprise attack, this crippling their nuclear arsenal and paving way for the destruction of the rest.

weemadando wrote:I'll ask again... How is 500lbs of HE dropped from 2 miles up any more discriminating than flying a plane into a building? Its all about "spinning" the war in the media. Remember in 1991 when you had the images of the "smart" bombs hitting just after a car had cleared the bridge, or a guy had run out of the building. Its all about the image. And you only see what they want you to see. 500lbs of HE > Oklahoma City. Think about it.

Are you seriously suggesting there's no moral difference between accidentily killing civilians with a bomb intended for a military target and deliberately flying a hijacked civilian airliner into a skyscraper, or setting of a Ryder truck full of fertilizer and diesel fuel underneath a Federal building? Because if you are, I'd love to hear the justification for it.

Mr Bean wrote: The US and UK possess the worldest Finest two fleets, togther having enough submarines and surface ships to deny the Seas and the Air to Europe. Instigate a Russia/China War to pin down your two biggest threats,

And why should Russia and China go at war while you are obviously provocating them in doing so? Besides your fleet will not be very helpful when you will have to occupy Siberia.

Mr Bean wrote: Who can fight back in South America? Or Africa?

You can wipe out the all the african armies.But you do not have the manpower to occupy all Africa,all South America,all the ME,Russia etc all at the same time?
The current US Army is, what? 13 divisions?
Definitively not enough for conquering all the countries of the world,with conquering defined gaining possession by force and holding it.For defeating an army I think that you could defeat even the chinese one.Occupying the country would be the hard part,but the same goes even for Africa or South America.The world is a too big place and the US army is too small.

Mr Bean wrote: But seriously lets debate it, Exuclding the Nuclear Helfire Opition

Try to invade Russia and that is precisely what is going to happen,if I have understood their new doctrine about nukes.The EU countries will surrender in few weeks (or maybe days),but you simply do not have the manpower to conquer all the world,with conquering defined in that way.
Of course you can defeat all the armies of the world.Holding the defeated countries will be impossible,for sheer lack of manpower,without mentioning eventual insurgencies.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: and our ability to turn Iraq into a working democracy

Do not make me laugh.Ah,well all depends upon how you define democracy,that is.I bet you have a peculiar definition,as usual.
A western style democracy does not grow in the middle of the desert.
Japan and Germany were both modern countries that had already experienced it,to a certain extent.Besides a true democracy might not be in your always important interests,so it is rather naive to assume that you will be so worried about creating one in Iraq.What if one party which wants you out takes power? Are you so sure that such a thing will not happen after the rebuilding phase?You will give them a decent puppet and everybody will be satisfied.Anything else is a delusion.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: both with intelligent leadership - are not in doubt.

Intelligent leadership?
With Bush in charge? That is a contradiction in words.

Admiral Piett wrote: Do not make me laugh.Ah,well all depends upon how you define democracy,that is.I bet you have a peculiar definition,as usual.
A western style democracy does not grow in the middle of the desert.

I'd be happy if Iraq had a functional copy of the Stadtholderless United Provinces of the Netherlands' government in the 17th century. I honestly don't care if the first constitution gives women the right to vote, or has a property qualification for suffrage, or whatever.

As long as it works, and meets the culture of the area, but still provides for a regular and peaceful shift in parties based on the election of an electorate, which is established by Law.

That's the key thing here. Once the whim of the Despot has been replaced by the rule of Law in Iraq, then the rest of the democratic process will evolve by time.

I hope our leaders will remember that.

Actually, my own thought is that we should use the Articles of Confederation for the CSA as a basis for the new Federal Republic of Iraq's constitution, minus those pertaining to slavery of course.

Japan and Germany were both modern countries that had already experienced it,to a certain extent.

And Iraq is perhaps the most modern Arab country in the world, or had been, and had the virtue of its northern province having close ties with the centre of the Ottoman Empire - which was trying to modernize in the 19th century - and then being under British colonial administration, which was generally lenient and beneficial in terms of Law. It had a well-developed civil society, and the remnants exist even if it has been largely trashed.

I completely agree that democracy is impossible at this time, and for quite possibly centuries to come, in the KSA and other Arabian states. But in Iraq, on Mesopotamia? And in Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt, the Levantine States? It is entirely possible there, and should be implemented -- Hopefully, after Iraq, they will learn their lesson about its necessity, though in the case of Lebanon more would be required.

Iran, I think, is very, very close to falling, but is not an Arab country, and is more of a different story:

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen012103.asp

Besides a true democracy might not be in your always important interests,so it is rather naive to assume that you will be so worried about creating one in Iraq.What if one party which wants you out takes power? Are you so sure that such a thing will not happen after the rebuilding phase?You will give them a decent puppet and everybody will be satisfied.Anything else is a delusion.

No, it is not. You're not thinking long-term. Though you're intelligent, you're falling into a trap of many people, thinking in short-term gain. A puppet would be useful in the short term, yes.

But in the long-term, a democratic, capitalist country would be the most stable, in producing oil - and in selling it. For whatever it can get as a price, of course, but that's the way the game is played. Furthermore, it would encourage the spread of westernization and democracy, and thus stability, in that region.

They may not get along with us all the time, but they'd be people we could always do business with, and that's what would count. Besides, we could rely on their gratitude for having freed them, and seen them through to democracy, then, and furthermore we might well and easily gain bases on which to permanently station troops - The same troops we can move from our unnecessary bases in Europe.

Intelligent leadership?
With Bush in charge? That is a contradiction in words.

No, it is not. The idea of Bush being stupid is a liberal campaign lie in this country that has been trounced to death. The man is an intelligent leader, who knows what to say, what to do, and when to make choices that have manoeuvred him to the top of the political pile in America, and he has surrounded himself with a leadership team that is the best this country has seen in, quite possibly, a half-century.

He will, for now nearly the next six years, continue to do things that will shock and awe the whole world.

People made this exact same mistake with Reagan - Are you willing to fall into it again?

Admiral Piett wrote:During WW2 in many places of the Soviet Union (mr Sheppard,correct me if I am wrong) the germans were initially welcomed as liberators.Later things changed.

CORRECT.

The Pro-German Ukranian movement lasted about a WEEK before the
germans turned Ukraine into Reichkommisariat Ukraine and screwed
their dreams of an independent Ukraine with it's own government...

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:.
Actually, my own thought is that we should use the Articles of Confederation for the CSA as a basis for the new Federal Republic of Iraq's constitution, minus those pertaining to slavery of course.

I would not be so sure of the choice at your place.Has it really been tested?
After all the confederation lasted only for the length of the war.And in war government matters are handled in a different way than in peacetime.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:.
and then being under British colonial administration, which was generally lenient and beneficial in terms of Law. It had a well-developed civil society, and the remnants exist even if it has been largely trashed.

Most of the arab world,if I recall correctly, was under british colonial administration as well.Certainly Iraq is relatively secular,but that alone might not be enough.Many ethnical divisions will not help,for example.
And Iraq seem to have loads of them.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
No, it is not. You're not thinking long-term. Though you're intelligent, you're falling into a trap of many people, thinking in short-term gain. A puppet would be useful in the short term, yes.

I was not proposing.I was describing what most likely is going to happen.
If a puppet or something similar is more useful in the short term,a puppet will be picked,someone on the style of Karzai for example.There are risks in Iraq,with country so divided there is for example the risk of portions of it breking away.Then if you want to use the country for,for example, putting pressure on the Saudis or breking the OPEC,you will need someone willing to take orders.All points in the direction of a puppet.It might not necessarily be a single person,a SaddamII, it might be something in the order of a very obedient "provisional" government.But here you go.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
But in the long-term, a democratic, capitalist country would be the most stable, in producing oil - and in selling it.

That would be desiderable,in the long term.
Less risky,which could pay higher dividends in the short term,approach will be probably chosen.We can delude ourself in the opposite,but that is how the matter is going to be handled.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Furthermore, it would encourage the spread of westernization and democracy, and thus stability, in that region.

Provided that the democratization is succesfull in first place.If all that they get is a puppet more benign than Saddam and standards of life equivalent to those of pre 91,no one there will be impressed.And the US is not in the condition of sparing a lot of money for the reconstruction.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
They may not get along with us all the time, but they'd be people we could always do business with, and that's what would count. Besides, we could rely on their gratitude for having freed them, and seen them through to democracy, then, and furthermore we might well and easily gain bases on which to permanently station troops - The same troops we can move from our unnecessary bases in Europe..

Even the people in the Philippines were grateful initially.Or am I wrong?
There is that risk too...

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
He will, for now nearly the next six years, continue to do things that will shock and awe the whole world.

Wondering if the cellar of my house would work as an air raid-shelter...
(I am joking)

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
People made this exact same mistake with Reagan - Are you willing to fall into it again?

You mean the one who was supporting Saddam Hussein?
(I am not ignoring Reagan achievements,but still...)

Of course when I say that he is not intelligent I am a bit making mock of him.Obviously he cannot be a completely,hopeless, idiot,otherwise he would not be there in first place.

Back to topic,one wonders if they have developed something to protect the roof of an Abrams from hollow charges.I would hate driving one of them in a
city filled by people armed with RPGs..

Admiral Piett wrote:Back to topic,one wonders if they have developed something to protect the roof of an Abrams from hollow charges.I would hate driving one of them in a
city filled by people armed with RPGs..

It's called Reactive Armor. Or you could simply weld sheets of 2mm steel
on top of the turret roof 2-3 feet above the real turret roof to disrupt
the shaped charge effects.

Admiral Piett wrote:Back to topic,one wonders if they have developed something to protect the roof of an Abrams from hollow charges.I would hate driving one of them in a
city filled by people armed with RPGs..

There are things available that work, and can be rigged up very quickly. The Russians used so called "reshetka armor" in Chechnya. Though its dates back to US monitors in Vietnam, basically a bunch of slatted metal bars similar to Venetian blinds placed 1-3 feet from the tank's main armor. The bars will either detonate the RPG, or more likely break up the warhead, destroying it without a detonation.

However the best defense is to have at least a platoon, hopefully a company of infantry with every tank. RPG's are not that accurate in the first place, so if you can force the enemy to at least fire from a block or two away, and keep fire on said positions, your tanks are quite well protected.

Really most streets will only allow one, mabey two tanks to move down them. So you have a platoon of them take turns leading, with the others replenishing fuel and ammo.

Admiral Piett wrote:Back to topic,one wonders if they have developed something to protect the roof of an Abrams from hollow charges.I would hate driving one of them in a
city filled by people armed with RPGs..

Its called infantry support.

Damn, Sea Skimmer beat me too it.

Admiral Piett wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
People made this exact same mistake with Reagan - Are you willing to fall into it again?

You mean the one who was supporting Saddam Hussein?
(I am not ignoring Reagan achievements,but still...)

The support was just satellite photos for the most part, and that was carefully measured to keep Iraq from being defeated, while preventing it from achieving any major successes. It was in the US's best interests for Iran and Iraq to keep fighting WW1 with modern weapon, a significant victory by either would not be a good thing for US interests and neither was interested in peace anyway.

Reagan was just keeping the field level and making the best of things. In this he succeeded fairly well, with Iran being exhausted and Iraq gaining nothing it had started the war for.

In regards to M1s in city streets- there is one serious problem with supporting them with infantry- their engines exhaust is too hot. The best solution is either ERA quick smart, or reshetkas.