current state of the iraqi conflict - Page 4

trilinearmipmap · #31 03-27-2003, 06:13 AM

Oh well not much we can do about it the war is going on whether we like it or not. The best we can hope for is that it will be over quickly and with a minimum of casualties.

Unfortunately I believe this will be a long drawn-out and particularly bloody campaign. The U.S. will get drawn into a battle for the city of Baghdad. Sadaam's forces will use every dirty trick in the book. They will use hospitals, schools, apartment blocks full of people etc. as places for their troops to camp out and attack the enemy from. You can't exactly call in an artillery barrage on a children's hospital so that is exactly where the Iraqi soldiers will be hunkered down. The Americans will have no choice but to clear the Iraqis by bloody street-to-street and house to house fighting. It will be like Stalingrad all over again.

The other part of the equation is the two countries have different tolerances for casualties. The Iraqi regime has no problem sacrificing several hundred thousand troops. The Americans won't tolerate a few thousand casualties. So the Iraqis will have the advantage, hiding behind civilians, engaging in close-quarters combat, and keeping up the fight until the Americans get sick of taking such a severe mauling.

Anyway it is unfortunate that so many young 20-year-old naive troops on both sides will be sacrificed, sent there by their leaders. Perhaps George Bush and Sadaam should have it out between each other, instead of sending the youth of their countries to do it for them.

Wannabe Reefer · #32 03-27-2003, 06:26 AM

You are right urban conflict can be the worst to fight, it is very easy for a small number of enemy soldiers to hunker down in a fortified building while numerous waves of exposed troops advance and are sacrificed to gain the objective.

Who says that 20-year old troops are naive, I am a little insulted by that comment.

Skimmerking · #33 03-27-2003, 01:30 PM

Well there are alot of good points out there to go with

But I'm going with my experince and the times when i was over in BOSNIA getting pot shots taken at.

I'm for the war the reason is you can't expect that the 2 strongest countries in the region is going to let a old rogaine failing freak try to say his country is better.

Yes i feel bad for the little kids and the parents over there. But he has to be stop he has everyone in terror him and his 2 boys its crazy, There army is all told they will join and fight for him ,That;s crap What do you think all of them are surrendering

and i am totally for the open fightign too, Think about it you go to war in urban your
Tanks are no good can't use to their maxinum protential.
Apache's are usless their in city fighting too many pot shots.
Artillery is no good trust me I'm in the ARTILLERY..

And AIR FORCE are use less unless you are bringing in the B-52 to level the town and then bring in the tanks ad the ground troops

But its then brings to having all that rumble for the to hide in half blown up building mass destruction again. So there you have it did i miss somthing

To whom it may concern please dont take this the wrong way it;s just my 2 cents worth.

Well again until you have seen the actual place where the war went thur, like
DIEPPE, NORMANDY, JUNO BEACH, ABBY -DE'ARDENE where 27 canadians soldiers where excuted!!!
How many new about that they where killed by the 12 SS panzer regitment.
GERMANS
MAN its a weird feeling

Alll i have to say is i felt like a piece of crap standing at the very place where my fallen comrades once laid. So to me i would love to go to fight in the War. But we can't due to our informed -P.M- who don't know his head from his feet.

what bothers me is that he can tell us when to go to war,

I think that the army should have their own PM for standing up and pushing out the orders to say YEY OR NEY for the troops to go. I know for a fact there are a few thousand troops would love to go to head out even if it is for support of secruity

well enough said
have to go instruct on a MACHINE GUNN COURSE..

LATER

trilinearmipmap · #34 03-27-2003, 02:18 PM

Wannabe,

Sorry, poor choice of words.

What I meant is the 50-year-olds sit back and make the decisions and the 20-year-olds go out and get themselves killed.

Skimmerking · #35 03-27-2003, 02:59 PM

Sorry Wannabe, a post confusion.

Quinn · #36 03-27-2003, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trilinearmipmap

Teevee,

I am sorry but my views are not racist or discriminatory.

This is not a race issue, it is an issue of a conflict between cultures.

Our western culture values ideas such as individual liberty, fundamental justice, equality, freedom of worship, etc etc etc. The other culture does not value these things at all.

I completely reject a culture which degrades women, suppresses other religions, and where the governing powers rule by fear, torture and repression. And unfortunately these are the cultural values of the entire Arab world, whether we are talking about orthodox Shi'ites in Iran or secular Arabs in Sadaam's regime. The individual nuances may vary but the basic value system is the same.

Our western ideals and freedoms have been built up over many centuries. We can not expect these people to live by our value system which is foreign to them. Their culture is similar to the culture my ancestors lived in 3000 years ago. Their beliefs values and practices are barbaric and that is a fact.

i agree completely. when you said in your first post "arab" rather than "muslim" i assumed you meant arab as in the race, rather than islam, which includes of course the religion and the cultural base it forms. you obviously don't believe that all iraqis are bloodthirsty then do you

however while i agree that all three branches of islam share common beliefs, i don't feel that all muslims take the more extreme ideas to heart. this is like saying that all christians hate gays or that all jews refuse to eat pork. while they are certainly aware of prescriptions or proscriptions stated in their holy books, the belief systems have been modernized for some individuals, while some continue, as is their right, to abide by age-old conventions, regardless of their applicability in 21st century civilization.

troy, resolution 1441 does not specifically authorize the americans to use force in iraq, as bush says it does. i do not consider myself an expert on political affairs by any measure, but having recently written a paper on the aforementioned resolution and participated in a model united nations forum, i heard a speech from a canadian senator and former ambassador emphasizing what the resolution calls for, and what it does not call for. as a legal document, one cannot make any assumptions in dealing with a security council resolution. it is not open to reinterpretation by iraq, america, or any other state or political body. however i understand that france, russia and china, which have permanent veto power in the security council, would have overruled any resolution supported by america to use force against iraq, and therefore i feel bush had no alternative. once again, i support the coalition in iraq, and am ashamed that canada has not chosen to stand by our largest trading partner and key ally.

thanks to everyone for the insight and opinions, and for keeping it tame, other than some minor misunderstandings.

Skimmerking · #37 03-27-2003, 08:11 PM

I 'm thinking the same way on the BUSH campain and the PM in how he can say that Canada will not be exercising troops in the middle east conflicts
I was talking to a friend in the east, he told me that a couple of his mother's friends went across to buy some chicken in CALAIS Maine. the duty guy stop them. and asked where are you going. These being older ladies in there 60's told the officer that they are going to buy chicken. The offier said "WHY don't you have chicken in Canada?.
The ladies told him yes but it's cheaper there. The officer denied them of of buying maybe you should support your own country.....

maybe it's freak of nature that it happened as the wWAR was going on.

I don't know but it makes you wonder on how much our money will drop!!!!!!

Wannabe Reefer · #38 03-27-2003, 08:38 PM

asmodeus
Hey I did not insult you. You do not even know me. I did a three year stint in the reg force, with the Third Battalion PPCLI. And I spent my time in Bosnia as well. So you may be in the military right now but that does not make you any better than anyone else. So what if I left the military, that is no reason for you to try and paint me as being a WOG or a Reservist. I did my fair share of shootin, gettin shot at and jumppin from CC130's. If you want to jump to conclusions without knowing all the facts than that is your right, but I want you to remember that when you make a bad choice and take a round centre of mass. Last I check the ground pounders are alot closer to the action than any Artty guy is when it comes to an actual conflict. If you want to know more about what my history is and where I went and what I did send me a PM. I do not appreciate being slammed on a public forum.
edit: There was a mix up in the reading of posts, peace is returned.
Sorry all sometimes I just need to vent.

Quinn · #39 03-27-2003, 10:51 PM

i'm not a military man and i never will be, but are you guys suggesting 20 year old privates should be in control, rather than fifty year old generals? something tells me they went through the same stuff the young guys are going through? isn't that how bureaucracy works?

trilinearmipmap · #40 03-28-2003, 02:06 AM

No, teevee. I am just saying that historically nations have recruited their youth to send to war, for a lot of reasons. One reason is that they will follow orders better, for better or for worse.