Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Allied Troops Will Be In Baghdad By Tuesday  
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16854 posts, RR: 51
Posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1333 times:

Those interogating US Prisoners and the one's who "reportedly" executed others are going to be hunted down, and dealt with.

"In perhaps the most dramatic advance on the ground, the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade covered roughly 230 miles in 40 hours to take positions about 100 miles from Baghdad — less than a day's march."

http://cbsnews.com


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineS.p.a.s. From Liechtenstein, joined Mar 2001, 966 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1310 times:

Those interrogating US Prisoners and the one's who "reportedly" executed others are going to be hunted down, and dealt with.

Are you suggesting plain and simple revenge? Now that would be a serious violation of the Geneva Treaty...

Why is that the US troops can go inside Baghdad, hunt down an Iraqi soldier and simply "dealt with" .. unless I should understand your statement as "bring the guys to the War Court in Haya"..

And for those who haven't realized it yet, I bet the troops will have a hard time in Baghdad .. it's being to easy until now.. and I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam is just preparing a big trap...

RS





"ad astra per aspera"
User currently offlineEric505 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 592 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1303 times:

Are you suggesting plain and simple revenge? Now that would be a serious violation of the Geneva Treaty...

Oh yeah they're completely innocent.  Yeah sure . If they take arms against the US we have full power to treat them as the enemy and kill them. If they surrender (which I doubt they will) then they should be treated as POW's.



Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life
User currently offlineErj190 From Portugal, joined Dec 2000, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1291 times:

From the tactical point of view, everything is in favor of the US military.

It would be very difficult to think of the possibility of a US defeat.

Yet, I am surprised with what happened at Nazirya. The greatest toll up to now, to US forces, was at Nazirya. There were 5000 (five thousand) US troops, armed with the best money can buy against 500 (five hundred) Iraqis. If this proportion is kept or grows as Baghdad gets closer, I think Rumsfeld MUST call up some more thousand reserve soldiers.


User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1284 times:

Am I wrong here, those images didn't come out of Bagdad did they? I thought that occurred "behind" the American front lines?





ADG


User currently offlineS.p.a.s. From Liechtenstein, joined Mar 2001, 966 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1277 times:

Indeed the coalition forces are in a good tactical situation...But the closer they get to Baghdad, the faster they will get combat with the Republican Guard.. I don't think they will or can defeated, but maybe we have a replay from the battle for Stalingrad..


"ad astra per aspera"
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1274 times:

Are you suggesting plain and simple revenge? Now that would be a serious violation of the Geneva Treaty...

S.p.a.s, don't be so naive. Do you think we're going to let those who executed Americans, lying face-down on the ground, go scot-free? We hunt them down-if we take them alive, great, they'll be charged with War Crimes. If they resist, they'll be killed. Why do you have a problem with that? Or does the execution of these American soldiers somehow please you?

And for those who haven't realized it yet, I bet the troops will have a hard time in Baghdad .. it's being to easy until now.. and I wouldn't be surprised if Saddam is just preparing a big trap...

Sounds like you're gleefully looking forward to such a thing, S.p.a.s. Fighting in Baghdad could be difficult, but keep it in your pants-Saddam won't survive it, much as you seem to hope he does.


User currently offlineLufthansaUSA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 188 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1264 times:

Dont forget, Spas, Sabena 690 has a problem making personal attacks on posters who are smarter than he is. Just ignore him, its the best thing to do...

User currently offlineSabena 690 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1260 times:

Yeah, and you are smart when you support the war in Iraq  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

User currently offlineErj190 From Portugal, joined Dec 2000, 397 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1241 times:

The tactical situation and strategic situation has no possible comparison with Stalingrad

If you look at the map, US forces, along with Britain, will go north on the left bank of the Euphrates and the right bank of the Tigris.

So, Baghdad will be attacked from the east and the west, While Stalingrad was attacked from one side only.
The control of the air is from the US. Iraq lost control of the sky back in 1991.
The US has access to endless supplies, the Iraqi supplies will be limited in time.

Of course there are the bad points.

While the combat goes to a city, you basically have a lot of difficulty in using tanks. Tanks are useless in a city and are easy targets without the proper infantry support.

But if the US uses it's infantry to support it's tanks, then, they will loose much of their capacity to use their overwhelming air superiority. I would suspect that the best anti aircraft missiles Iraq may have will be at Baghdad. This means that they could considerably reduce the US air power.

In the end the result is inevitable.

The BIG problem, is that if things go bad, if Iraqis do not surrender, the only way the US has to reach it's objectives are:

1 - Stop at the gates of Baghdad and wait till the city surrenders by starvation.

2 - The US uses carpet bombing tactics.

In each situation the political image of the United States will be dreadful.

Democratically elected governments that helped the US will not stand.
Middle east governments will be forced to act in some way, even if symbolic against the US.
The US will be in a political mess, from where it will take ages to get out.

In the end the disadvantages to the US will probably top the advantages of going to war in the first place.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Who Will Be In AMS On Friday August 18th? posted Fri Aug 11 2006 15:57:00 by RootsAir
Iraq Advisor Says US Troops Will Be Gone Mid-08 posted Sat Apr 29 2006 00:23:33 by Bushpilot
World Cup 2006: Which Countries Will Be In? posted Fri May 27 2005 16:13:24 by Birdwatching
Israel Will Be In Eurovision 2002 posted Wed Jun 20 2001 09:31:33 by Toda,Reisinger
Who Will Be French President In 2007? posted Thu Mar 9 2006 19:28:49 by RootsAir
New Year In Rio De Janeiro: Who Will Be There? posted Thu Oct 13 2005 16:38:51 by Hardiwv
Satellite Radio Will Be Available In Canada posted Fri Jun 17 2005 00:57:09 by IlikeYYC
Who Will Be Our Next U.S. President In 2009? posted Fri Feb 4 2005 07:01:40 by September11
I Will Be Seeing JCS In A Social Situation On 7/4 posted Sat Jul 3 2004 18:37:14 by Aa61hvy
Spider-Man 3 Will Be Come In May 2007 posted Thu Jul 1 2004 17:16:16 by ScottysAir