How Iraq might beat the mighty usa? - unthinkable?

[peaccenicked]

Heres the link (http://www.oneworld.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi?root=129&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Etransnational%2Eorg%2Fpress inf%2F2002%2Fpf161%5FPower%5FIraqDefeatUS%2Ehtml)

[Anarcho]

Never happen.

The US will avoid an urban war, as it's something they're not that good at.

They will pound Iraq, destroy any and all organized resistance, and then help a third party take over the country.

[peaccenicked]

Pride comes before a fall. Well sometimes.

[reagan lives]

Wow...that's the most ignorant thing I've read in a while. It assumes all sorts of things and is written by someone who clearly has no clue about modern American military history. It sounds like this potzer just read Sun Tzu and Mao Tse-tung, and is trying to pass it off as an educated opinion about the coming conflict. Of the eight paragraphs (not counting the last line) in this piece of shit, three are about Iraq:

"The U.S. should try now to put itself in Saddam's shoes. Unlike last time Saddam now knows that he is at an immense disadvantage. His air force has gone, half his navy is destroyed, and half his tanks. He probably has no nuclear weapons, but does have chemical and biological weapons with fairly primitive means of delivery. How does he turn the tables?

Clearly his objective should be to draw the U.S. into urban guerrilla warfare, not to meet a military advance head on in the desert as last time. Neither should Iraq even consider an attack on Israel. This urban warfare against the American invaders will be a bloody affair, causing immense civilian suffering, which doubtless will be aired on television all over the world, putting immense pressure on the American leadership to get the war over quickly. At that point Saddam could attack the American supply lines from the rear with chemical weapons, disrupting the fighting and weakening the urban offensive. The U.S., deeply engaged in the cities and towns of Iraq, could not reply in kind, even if wanted to, since this would stymie its own forces as much as the enemy's.

Saddam's strategy has to be as much psychological as military - to convince neighbouring Arab and Muslim populations that an injustice is being done, and thus precipitate upheaval and political change in the most vulnerable states, Jordan and nuclear-armed Pakistan in particular, whilst causing real headaches for the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. At the same time, since he knows that the support for going to war with Iraq has been a very volatile matter inside the United States itself, with polls showing wildly different moods over a relatively short time span, he will do his utmost to make the fighting as bloody as possible and push the U.S., as the French did in Algeria, to overreact and use methods that bring it into disrepute, knowing that world opinion will hold the U.S. to a higher standard than Iraq."

His objective should be to draw the US military into urban guerilla warfare. OK, unless you know anything about Mogadishu and what has happened since. Mogadishu was a disaster, but the Rangers and Deltas killed about 1,000 Somali militia on their way out. And in the nine (9) years since then, the Army has focused heavily on urban combat training. In other words, in almost a decade since the Army inflicted 100 enemy casualties for every one of theirs, they've gotten better at urban combat.

Then we have the statement that Saddam should sit and wait for the American media to save him. Brilliant strategy, it almost worked for Milosevic, but alas, he ended up with a scud missle crashing through his bedroom window. The idea that urban operations in Iraq will cause "immense civilian suffering" is highly dubious, unless the civilians decide to take up arms against the American military (see Mogadishu). And the presupposition that it will "doubtless be aired on television all over the world" is, I believe, less than doubtless.

That brings us to my favorite line of this entire piece: "At that point Saddam could attack the American supply lines from the rear with chemical weapons, disrupting the fighting and weakening the urban offensive." Hardy har har har. Saddam can just bomb the Ho Chi Mihn trail and his problems will be over. Unless "American supply lines" is code for "American cities," I have a feeling that this WWII strategy will avail Saddam not.

But at the end of the day, there are basically two things about this "analysis" that are fundamentally idiotic: first, the idea that Saddam can play international and domestic American opinion well enough to save himself; and second, it disregards American air power, which has been the basis for all our military strategies for years. Say what you want about a possible conflict in Iraq, but remember: we wouldn't be on top if we didn't do most things right.

[El Che]

Americans are pussies. Take away their billion dollar equipment and they are fleash and blood men just like you.

Just kids with big guns and alot of shit in their head.

[Guest]

shut up, el-che, americans are the world's toughest, you portuguese are weak!

You don't know what you are talking about

Reagan lives, excellent analysis of a typical anti-american article that just begs for the benevolent empire to humbled!

Sorry, guys, won't happen in Iraq. We are going to eradicate them all over agin.

[James]

How about you shut up guest.


We are going to eradicate them all over agin.

Like you did last time eh? I'm sorry, i think we must have read history books with different endings or something...

One could argue that America is to blame for it all.

First off, they have an unethical forgien policy. Big example is putting him there in the first place. BTW, pleeease don't use the "the enemy of my enemy, is my friend." because thats bullshit.

Say i'm anti-capitalist, or anti-republican - either way, america is my enemy (of course "america" isn't my enemy, i'm just making up a simple example for you). Now, by your logic i should ally with Saddam, and celebrate Bin Ladens life. See how backward that is. And pleeeease don't use the "how were we supposed to know what saddam was like" - i can't even be arsed going into that one!

Next in foreign policy, we have attitudes and actions. Time and time again we undermine the people in LEDC's, by screwing them over - first by dictating how they should live etc, and then by claiming to give them help - but in fact just introduce big international business - and all the joys that come with it.

Key word for you - debt.

Mainly world debt, although no doubt you will claim that its "character building" for them or something... well, actually i'd agree. This kind of crap BREEDS extremism. Which often equates in TERRORISM. Most americans, and indeed most westerners, are afraid to admit this. We are happy enough putting it down to islam being an "evil" religion, and that all arabs are indoctrinated to hate the west... geeee, i wonder WHY they would wanna hate us eh!

Maybe we should stop sponsoring right wing militants... But hey, we are westerners! We can by right, claim to be surprised when the monster that we created blows up in our faces.

And of course, we then have our last display of power in Iraq.

You claim that we "eradicated" them... please tell explain what you mean by that.

I fear our dictionaries my also have different content...

I was under the impression that we made a deal with Saddam, and let the dictator carry on being a facist right wing dictator. All together now, "And what does extemism breed kiddies?"

Guest, i personally think your a tosser, and your opinion* is worth jack shit. Go play on doom or something.


















*also known as the republican/tory party line

(Edited by James at 9:47 pm on Oct. 1, 2002)

[Guest]

shut up, el-che, americans are the world's toughest, you portuguese are weak!

You don't know what you are talking about

Reagan lives, excellent analysis of a typical anti-american article that just begs for the benevolent empire to humbled!

Sorry, guys, won't happen in Iraq. We are going to eradicate them all over agin.

[Guest]

This is CI...

"Like you did last time eh? I'm sorry, i think we must have read history books with different endings or something..."

Yeah, we must have, because if you deny that desert storm was a complete victory for the United States, then you must be reading an Iraqi revisionist history book. We defeated the 4th largest standing army on earth, an army that was 4 x the size of our deployed force, and destroyed 90+ % of saddams military and infrastructure, and we liberated kuwait.

Those were the objectives, and we achieved them 100% (eradicating saddam was never an objective in 1991).

Everyone knows this.

the rest of your post was moot, generalized, stereotypical, and not worth responding too. (i.e. "americans think islam is an evil religion")

"You claim that we "eradicated" them... please tell explain what you mean by that."

see above

[Guest]

And I would like to know exactly what history book claims that Desert Storm was anything less than a complete and total victory for the United States and coalition forces.

I suggest you fire that publisher and take them off you order list, as they are feeding you very, very inaccurate information.

[Capitalist]

The USA will overthrow Iraqi Tyranny as easily as they overthrew Afgahnistan Tyranny.

Through the people!

Democratic Revolution = True Revolution = USA Intervention

The USA will use the Iraqi people to overthrow their tyrant Sadamm, the same way they used Afgahns to overthrow the despised Taliban.

The Iraqi people will welcome USA intervention. Just like they did during Desert Storm, Hussein soldiers will glady and easily surrender to USA with open arms.

What you ignorant leftist don't realize is that the people of Iraq hate Sadamm Hussein more than we Americans do.

[PaulDavidHewson]

Spinoza once said:
If the state acts contrary to human nature, it's the lesser evil to destroy the state.

- Iraq supresses it's civilian by using Stalinist/Maoist ways.
- Saddam is being glorified and no freedom of speech is allowed.
- Anti-Iraque sentiments are being punushed by death.
- Woman rights is not a word found in their dictionary.
- They (prolly) don't have a dictionary :P
- no respect for anything non-islamic

freedom to express yourself = personal advancement
fundamentalisme/stalinisme/maoisme = no freedom = lack of progress personal and national


Personal advancement/progress = Human nature!!!

Iraque = surpressing human nature.

[Guest]

Some quick facts for our history-challenged friends:

1. The high rate of surrender seen by Coalition forces is due primarily to the fact that the vast majority of Iraqi forces they met were not regular army units, but rather freshly gang-pressed conscripts including foriegn nationals and other "undesirables" who were thirsty and starving. Images of desperately fleeing Iraqi soldiers being machinegunned by gunship helicopters are of these unfortunates.

2. The regular Iraqi army escaped almost completely intact, having recieved the general order to retreat the moment the Coalition launched the land war.

3. In Somolia, Delta Force and the Army Rangers suffered over 80 casualties from out of a total of 120 men in a single day.

4. The vast majority of Somolian dead were unarmed persons, mostly machinegunned en-masse.

[Field Marshal]

Of course we "eradicated" them. What we did in Iraq could be considered genocide to some. Those depleted uranium shells that we used have not only caused thousands of Iraqis to die of it's poison and radiation, but even our own american soldiers.

How can someone actually believe that this war is for democracy? And even if it was, do you know what the price of democracy is? 4,500 people in Afghanistan died to have their "democracy." How many people will die in semi-urbanized Iraq? Baghdad has 5 million people living in it. That's where our bombs are aimed. How many people must die for democracy? It's bullshit.

How can people not understand a new age imperialism led by the United States, hiding under the guise of more freedom and liberty?

We are going to kill Iraqis and Americans, just because we want a little oil, just because Saddamn's business partnership with America has expired. How many people must die....

You were right Capitalist, when you said "through the people." 'Through the people' is the best phrase I have heard in a long time. I wish you could see what happens when a bullet goes through an Iraqi child or through an American soldier. Then you'll know what "through the people" truely means.

Peace be with you all, and I hope none of us will have to fight for a government that is only good for telling us who to fight, and not fighting it themselves.

[reagan lives]

I don't know where our Guest get's his numbers, but 11 Americans died in Mogadishu that day. Probably from the same place he got "fact" number four. Perhaps the guest would be so good as to provide the history challenged among us with a source for his info.

[peaccenicked]

Field Marshal is correct. I did not think this post would
produce quite so much blindness from the militaristic cappies who pretend this is a "human" war about democracy and human rights. That is blatant stupidity that most of the world scoffs at. What these 'patriots' do also is have no concern for the loss of American life which is the pro American aspect of the article.
I have come to the conclusion they are half wits or less.

(Edited by peaccenicked at 11:44 am on Oct. 2, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Guest on 2:30 am on Oct. 2, 2002
Some quick facts for our history-challenged friends:

1. The high rate of surrender seen by Coalition forces is due primarily to the fact that the vast majority of Iraqi forces they met were not regular army units, but rather freshly gang-pressed conscripts including foriegn nationals and other "undesirables" who were thirsty and starving. Images of desperately fleeing Iraqi soldiers being machinegunned by gunship helicopters are of these unfortunates.

2. The regular Iraqi army escaped almost completely intact, having recieved the general order to retreat the moment the Coalition launched the land war.

3. In Somolia, Delta Force and the Army Rangers suffered over 80 casualties from out of a total of 120 men in a single day.

4. The vast majority of Somolian dead were unarmed persons, mostly machinegunned en-masse.


This guy is so way off that it is not even worth addressing his points.

Most of the Iraqi Army escaped intact? Hardly. This is just complete bullshit.

The republican guard was shredded in the desert just like the conscripts, and we cut of retreating iraqi hardware at the choke-point now deemed "the road to hell" od something. This is well documented.

As for somalia, US forces were on a peacekeeping mission, not an offensive, and then were turned on after they were in the city. Even under these conditions of surprise, and being outnumbered, they managed a 100:1 casualty ratio and most got out alive.


And as reaganlives pointed out, 80 of 120 did not die. I invite anyone to check this themselves.

Perhaps we should re-assess who is histoy-challenged.

Guest, get your facts straight befor you post.

[James]

Yeah, we must have, because if you deny that desert storm was a complete victory for the United States,

Everyone notice this? America also won WW1, WW2 and the cold war.

then you must be reading an Iraqi revisionist history book. We defeated the 4th largest standing army on earth, an army that was 4 x the size of our deployed force, and destroyed 90+ % of saddams military and infrastructure, and we liberated kuwait.

Yes, and why didn't we get rid of him? I know american attitudes have suddenly changed after they got a taste of their own medicine... but come on! Why leave him there?

Those were the objectives, and we achieved them 100% (eradicating saddam was never an objective in 1991).

But you said that you'll eradicate him, again. Implying that you did so before...


moot, generalized, stereotypical, and not worth responding too.
Is how i'd describe you on a good day. Notcie i think most of your posts are total crap, but i'll still argue HOW and WHY its total crap.

[Guest]

Somalia is a tough situation to call, I believe actually stats for fighting between sunday 10/3 and monday 10/4 are:

America KIA:18
American Casulities: 79
Somalia Militia is speculated 500-1000
Total Somalian Casualities 1000-10000

Really bad about the Civilian casualities but Somalians are stupid. Instead of running FROM gunfire they ran towards it. The Americans were in a dilly of a pickle and I think they fought well considering the conditions.

As it stands right now America is training the 101st Airborne for Urban Combat. In American practice skirmishes the casulity rate is 25%, BUT that is against other American personnal so it could be different depending on Iraqi discipline or if we fight urban combat at all.

[Goldfinger]

Quote: from Guest on 6:02 pm on Oct. 2, 2002
Somalians are stupid.

Oh yeah, long live cAPITALI$m!

[Capitalist]

War is war!

Innocent people will die.

The Allies bombed Nazi Occupied France during World War 2. Innocent French People were killed by the Allies and their bombs.

But I can assure you 100% - that France is better off Today.

Yes I agree innocent people will die if the USA attacks.

But the entire population will die and continue to live in slavery without our attack on tyranny. I can assure you that like France before, these people will welcome our bombs on their tyrant.

And Today our bombs are way more accurate than they were in 1943!

The Afgahnistan Population has overwhelmingly supported the USA on their attack against the Taliban.

We are the USA, Not the Soviet Union. People of the world welcome our intervention, because they know it will bring freedom.

[James]

Anyone else think hes a moron?

[Guest]

Quote: from James on 11:00 pm on Oct. 2, 2002
Anyone else think hes a moron?

No, I think he is a beacon of lucidity in this sea of ignorance and nihlism for the sake of nihlism that is che-lives.

[Guest]

Quote: from James on 11:00 pm on Oct. 2, 2002
Anyone else think hes a moron?


what is it that he said, james, that does not make sense?

[James]

I just loved the way he did his duty, i could imagine the flag going up the poll, the trumpets sounding, and then, the salute! God bless america!

I juts think its a bit ironic to be so pretentious, take a look back in time, how and why are most of these countries in such a state? Iraq is a prime example.

And why do you think che-lives is nihlst?

[Anarcho]

Che-Lives is nihilistic because many of the children on here are violently opposed to the US, no matter what the cause. Many here are advocates of violent struggle, when it has been proven that in most cases violent struggle fails.

The Iraqi military does not stand a chance against the US. If Iraq deploys B-C agents in defense, it will only slow the US Army et al long enough to decon and suit up.

What always amuses me is the people that are against the Invasion purely because it's the US doing it. Have a reason, people, otherwise you look like a 4 yo blabbing nonsense.

[James]

i wouldn't say that che-lives was nihlist, i wouldn't say it was at all that extreme.

[Cassius Clay]

The reason for opposing this war is simple. Oil. It is not about Weapons of mass destruction of liberating the people of Iraq but simply America's economic interest.

Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. First of all there is no concrete evidence that they do, and second of all Saddam is a Tyrant and therefor wishes to remain in power at all costs. Attacking anyone will be a quick way to get his palaces blown up.

The UN resolutions. Well Isreal has been in violation of plenty more UN resolutions than Iraq. And just like Saddam Sharon has engaged in genocide of various ethnic minorities. Are you going to attack Isreal?

Liberating the Iraqi people. While Saddam is a tyrant and most Iraqi's would happily slit his throat if they could who precisly will America replace him with? It certainly can't be the Iranian style revolutionaries for they are no better than Sadamm and more importantly will turn on U$ within a month. A bunch of Leftists? I think not. It will most likely be one of his own Generals or those corrupt people who would kill eachother as quickly as Saddam from the INC.

Why is the threat suddenly so great now? Containment has worked for 12 years and there is NO evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. On the contray Saddam has spent his entire carrerr fighting Fundamentalists who threaten his power base even since he became public enemy number 1.

The reason for this war is America's internal and international politics. The internal politics are all to do with distracting the center left from the growing economic problems and to distract the right away from the fact that Bin Landen is no where to be seen. The International stuff is all to do with seuring America's oil supply for the next few years.

The U$ government knows that the Saudi's on the verge of revolt and that even some of the princes are deeply U$. Hell 15 of the highjackers were Saudi's.

Lastly when is this all going to end? With Iraq, I doubt it. You will probably strike at Iran or North Korea (WTF have they got to do with anything?). It begins with the bad media with documantiries telling people what a horrible place the country chosen is. This carries on for about 6 months until people can tell you every atrocity and human right abuse this country has committed (and in Iran they would be right). And of course those evil Commies or Religious nuts are trying to seek Nuclear weapons. Then suddenly this country is a threat to the U$, infact not only a threat to U$ but the world. We must strike NOW before they become a threat, and if the people have doubts you can allways point to the great big hole where the WTC once stood. And last of all this country has infact been responsible for acts of terriorism in the past, dropping mild hints towards 9/11.

In response this country arms it self up to the teeth, it will fight (and inevitably lose) and as a last resort decide that's it's going to take down as much of those Capatalists or Invidels as possible and fire of it's few WMD's in a futile attempt at resistance at the awesome might U$ military power.

The citizens back home and everywhere see the images os U$ soldiers with faces burnt and civilians dying of radiation and the President declares 'Thank god we acted when we did, you see what are enemies are capable of. Without no regard for human life or the laws of the ''civilised'' world. America has acted in the worlds interest and will NOT hesistate to do so again when it's interests and freedoms are threatened.''

[andresG]

"War is war!

Innocent people will die.

The Allies bombed Nazi Occupied France during World War 2. Innocent French People were killed by the Allies and their bombs.

But I can assure you 100% - that France is better off Today.

Yes I agree innocent people will die if the USA attacks.

But the entire population will die and continue to live in slavery without our attack on tyranny. I can assure you that like France before, these people will welcome our bombs on their tyrant.

And Today our bombs are way more accurate than they were in 1943!

The Afgahnistan Population has overwhelmingly supported the USA on their attack against the Taliban.

We are the USA, Not the Soviet Union. People of the world welcome our intervention, because they know it will bring freedom."
-Capitalist

I see that you think civilian life is nothing to worry about.

So according to you I would be able to say:
Oh September 11th was nothing! Civilians die all the time!


Think before you write.
Your thoughts are the same ones used by the terrorists who attacked the Twin Towers and Pentagon.

War is war, innocent civilians die and it is justified.
As long as it is not American civilians who die, right?









(Edited by andresG at 4:57 pm on Oct. 5, 2002)

[FERRET]

err id just like to say fuck yee all, america put sadamm into power provided him with weapons,mony and political support.
then the short sighted fucks suddenly get all surprised
and shitty wen the whole fuckin thing blows up in der faces!!!!!
then they have the cheek like dat fucker up der to claimm "100% victory"NOTwen they remove the guy from power,but wen they "defeat" the world 4th largest army and drive him out of some fuckin pissy small country. (they conviently forget to mention wen they use the term "liberate kuate" that is them who put kuate into danger in the first place!!!)and in doing this they felt the need to bomb a brittish army camp!!!!
sadem didnt fight, if he had ud know about it!!!
what about all those big fuckin chemical weopons he has. y didnt you encounter them?????
becase ye diddnt defeat his army.... you scared it off.
did u tack bagdad ...no.did ye oust him from power....no.
all ye did was do a bad job of correcting one small piece off a problem that ye created IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

[Brian]

>>>>>becase ye diddnt defeat his army.... you scared it off.

Ever heard of Highway-1, along the Mutla Ridge?

An armed Iraqi force attempting a withdrawl, however disorganized, was attacked by American F-16's and British Tornado's.After the air strike, Highway-1 wasn't a pretty site.

(Edited by Brian at 3:13 pm on Oct. 5, 2002)

[peaccenicked]

Brians piece of sour grapes is not half as good as Ferret's argument. What is the world's only superpower
best at? OVERKILL

[Anonymous]

Overkills' better than underkill.

[peaccenicked]

Not when you miss your real targets completely.
Where are Bin laden and Omar now.

.................And not when overkill includes over 3,000 innocent civilians including 100's of children

[Brian]

Things destroyed during the Desert Storm:

3/4 of the Iraqi Army destroyed.

Iraqi Networks and Iraqi AAA and SAM sites destroyed.

Iraqi radar and bunders destroyed.

Iraqi 3/4 of the Republican Guard destroyed.

Iraqi air bases destroyed.