It's official... the war is starting in mid-February

Snowball

Originally posted by @rchives
...saying US-led operations would be launched once an attacking force had been assembled in the Gulf.

They aleady have over 300,000 men there. How many are enough? 1/2 million? 1 million? where does this end? Korea? China? Cuba? Ireland (IRA)? Spain (ETA)?

Victor

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
You've also got to remember that Sadaam hasn't got new equipment to replace what was destroyed in the Gulf War, unless it was smuggled, even if it was it would be low grade stuff.

Actually they can produce the low grade stuff themselves, mostly small arms and artillery. They have the ability to maintain aircraft and tanks, but there is an obvious deficiency in spare parts. Most allegations of smuggling revolve around very modern radars from Serbia and the Ukraine.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
The bio/chem threat is almost non-existant imho, Sadaam has no effective delivery systems and despite UN efforts there have been no weapons found!

I would consider it low rather than non-existent. Every semi-industrialised has the ability to engage in some chemical warfare, all you need is a plant that produces something as simple as chlorine (which Iraq can) or a similar chemical. And empty chemical shells were found last week.

Originally posted by Snowball
They aleady have over 300,000 men there. How many are enough? 1/2 million? 1 million?

Actually the current figure is closer to 100,000 (all services, throughout the gulf region) with a further 50,000 being sent, so I don't know where you get 300,000 men, but then you were never good at figures, were you?

Originally posted by Snowball
How many are enough? 1/2 million? 1 million?

The expectation is the Americans will wait until they have 150,000 to 250,000, although numbers of men are not the sole criteria. During the Gulf war they had more than 500,000 plus the contributions from other countries.

Originally posted by Snowball
where does this end?

It doesn't. The world will continue in a state of flux, as it always has. Countries can only deal with current issues, they don't have magic balls where they can foresee and pre-empt every issue. If everything was perfect, things couldn't be improved.

Snowball

Originally posted by Victor
Actually the current figure is closer to 100,000 (all services, throughout the gulf region) with a further 50,000 being sent, so I don't know where you get 300,000 men, but then you were never good at figures, were you? The expectation is the Americans will wait until they have 150,000 to 250,000, although numbers of men are not the sole criteria. During the Gulf war they had more than 500,000 plus the contributions from other countries.

Acording to Sky News the figure (Between all none Iraq forces) is just under 300,000 and will only get bigger.

Victor

Originally posted by Snowball
Acording to Sky News the figure (Between all none Iraq forces) is just under 300,000 and will only get bigger.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-12231216,00.html

It is however, dwarfed by the US commitment to the region: some 200,000 and rising.

Can you stop telling mis-truths (but whats new there)? They say committment - not in the Gulf region, not travelling there, they say "committment".

Raskolnikov - actually i agree with you on the whole destruction of the Iraqi army, in a short period of time. However i wasn't talking about that. America plans to occupy Iraq for a period of time lasting longer than 6 months. Its during the occupation that i see america having problems. Russia had very little problems with taking over Afghanistan, they just had problems with the constant attacks thereafter. Same with Vietnam. America took over the cities, but had roblems with the hit & run attacks the Viet Cong used prior to their large offensives. I foresee a similiar situation developing here, with arab suicide bombers, hit & run attacks, and general gurellia attacks. Its during this time that america will see large numbers of their personnel coming home in body bags. Its one thing to take a country, its another thing to hold it.

TrevorOcon

I wish you were right on this Klaz:
>The war will be short, lasting about one month," the source said
typical. Thats somewhat like the german army before attacking russia. This is going to turn into another Vietnam for America, especially since they're occupying the area for at least 8 months after the invasion.<

The 'US' didn't do this. The people of the US are far less convinced of the 'logic' or need for this Invasion of theirs than they were of the Vietnam War - . The Rich running the US gov are Dictating this War.

But Times have changed vastly since the 70's . According to Harper's and other magazines, some of the new weapons in the US arsenal: Actual lasers that can burn or destroy over a quarter mile, Sound focusers that can bring buildings down or destroy the personal inside - either one. And of course the hundred feet earth burrowing bombs and land missles used in the last war. The unmanned flying destruction drones. And the Depleted Uranium ammunition that 8000 US troops from the Gulf war have now complained of suffering from.

There is Zero chance for any effective Iraqi resistence - But the Bush government WELCOMES such resistance as a greater opportunity to try out new and sophisticated long-range weapons of destruction.

The boys coming back in body bags will be the ones the US killed by friendly fire mistakes and those who get too much Depleted Uranium poisoning .

This just another phase of the Rich who run the US showing that they arethe biggest monsters in the Valley.

I don't see any way not to be controlled by their power.

---There is Zero chance for any effective Iraqi resistence---

again i disagree. Their army will be destroyed quickly, however the american people have a horror of taking out civilian areas. The Iraqi forces can use that to their advantage. We've seen over the last 50 years how guriella warfare can be effective against a superior military force. They won't win, but they will do serious damage to the american forces in the area. Look at the Palestinian Suicide Bombers. They walk into and area and blow themselves up, murdering all in their path. (troops are fair game, but they'll take out civilians also). Sniping of any officer of rank. make it a war of attrition. Petrol bombs taking out patrols. Using children, to plant explosives in army camps. These are some of the ways that an Arab Country can continue their resistence.

Victor

Originally posted by TrevorOcon
According to Harper's and other magazines, some of the new weapons in the US arsenal: .... Sound focusers that can bring buildings down or destroy the personal inside - either one.

Can we have a link for this?

TrevorOcon

Yes I can give you the immediate 'Link' for that - however it IS a hardcopy Link and not an Internet URL link - unless you want pay for 'full Content' on the Harper's Magazine Website.

Here's the LINK> on page 17 of the Feb 2003 "Harper's Magazine" Under the title (you have to love Harper titles) "When Just Killing - Wont Do" From "Non-Lethal Weapons: Terms and References" Published by the United States Air Force Institute for National Security Studies. Pick up the Issue - It is bar non the finest magazine for factual intellectual input in the States.

But as the Weapons and Klaz's faith in US propaganda - you would think the Gulf War and the Afghanistan Invasion would have been enough to show ANYbody what must immediately and inevitably happen. First the US was using the 50ft Earthboring Smart Bombs to take out underground control bunkers in the Gulf War for Saint's Sake!! Second the reason that Afghanistan Invasion took a couple of weeks longer than expected is because -the Taliban had no Large Modern Army for the US to Focus it's mass extermination weapons on- . A large more modern army is EXACTLY what Bush wants the US to be able to try out it's new weapons on.

So Klaz's idea that since Iraq has a larger better organized army that will give the US more trouble - is precisely wrong. The US had a little trouble with the Taliban because they dispersed, melted away and their was nothing definite that couild be destroyed all at once.

I really have to believe that Klaz is a Yank for him to be buying that US media stuff that Quoting Klaz :>" however the american people have a horror of taking out civilian areas." <

Oh Yes. Right on. A horror of taking out civilian areas:: Like in Vietnam where village after village was destroyed 'in order to save it' in the hundreds. Like in Afghanistan where whole sections of cities that Taliban were hold up in were shelled. Like when Reagan sent in Jets to bomb an urban area around Tripoli Lybia to try to take out Khadafi. The jet bombs got a lot of civilians and Khadafi's daughter but they didn't get Khadafi.

It AMAZING how people buy US media stuff whole cloth! Does the US's recent Phillipine skirmish ring a bell - where native as well as rebels were taken out ? And what was the US doing in the Phillipines anyway? You didn't hear about the Mayor of Philadelphia 14 years ago that Bombed a building with a helicopter to take out a dissident group called MOVE ? You didn't hear about how the US tanks destroyed an entire radical religious group men women and children in Waco Texas? Worried about civilian centers?!?!! Educate yourself Klaz; if the US goes into Iran a Quarter Million 250,000 Iranians will die. Sure most of them will be soldiers - but many will not. The gullibility of people bamboozled by the US media boggles the mind.

And why is the -US- doing this Iraq War? Iraq had nothing at all to do with the World Trade Center bombing. So what is Iraq guilty of that Korea China Bolivia Colombia and several African dictator ships aren't guilty of? Nuclear Weapons? And Who is it that decided that Only the US was entitled to have Nuclear Weapons? China invaded Tibet and Annexed and killed many people While Having Nuclear Weapons - did the US go in and try to disarm China ? Some of you on here are absolutely DRUGGED with US Propaganda.

TrevorOcon

>http://asia.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/12/sproject.irq.troops/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed deployment orders Friday to send more U.S. troops to the Persian Gulf.
The deployment of 62,000 more U.S. troops will nearly double the size of the force in the region.<


So if sending 62,000 more troops will DOUBLE what is already there - then we are talking about 120,000 troops by the early weeks in February. And the US has never let their initial number of troops not be followed with more

So here in Jan. we ALREADY have 120,000 Directed to the Iraq front.

200,000 by the end February would be only 80,000 more.

200,000 troops focussed directly on Iraq by the end of February looks about right to me.


>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/12/181237.shtml
U.S. Iraq Force to Number 150 Thousand
NewsMax Staff
Monday, Jan. 13, 2003
The main U.S. battle force that is assembling in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia and perhaps Turkey to confront Saddam Hussein will by late February number 150,000 troops, according to a report in the New York Times. <

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by TrevorOcon
You didn't hear about how the US tanks destroyed an entire radical religious group men women and children in Waco Texas?

A : They didn't have tanks

B : Everybody's heard of Wako, if not through serious media then at least throgh the South Park spoof.

TrevorOcon

Even if Saadam goes completely sissy-bananas and offers to kiss Bush's ass in the main Bagdhad mosque - does anyone here think that with the expenditure of sending almost a quarter Million troops to the Gulf area that Bush just to save face and not be called a jump-the-gun spendthrift idiot - won't start a massive killing of Iraqis??

He want's very badly to have a big place in war history and to make more of a world commotion than his daddy did. Many will die early and terribly to satisfy that vanity and egotism.


But it may ALL have something to do with this Living Planet in a humanly subconscious way - Purging its Surface of Excess human numbers. The Great wars in this century have occured at times when human population reached Significantly record numbers. The Planet shrugs millions of beings off its shoulders in periodic wars. Bush may just be an Instrument of unseen Planetary reaction.

TrevorOcon

Barry - Victor makes a very good point - when he asks people to get their FACTS STRAIGHT. I guess as moderator he has read many half-truths per day.

Barry - you said that their were no TANKS at Waco : Please observe the below post from Google. ALL you have to do is go to Google you know - so why try to BS us ?

Waco: A New Revelation, Reviewed by Gavin Phillips [Free Republic ...
... type of operational or tactical effort against the Branch Davidians.”. March Bell,
Director of Waco Congress Investigation ... team from inside the tanks...Or were ...
Description: Raises questions about a documentary film and suggests violation of human rights in the Waco incident.
Category: Regional > North America > ... > Human Rights and Liberties
www.freerepublic.com/forum/a388175d5194e.htm - 48k - Cached - Similar pages

Branch Davidians, Waco, and the FBI - John Danforth's Final ...
... A fire then broke out, and 76 Davidians, including 27 ... which is now referred to simply
as Waco—has become ... blame for the carnage on the Branch Davidian leader ...
www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b10a03.html - 36k - Cached - Similar pages

BRANCH DAVIDIANS (STUDENTS OF THE SEVEN SEALS)
... concluded that the children of the Branch Davidians were being ... Were Army personnel
present at Waco? ... are claims of helicopter gun ships and tanks equipped with ...
www.religioustolerance.org/dc_branc2.htm - 40k - Cached - Similar pages

Waco: The Rules of Engagement - San Francisco Chronicle Review
... from the congressional hearings on Waco, parts of ... the FBI's negotiations with the
Branch Davidians; home video ... FBI agents clowning around on tanks; home videos ...
www.waco93.com/sfchreview.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Waco: The Rules of Engagement - On HBO
... appear to be coming from the tanks moments before a ... the fire was started deliberately
by the Branch Davidians. WACO: THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT suggests this may ...
www.waco93.com/hbo.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.waco93.com ]

mike65

Originally posted by TrevorOcon
Even if Saadam offers to kiss Bush's ass in the main Bagdhad mosque - does anyone here think that Bush just to save face and not be called a jump-the-gun spendthrift idiot - won't start a massive killing of Iraqis??

er no, Bush may be a Texan oil hick but he' isnt actually a mad nutter as you seem to be suggesting.

"Hey Dick, why dont we kill thousands of Iraqis just for the fun of it, hell no-one will mind much, not if the oils safe..." I dont see myself.

A little less hysteria would'nt go amiss from some here.

Mike.

Snowball

Originally posted by mike65
er no, Bush may be a Texan oil hick but he' isnt actually a mad nutter as you seem to be suggesting.

"Hey Dick, why dont we kill thousands of Iraqis just for the fun of it, hell no-one will mind much, not if the oils safe..." I dont see myself.

A little less hysteria would'nt go amiss from some here.

Mike.

I would not be so sure. The guy is a bit ****ed up.
Also I would not be suprised if some ppl high up in the US intelegence (including Bushes daddy) knew about the 911 strikes and let it happen because they could then go and invade Iraq and get the oil. Or even more extream (and I do admit extream) but also would not shock me that if the Bushes made a deal with their old family freind Bin Laden so that he attacks and they get to attack Iraq and get the oil. Bin Laden's deal is that he gets to live in a CIA safe house some were in the world and lives happily ever after. Ether or some other scrwed up thing would not suprise me at all.

TrevorOcon --- But as the Weapons and Klaz's faith in US propaganda --- So Klaz's idea that since Iraq has a larger better organized army that will give the US more trouble - is precisely wrong.----


I thought i'd explained myself in regards to this well enough. Guess Not. I don't think the Iraq army will last more than a few days I do however think that american forces will be faced with resistence from the iraqi people, retired officers, and soldiers. Its one thing to take out an armoured column in the open, its quite another thing to find one man who snipes from a crowd.


--Like in Vietnam where village after village was destroyed 'in order to save it' in the hundreds. Like in Afghanistan where whole sections of cities that Taliban were hold up in were shelled. Like when Reagan sent in Jets to bomb an urban area around Tripoli Lybia to try to take out Khadafi.--

Vietnam was the clincher. This is when the american people woke up and realised what army was doing in another country. They saw the killing on TV, and heard first hand from the returning troops what happened. Since then the armerican people have a horror of dooing the same. Actually they do. -- When Reagan, went against Khadafi, it wasn't a war, so he wasn't under the watch of the people. If Bush hits civilian areas, where huge civilian casulties occur, do u really think the american people or europe would let him away with it?

---- And what was the US doing in the Phillipines anyway?---
You might as well ask, what is america doing in Germany, or Japan. What were they doing in Europe in 1943, or in Korea, or Vietnam, or in the gulf war. America has tried tried for decades to make itself into the sheriff for the world. Of course it sticks its nose where its not wanted.

TrevorOcon, I've never been a big fan of america. I don't really like the people, nor its history. Hell, I can almost lump it in with my feelings for Britain. But i find it strange, that you can look at two posts (from which i said 1. that the americans would receive alot of body bags & 2. the american people had a horror of hitting civilians.) and get that i'm under the US thumb. Strange. Regardless, I have a feeling that you're so convinced your ideas, that America must be full of evil folk, just waiting to plant daisy-cutters in a field full of people. You don't seem to leave an element of doubt that you might be wrong in your convictions.

You see, i think, i could be wrong. The american forces might have no problem holding a country form upwards of 6-8 months. It'll be interesting to see if they manage it without too many casulties....

Victor

Originally posted by Snowball
They aleady have over 300,000 men there. How many are enough? 1/2 million? 1 million? where does this end? Korea? China? Cuba? Ireland (IRA)? Spain (ETA)?

O_o! Look at this article it say "The number of US troops assembling in the Gulf region has now surpassed 60,000, although authorities will not confirm the exact number. " (30 January 2003 )

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,885463,00.html

Hobbes

What I don't get is how everyone seems to think it will be all cut and dried when the US finally takes Baghdad.

For starters, you have the Iraqis who are loyal to Saddam. Depending on who they fear the most depends on if they will be fighting and where.

You have people in Baghdad who are probably more loyal to Saddam then in other areas, so Urban warfare will probably happen, especially if they believe the press that the Kurds may or may not be taking over (although Turkey said they would only help the US if they left the Kurds were they were).

In Urban test fighting a few months ago the US army had over a 50% mortality rate.

Then as mentioned you have the other players in Iraq who will see it as a chance to grab land, heck even Israel said they would take a chunk at one stage.

You can bet your ass that if Saddam knows he's getting removed, then all bets will be off. You can forget about straight combat my guess is he would attack back in covert (ie. Terrorism) ways. It's unlikely US is going to turn Iraq into glass if he does pull some crap but you can bet it's not going to make matters better.

Then your going to have the resentment of what will basically look like the US invading another country, which will cause the increase of terrorism domestic and abroad (But Bush will probably use that excuse to go into Iran, as the pipeline has to go somewhere from Afganistan).

Plus if the US goes without UN approval (or worse, it's veto'ed in the UN but they go ahead) it will basically be "all bets are off" for a lot of countries who will see US example to attack other countries, not to mention the so called "Axis of Evil" states will probably start arming up.

So no, it won't be a happy ending when the US tanks roll into Baghdad to "Liberate" the masses.

Btw, anyone paying attention to Afganistan? Apart from US troops still being shot at, the US installing a government that has human rights issues that make the Taleban look like sunday schoolers, it appears to be reverting back to it's old ways. Just recently they have banned women from going to school.

Based on that what makes the US think that it's going to be a short and sweet war?

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Btw, anyone paying attention to Afganistan? Apart from US troops still being shot at, the US installing a government that has human rights issues that make the Taleban look like sunday schoolers, it appears to be reverting back to it's old ways. Just recently they have banned women from going to school.

But at least they're making great strides in destroying the opium crops again.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by bonkey
But at least they're making great strides in destroying the opium crops again.

jc

Hard to tell when your being sarcastic or not

From what I gather the Opium crop late last year was the pratically a record harvest even in comparision to the 90's.

At least one province has said that if the West isn't going to hand over the $4 billion it promised and aren't allowed grow poppies then terrorism will return.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Hobbes

You can bet your ass that if Saddam knows he's getting removed, then all bets will be off.

I wonder will they even catch Saddam? The US don't seem to be sure of his exact location at any one time. Doubtless there'd be members of his staff willing to dob him in for a nice bounty but there'd be others who'd be very loyal.

Originally posted by Snowball
I would not be so sure. The guy is a bit ****ed up.
Also I would not be suprised if some ppl high up in the US intelegence (including Bushes daddy) knew about the 911 strikes and let it happen because they could then go and invade Iraq and get the oil. Or even more extream (and I do admit extream) but also would not shock me that if the Bushes made a deal with their old family freind Bin Laden so that he attacks and they get to attack Iraq and get the oil. Bin Laden's deal is that he gets to live in a CIA safe house some were in the world and lives happily ever after. Ether or some other scrwed up thing would not suprise me at all.

I hope you don't mind me asking, but why do you post such disgracefull rubbish???
mm

Hobbes

Originally posted by Man
I hope you don't mind me asking, but why do you post such disgracefull rubbish???
mm

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/

People in the US government were well aware an attack was coming. They were even taking people off planes the day before and searching the planes. Just the general feeling was they were expecting hi-jackings.

Of course Bush has nice spin on it, (sic) "If I knew they were going to crash the planes into the towers I would of done everything to stop it". I forget the TV interview in question but his wording was like that and it was in relation to proof being found that the government were warned well in advance.

pickarooney

If the weapons inspectors do find some Weapons of Mass Destruction(TM), does Iraq get to keep them and use them in the ensuing war? Seems only fair.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Hard to tell when your being sarcastic or not

Somewhat...but not in the sense you mean.

From what I gather the Opium crop late last year was the pratically a record harvest even in comparision to the 90's.

Yup...but in the last month, the Afghani govt. (presumably backed by the west) has gone on a major offensive against it...destroying something like a total of 23,000 hectares of poppy plantations in various locations.

I dont have linkage on this...it was in an Associated Press (or some such body) snippet on the news service where I'm currently consulting.

jc

Originally posted by Hobbes
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/

People in the US government were well aware an attack was coming. They were even taking people off planes the day before and searching the planes. Just the general feeling was they were expecting hi-jackings.

Of course Bush has nice spin on it, (sic) "If I knew they were going to crash the planes into the towers I would of done everything to stop it". I forget the TV interview in question but his wording was like that and it was in relation to proof being found that the government were warned well in advance.

Thats all very fine if you want to believe the spurious rubbish on that site.
googles great isn't it?
I mean, I just typed in aliens and got the following:
http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/meet.html

Not to mention the more topical:
http://www.rael.org/

My point being, the web, conjures up every mad theory as much as it does real news, but that doesn't mean, that sites are to be believed always, just because, in a free world, you can put almost anything up there.
mm

Hobbes

Originally posted by Man
Thats all very fine if you want to believe the spurious rubbish on that site.

Who said I used Google? That site has a complete timeline before and after compiled from news stories around the world. You did read that part of the site? Or just dismiss it all as rubbish based on the user input given?

Fact: The US government did know an attack was going to happen. If they knew they were going to smack them into the towers is debatable, although I would say they didn't.

Oh I did have a good look at the site, hobbes and dismissed, it all as stupid speculation.

Call me a web skeptic if you like, but untill, I see mainstream reports of this type of speculation , on programmes like, Newsnight or maybe even, any tv Radio news bulletin, I will in my case anyhow give it the attention it deserves-minimal.

P.s I used Alta vista actually, for the links above, I only mentioned Google 'cause it's often quoted here, as the search enging of choice:D

mm

Snowball

Originally posted by Hobbes
Who said I used Google? That site has a complete timeline before and after compiled from news stories around the world. You did read that part of the site? Or just dismiss it all as rubbish based on the user input given?

Fact: The US government did know an attack was going to happen. If they knew they were going to smack them into the towers is debatable, although I would say they didn't.

Thanx man, I have been looking for a site that has it layed out like that and also backs their stuff up.

Originally posted by Man
Oh I did have a good look at the site, hobbes and dismissed, it all as stupid speculation.

Call me a web skeptic if you like, but untill, I see mainstream reports of this type of speculation , on programmes like, Newsnight or maybe even, any tv Radio news bulletin, I will in my case anyhow give it the attention it deserves-minimal.

Not that u care but u have just gone down the respect scale in my eyes. Do u even know how the American and British press (well not so much the british) work? If a newspaper or news channel were to slate the president or his goverment in any big way they would not be let back into any of the press conferances (for one) and they sued (prob, if they could get away with it) and ... they are also owned by the oil companies and they would never alow that anyways. u realy need to open ur eyes a bit

gandalf

Snowball which media organisations are owned by the oil companies. Please back that up with links/references :rolleyes:

Gandalf.