Armchair Generals: Iraq and North Korea.


PDA

George Hill
February 6, 2003, 12:48 PM
We have two major situations on our hands.
First is Iraq. Now, we all know what will go down when it's time to pull the trigger in Iraq. So let's look at the situation from the other side of the coin. From Iraq's perspective:
You know the US is coming. It's just a matter of time. Say, you have about 2 months to prepare. What would you do to ready and counter against the US?
(What we are looking for here is any shred of possible hope for Iraq to come out on top of this one. I know there is not, but let's use our imagination!)

The second senario is much more grim. And its real. North Korea has threatened a First Strike on the US.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,889600,00.html
Let's take a look at that seriously... What NK's capabilities are, what they can hit, what effect that would have on the US as a whole, and what our response would be, with effects on NK. (Don't forget CHINA in this equation)

Show your math.

If you enjoyed reading about "Armchair Generals: Iraq and North Korea." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rickstir
February 6, 2003, 12:55 PM
Iraq.

Generals are probably....
Converting currency into Gold
Staying in touch with Triple A travel
Going to bug out of the country at the first smell of kordite.

North Korea
Tell China to tell the NK's to knock it off.
If first stirke is immenent, obliterate the whole place.
Leave behind nothing. Tell the Chinnese they can have the
place in about a thousand years.

DeltaElite
February 6, 2003, 12:57 PM
Well if they nuke Los Angeles, I won't be too upset. ;)

We need to take Korea out first, they are more of an immediate threat than Iraq, since they claim to have nukes already.

Of course, I don't have any idea what I am talking about, so just ignore me and move on. :D

Col. Mustard
February 6, 2003, 01:10 PM
(What we are looking for here is any shred of possible hope for Iraq to come out on top of this one. I know there is not, but let's use our imagination!)


I'm doubtful that even Saddam Hussein has delusions of victory. What he has are plans for a posthumous place in world history.

As T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) said, "There is no glory in a sure victory, but much might be wrested from a sure defeat."

This guy is willing to go down, but he wants to take as many of us with him as possible. I'd guess Iraq will be filthy with booby-traps, self-destruct devices, and the like. He will scorch his own earth, if he has the chance...

PATH
February 6, 2003, 01:19 PM
Iraq is done in four weeks tops. NK will not strike first. That is a bluster piece in order to garner reaction from the liberal pigs here at home. Total economic boycott is called for.

The Chinese, even with their numbers and weapons, could not stand up to the superior American firepower. Further the economic damage to China would be immense. China will have to keep the NK's in line or we will regardless.

M1911
February 6, 2003, 01:36 PM
On Iraq, I'm basically with Rickster. If I was an Iraqi general, I'd have long since moved as much money as possible into offshore bank accounts. Then moved it around a bunch of times to try to make it harder to find. Passports in various names from various countries, and several bugout routes prepared. Residential property in discrete countries already purchased.

Korea is a harder problem. They've got a real military, unlike Iraq, that is likely to fight if commanded to do so. I don't think they'll strike first. If I was them, I'd be working real hard to put together nuke weapons. Rumor is they already have 2 or 3. If I was them, I'd do an underground test to make sure that the US knows they're operational. Then I'd have plans for blowing up one in Seoul, and the other in a major city in CONUS, probably smuggling it in via a container.

We really don't want to go to war in Korea again. The carnage in Seoul would be horrid. And the reaction of the Chinese to a large US invasion of North Korea might not be predictable.

George Hill
February 6, 2003, 01:38 PM
Guys...

First question is "WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO DEFEND IRAQ?"

Looking at the US's military plan... we would have to deny the US of it's Air Superiority. I'd gamble heavily on air defense measures from MANPADS to big AA Missles. Throw out all the fighter jets I had and try to go toe to toe with everything the AA didn't knock down.
Against the US's other strengths... Armor. I'd arm teams with plenty of anti-tank missiles. If we won the air... and the US doesn't have it. Then we could use the air. Arm my planes with AG missils and use them to hit tanks and logistical targets. The US Army's Infantry is tough... but it takes a long time to walk across the desert.

Hmmm... it would all hinge on winning the air. With huge purchases of new fighters, and rigorous training...
Iraq could be a hard nut to crack... but it will crack.

Delmar
February 6, 2003, 01:45 PM
Not so much to worry about with Iraq, as Hussein will stand every Iraqi citizen in front of himself to be killed before he kills himself. I figure Iraq to be under fire in less than 25 days.
PDRNK is going to be different.
The communist Chinese are not going to do much with the Koreans, because they like it when we are worried about something.
I doubt a major land attack to ROK will happen, but I would be keeping a very wary eye out for any unprotected US personnel or equipment. The USS Pueblo snatch happened out of the blue. The North Koreans are a lot like playing chess with a beginner-you just don't know what they are going to trot out, but you can bet there will be no warning. Also understand the North does have ballistic missiles-can't reach the US with them, but they can certainly reach Japan. Don't know their accuracy, but if we are sending naval task forces into the area, they should be considered potential targets.

Scott Evans
February 6, 2003, 01:46 PM
Without the possibility of controlling the skies there can be no chance of victory for Iraq.

If I were Sadam I would surrender the country and my office of authority with provisions of a 1 billion dollar pay off and complete and total international immunity for myself and my family. I would then leave Iraq and live out the rest of my life touring the luxury spots of the world aboard my 300’ super yacht.

If that did not work I would immediately declare war on France and upon their surrender would assume control of that country and move my seat of power.

Viva la Fraq!
:D

George Hill
February 6, 2003, 01:51 PM
SCOTT - THAT WAS HILARIOUS!:D :D :D

Delmar
February 6, 2003, 01:53 PM
I think the only chance for Saddam is for booby trapping the cities and let the US have the sandbox. He could turn it into a war of attrition by using civilians as human shields-no, not the birdbrains who went over there, but children and anything else which would fan the flames of public opinion against the war.
Saddam has no air force, unless Iran is willing to rent their planes back to Iraq.
Saddam has no infantry-maybe he could get the Samali's to farm out.
Saddam has no navy that I am aware of.

Lone_Gunman
February 6, 2003, 02:44 PM
Saddam cannot go toe to toe with the US military, and unless he is a fool, he knows that.

He will use suicide bombers in the US, and WMD on our military in Iraq.

Hit NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Boston, and St Louis, and see the USA implode in fear and anarchy.

Ol' Badger
February 6, 2003, 03:00 PM
Well if NK can only hit the left coast, its a price I'm willing to pay! :evil: Nothing personal now.

denfoote
February 6, 2003, 03:01 PM
You guys think this is gunna be sooooooo quick and easy!! Well, so was "police action" in a little place known as Korea 51 years ago.

O'l Dugout Doug MacArthur THOUGHT he had it all sown up, exactly when he told Truman he would have it done, and BOOM!!!! Chinese!! Thousands of them!! Apparently, they didn't take kindly to our picking on their "fraternal socialist brother"!! It took a lot of American lives and more time than Doug anticipated!!
Well, enough encapsulated history and to the situation at hand.

Those who cannot remember (or are never taught) history are condemned to repeat it!!!

There is a little and almost never mentioned news report that surfaced some time ago regarding SEVEN MILLION "volunteers" sitting across the border in Iran. (and those are just the ones that the reporter knew about) Just waiting the order from their Imam to "strike at the heart of the Zionist pig".

I use the term "volunteers" for a diliberate reason. Remember those aformentioned Chinese...

In the words of (then actor) Sen. Fred Thompson: Son, this could get ugly real quick and people are going to die!!!

---The Hunt for Red October

Ol' Badger
February 6, 2003, 03:05 PM
Nothing is quick and easy!!! :mad: They'er doug in to deep. But you cant cure the mang in a week either. If they cant beat'em, delete'em!!!:evil:

10-Ring
February 6, 2003, 03:16 PM
I've been pondering this very subject for the last day or so. Who is more dangerous? A guy who has the bomb, or the guy that wants the bomb?
My only response so far has been to trust that both can be dealt with intelligently, efficiently & quickly. Neither situation would be best served it they turned into prolonged military engagements.

denfoote
February 6, 2003, 03:22 PM
If they cant beat'em, delete'em!!!

Bart Mancouso: "Well, what'd he say, Ryan."

Jack Ryan: "He said, Sir, that you look like a cowboy."

Draw yer gun and fire 7M+ times!!

Did you even read about Korea in school??? :rolleyes:

:confused:

Hkmp5sd
February 6, 2003, 03:30 PM
Saddam has two choices. He can be dead, either by his own people or by us. Or he can stock up on his Viagra and go into exile.

He may or may not actually believe he can defeat the US, but his military does not hold that delusion. I don't think they want to commit mass suicide by doing something stupid like using WMD. His civilian population may not know of what happened in Kuwait, but the military that managed to get out of Kuwait alive know exactly what the US can do to ground troops.

Given the choice of what Saddam *may* do if they do not obey him and what the US *will* do if they decide to fight, I really believe they will choose not to fight.

Ol' Badger
February 6, 2003, 03:33 PM
Yea I read something about it somewhere. The Forgotten War Right! Well lets delete'em and start forgetting damn it :mad:

M1911
February 6, 2003, 04:23 PM
I'd gamble heavily on air defense measures from MANPADS to big AA Missles. Throw out all the fighter jets I had and try to go toe to toe with everything the AA didn't knock down.There's no way they can defend Iraq and no way they can deny the US air superiority. We've been enforcing the no fly zone for a decade. They've been trying to shoot down US and British aircraft for all of those 10 years and to date they haven't gotten a single one.

During the Gulf War and now in Afghanistan, attacking coalition aircraft have stayed above 10,000 feet, out of the range of manpads. The laser-guided bombs that we depended upon in the Gulf War required that the aircraft fly below the cloud layer. The new GPS guided bombs can be dropped from an aircraft at 30,000 feet miles away from the target.

Medium and high altitude SAMs are radar guided. The Iraqi air defense guys have long since learned that turning on their radars simply results in their eating a HARM missile. The US will open the war on Iraq with major strikes at Iraqi anti-aircraft command-and-control assets, probably using large numbers of cruise missiles, UAV decoys, and stealth aircraft. So the Iraqis probably won't even have the option of "let's go for broke, turn on all the radars and go toe to toe" because the network will be shattered before they know the war has started.

Iraq has few flyable aircraft and their pilots, who were poorly trained in the Gulf war, have even less flight hours now. Remember that in the Gulf War, when Iraq had many more aircraft than they do now and their pilots had many more flight hours, Iraqi pilots did not have a single victory in the skies -- the few coalition aircraft that were shot down were lost to anti-aircraft fire.

If they even can take off (i.e., if we haven't destroyed their runways), they won't have radar guidance (which was always an integral part of the Soviet doctrine to which they trained), so they will be flying blind against our AWACs guided fighters, who will have better training, better aircraft, and better missiles. In other words, it would be nothing less than suicide and the Iraqi pilots surely know that. They may try to lure us into a flak-trap -- i.e., launch a fighter to approach US aircraft, but before the US aircraft can engage, the Iraqi fighter retreats at high speed, low level, right into a flak trap primed to turn on their radars and launch missiles. That could result in the loss of a few US aircraft, but it is not a way to gain air superiority.

Defending Iraq against the US armed forces is simply suicide. They can't win. The could use biological and chemical weapons to cause large numbers of horrific casualties.
With huge purchases of new fighters, and rigorous training... No one will sell Iraq new fighters and if they did, they'd be awfully hard to smuggle into the country. And there's basically no way they can do rigorous training, due to the no-fly zones.

M1911
February 6, 2003, 04:33 PM
denfoote: I agree that North Korea would be anything but easy.

Iran? No way they will come to the aid of Iraq. Not a chance. They fought the Iraqis for eight years in a vicious war. Thousands of Iranian soldiers lie in hospitals, crippled from chemical weapons attacks. According to one report I read not a day goes by in Tehran without an obit in the paper about a soldier who just died from chemical weapons injuries suffered in the 1980s.

TheeBadOne
February 6, 2003, 04:38 PM
After reading the title of this thread I'll reserve my comments for later, after all a true Monday Morning QB only gives pointers after the **** hits the fan and there is plenty of time for review to see what didn't work, thus giving him the advantage of never having to truely test himself under fire. :neener:
I'll post after the white flag is flown with my brillant solution to the dummies mess ups :D

Waitone
February 6, 2003, 04:47 PM
Sadaam will want to create as many mass casualties as possible. Problem is he will not know where US forces are. Ergo, in theatre casualties will be his own people. He will want the US to get sucked into urban combat which will not occur. I suspect most of the Iraqi army will advance to the rear assist in a coup.

NK is a wild card. I always thought NK was a second front against the US. The reason for advertising their nuclear prowess is to extort aid from the US. They need help. I suspect the reason for demanding aid is the NK military is getting a little grumpy and forcing Maximum Leader to get economic aid. If things go bad the US can militariy counter any move ( didn't say stop it). The B-2 bomber was designed specifically to take out high value targets with a minimum of support. A carrier task force could force the NK's to keep their heads down.

China does have dirty skirts. It is entirely possible they would do something quite stupid also. A subtle message could be delivered when for some unknown reason all 4 of China's brand new subs simply disappeared. They have a shiny new aircraft carrier that could just as easily strike an underwater obstacle and sink.

In any case I fully expect to see a large number of terrorist events in the West in the run up to US action. Sadaam will try to thump Isreal to incite the Arab world. The biggest terrorist threat to Israel is from Hezbollah who has amassed considerable rocket power. I can see Hezbollah attacking Israel. I recently read an article which said Israel has quietly passed word to the Syrians that if Israel is attacked by Hezbollah, Israel will settle the Syria question in a forthright and unambigious manner since Syria is Hezbollah's base of operations against Israel.

Iraq will not the only place where there will be military action. I see a strong possibliity of world wide combat. Hope not, but the makin's are there.

M1911
February 6, 2003, 05:02 PM
I recently read an article which said Israel has quietly passed word to the Syrians that if Israel is attacked by Hezbollah, Israel will settle the Syria question in a forthright and unambigious manner since Syria is Hezbollah's base of operations against Israel.Wouldn't surprise me. IIRC, at the end of the '73 war there was basically nothing between the Israeli tanks and Damascus.

MrAcheson
February 6, 2003, 05:22 PM
Hmmm, is nuking them until they glow and shooting them in the dark an option? :D

Lord Grey Boots
February 6, 2003, 05:49 PM
Lets see:

Iraq
- Will be hit by massive cruise-missile and stealth bomber attacks at say 4:13 AM. Every Command and Control center, Republican Guard depot, "secret" missile site, Presidential palace, communications center, electrical plant, and military fuel depot is destroyed by, say 4:15 AM.

Hopefully Saddam is at one of those spots.

If not, Saddam sends out regular Iraqi army troops, first. A B52 makes one pass, and they surrender. US/Brit/etc troops take 500,000 prisoners.

Republican guard troops retreat to Bagdad and Tikrit. However, they are unable to form a hard defensive line, and all hard defensive positions are destroyed. Aircraft and cruise missiles scrape the top off Bagdad, and Saddam is found propped up in a jeep at the front line with a couple of bullet holes in the back of his head. Similar results are seen for his psychopathic sons, and other henchmen.

redneck2
February 6, 2003, 06:22 PM
What does Saddam really want??? He wants to be in total control and be seen as the newest savior of the Arabs. How do you do that??? Kill the Jews. If he could destroy Israel, he'd be the "big hero"

The upside......Yeah, we'll win in Iraq in less than a week

The downside.....Israel will get hit HARD. Chemical certainly and maybe bio

Hit Israel with a few dozen SCUDS with chemicals and the message is sent.

Move your bio weapons to Syria, Iran, and over thru Afghanistan and into Pakistan. Eventually filter them into Western countries.

Before this is all over, I suspect thousands and perhaps millions of Jews will die.

Read Revelation.

The battle begins in the Garden of Eden (Euprates River in Iraq) Million man army marches from the East (China siding with North Korea).

The war effort goes bad. Plagues will cover the earth (biological infestation into Europe) In a panicked response to counter the US, the Common Market Nations unite and elect a leader (the Anti-Christ)

Beginning of the end??? Jewish history says there were 2,000 years from Garden of Eden to Arbaham...2,000 from Abraham to Jesus....and 2,000 from Jesus to the end. Historians now say that our calendar is off by 3 years, and Jesus was actually born in our year 3.

Something to think about. Have a nice day.

Ol' Badger
February 6, 2003, 06:37 PM
1). Iraq
2). North Korea
3). France
4). Canada (For saying their morally better than us. :p )

Atticus
February 6, 2003, 07:13 PM
What I think Saddam will do if given a chance: He will order the Republican Guard and the rest of the Army to throw away their uniforms in order to blend in with the rest of the population. He will distribute ammo, RPG's, anti tank weapons, and the chem/ bio agents (he doesn't have) to them. He'll tell them to fight like the Viet Cong. He will target the massing US troops in Turkey/S.A., and Israel, with scuds loaded with chem/ bio agents. He will shield himself and his inner circle with civilians and hope for a high body count. He may even create it himself.

Actually though...I think someone will kill Saddam within a day or two after the US attack begins.

J Miller
February 6, 2003, 07:16 PM
I am not a military expert but I believe we should wory about Iraq more than North Korea. If we back off from NK they will probably just sit and blow off steam. At least for the forseeable future.
However the Iraqi's and the terrorists they support, have already attacked in their own insidious ways.
They may not have a viable military, but their willingness to use chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, (if they have them, and there's no guarantee they don't), is already proven.

I believe we could really be stepping in a quagmire when we invad Iraq. I know we will, I'm just worried.

Oh, I'm no fan of the West coast bliss ninnys either, but my brother lives near LA. So give me time to extract him from that area before we let it get wasted. OK.

labgrade
February 6, 2003, 07:56 PM
Iraq can't win this. "Islam," can though.

As with VietNam, there's that underlying thing of "occupation."

So, we defeat 'em toot sweet & invoke a "democratic system" - one that we're oh so familiar with, right? (wrong, we're an alleged constitutional republic - we just aren't all that aware of that fact ourselves - & a fatal flaw .... let's not be too delusional on what we want, rather than what we ask.)

Anyway, we institute a democracy & Iraq votes in the most hard-lined anti-American theocracy ..... & then? Occupational cold be so much worse than our worst VN errors. Gotta first win the hearts ' minds. Che Guverra's stuff comes to mind regardless.

N Korea's even more dicey, methinks.

Betcha our best bet is to leverage China to tell 'em to just quit it.

But we won't. China's got too much at stake for our economy - yup. Cheap toys 'n junk stuff, but still, big bucks in our own economy.

& BTW, N Korea can't win this either, but they can make us lose.

I see a bad moon a'risin' ...

USA can pull this out, but I see this as nothing more than the prelude to a much more squirrely world. Good luck to those who have to sort it out (they won't ask me ;) ), God bless us everyone!

May you live in interesting times ....

rbrowning
February 6, 2003, 09:58 PM
I think we will see a rerun in Iraq, unfortunatly it will only alienate the rest of the world against us that much more. In the end they will bring the war to us and there isn't a whole lot we can do to stop it w/o becoming a police state, destroying our beloved country ourselves.

NK is a puppet of China. China built up their nucular program and I think we need to let/make China shut them down if they want to do business with the rest of the world. If they decline, it wouldn't surprise me to see a major accident at the refining center, just about the time that the General Accounting Office notices that our nuke inventory is off by one.

capt_happypants
February 6, 2003, 11:20 PM
If I'm Saddam Hussein, I'll try to deny the primary advantages of the U.S. forces: speed, precision fire strikes, mobility, and superior night-fighting capabilities. My goal isn't to defeat U.S. forces; it's to force a long, bloody stalemate that gets major media play at home and in Europe

I move all of my mechanized and armored forces into the cities, and cede the oil fields and all of the desert to U.S. forces. There's no point in trying to engage 3rd Infantry and the various Marine elements in the open; I'll get my forces killed for no good reason. I might have some elements outside of urban areas as bait, but their job would be to initiate contact with U.S. forces and draw them into a city fight.

Whoever said that they'd dress up Iraqi forces up as civilians was a genius. Position equipment next to non-combatants so that a strike from a JDAM will still cause collateral casualities.

I'd lob a few rockets filled with GB/VX towards American lines, in order to get the U.S. forces into full MOPP-4 gear, then shell the city with as much nerve gas as possible to cause massive civilian casualties. Provide footage of dead Iraqi families to the usual suspects. Ideally, the outrage would be so overwhelming from the cheese-eating surrender monkeys and the peaceniks that GWB would be forced to go back to the U.N. to get yet another resolution.

To make this work, Saddam would have to delegate a lot of authority down to the company and battalion level, and Arab militaries do NOT encourage a lot of independent thought among junior officers. Odds are that most of Saddam's C3 infrastructure is going to hell right off the bat, and some units might fight, others will emulate the fine French military tradition, and the rest will probably stay at home.

SodaPop
February 6, 2003, 11:35 PM
Saddam is setting up for a major suicide strategy and I bet he'll just Anthrax his own people if we move on them. We'll either keep the pressure on Iraq (like we have been) or we'll nuke them. They ain't going down in a kindly fashion. Even if 90% of the Iraqi army surrenders. Iraq isn't Afghanistan. I don't see a Northern Allegiance making sweeping assaults on the Republican Guard.

North Korea is sweating it out because we have so much stuff floating around between the Pacific ocean and the Persian Gulf. They don't like the idea we have so much stuff in the region. I seriously wonder if North Korea already sold nukes to some of the middle east countries. I think there is something much deeper going on with North Korea. I think they know we are on to them. I read several times that Bin Laden has up to 20 nuclear weapons and they are already deployed in Europe and America. I expect them to attack Rome next. If they have a dirty bomb ROME is the target.

xjer
February 7, 2003, 12:54 AM
If I am Iraq
First think is strike Isreal with scuds hard enough Isreal
has to strike back. Goal is to make it Arabs against the
USA and Isreal. Who knows I might have bought a
nuc or 3 of my own.

If I am N.K. I see how the USA versus Irag is going. The
longer it last the harder I push. If USA is in Bagdad in
3 days I shut the hell up and try to negotiate for the
best deal I can. If we are going on 3 weeks and its getting
messy in Iraq. I am going to move on S.K. If USA counters
we go nuclear. Use them before we lose them.

Armchair general

WilderBill
February 7, 2003, 02:24 AM
Irq really dosen't stand a chance.
NK could, conceivably smuggle a nuke into the US for a first strike. I would expect that to be met with a hail of submarine launched nukes inside of a very few minutes, making the first strike also the last they will ever launch.

M1911
February 7, 2003, 07:54 AM
I expect them to attack Rome next. If they have a dirty bomb ROME is the target.Why Rome?
NK could, conceivably smuggle a nuke into the US for a first strike. I would expect that to be met with a hail of submarine launched nukes inside of a very few minutes, making the first strike also the last they will ever launch.the problem is, such a smuggled device would not have a return address. How would we know it came from NK and not Osama or Saddam?

KMKeller
February 7, 2003, 09:44 AM
I think Saddam is going to nuke his own people and blame us to try to get the whole war decided in the court of public opinion.

Poodleshooter
February 7, 2003, 11:01 AM
Regarding air superiority...the best place to destroy US planes is on the ground. 5th column activities would be the best for this, or even limited gas/biological attacks to deny or slow down ground crews. Deny our airmen the airfields. However, I doubt Saddam has that extensive of a terror network due to pissing off the rest of the Islamic world, and I doubt he has enough Scuds left to use gas and biologics that far away from his own territory. Not to mention the aircraft based out of Diego Garcia and carriers.

SodaPop
February 7, 2003, 11:18 AM
Why Rome?

Have you ever listened to Bin Laden talk about fighting off the Crusaders? Bin Laden has declared war on Christians and Jews and often referred to Christians as the Crusaders. Rome is right next to Washington and New York as cities that are symbols of the Western world. You might not think that, but the majority of the Islamic world views it that way.

Like George Hill said......Utah is probable safe. I don't know if Bin Laden is going to attack the Mormons in SLC.

George Hill
February 7, 2003, 11:40 AM
"Regarding air superiority...the best place to destroy US planes is on the ground."

Hard to do when the ground is the deck of a carrier.:D

bogie
February 7, 2003, 12:24 PM
Personally, if I was running the show, and Baghdad proved to be a hard nut to crack:

Day 1) Ensure air superiority

Day 2) Bomb it into the stone age with convention HE weaponry

Day 3 morning) Dump as much gasoline/diesel/whatever on the resulting ruins as possible, using any aircraft available. With ensured air superiority, a C130 and jugs would work fine...

Day 3 afternoon) Light it.

Delmar
February 7, 2003, 12:50 PM
A Bogie barbeque???

RON in PA
February 7, 2003, 01:30 PM
The only way Saddam Hussein is going to reach his next birthday is to go into exile in France (he's their kind of guy).

Scott Evans
February 7, 2003, 03:33 PM
Looking at this again…

If I were Sadam I would realize that there is nothing that my military (on its own) could do to stop the on sloughs of a determined US military. Dig in … and it won’t matter as the air superiority of the US will be able to place ordinance on any target indefinitely.

“Putting on my evil, insane, dictator hat … I pear into the mind of a mad man… and … for a moment become … HIM”

I can’t stop US air by force so I must cause the US to voluntary stop.

I will create a fortress out of Baghdad and herd every citizen (man woman and especially children) into it. I will ring my scuds and artillery with kids … two or three million of them. I will inter disperse civilians in areas where my soldiers are. The US will not bomb or use artillery and will be forced into a siege. As the children begin to starve over the following 2-6 months the US will leave. I will stay in power ….[evil laughter]

“taking hat off … slapping face … SNAP OUT OF IT; I scream …”
:uhoh:

bogie
February 7, 2003, 03:37 PM
Actually, what I'd guess that Hussein would do would be to send human virus carriers into the opposing countries...

redneck2
February 7, 2003, 04:59 PM
Bogie may well be correct.

To repeat....read Revelation

"There shall be wars and rumors of wars"..pestilence, disease, fire raining from the sky...it's all there

....then watch the news

the reason the Germans and French are opposing us is not because they think were wrong. On the contrary, they know we're right about the chemical/bio stuff. Gotta remember, they're part of the "Old" Europe. They have a way different history and perspective than we do. We're the single superpower, and therefore the danger. Any single superpower in the past has always tried to and has dominated the known world (Rome, Alexander the Great, Ghingis Kahn, etc).

We strike Iraq (Garden of Eden), Saddam hits Israel (the predicted strike against Jerusalem), Israel retaliates (maybe nukes) against Syria and Iraq, Arabs unite against the Jews, we hit more Arabs in response. We try to invade Baghdad and Saddam unleashes a massive chemical/bio suicide "last stand"

Now N Korea gets nervous. Their only chance is to damage the already crippled US military by whacking us before we get mobilized. They decide to use one of their nukes to hit the 37,000 american troops in S Korea (see above post) before we can invade them. Seoul is wiped out.

Common Market nations unite (Roman Empire) against the armies of the east (predicted). Oh...think about this...where's your family tree from? Germany, England, Italy, Eastern Europe?? Ooops...part of the Roman Empire.

Nightcrawler
February 7, 2003, 05:02 PM
Iraq will fall quickly, I think. I'm still hoping against hope that Saddam's generals will decide they don't want to die for him and put a round in the back of his head.

Hell, Saddam's TOP BODYGUARD recently defected to Israel....

If I were Prez, I don't know if I'd be doing the same thing. Instead of buildup, I'd have been trying to have Saddam assassinated from my first day in office, instead of engaging in a war that could cost thousands of American lives.

In any case, after Saddam was gone and Iraq was disarmed, I'd pull the US OUT ALTOGETHER. See, one of the reasons the rest of the world hates us is because they think we're imperialist. Socialists in socialists countries are unable to differentiate between American private corporations and the US government; when they see Coke machines they think of it as US Imperialism, though the only think Coke, Pepsi, and other big corporations are loyal to is the bottome line. So, you wouldn't have US occupation. Screw that; our GIs deserve better than to have to sit in that crappy sandbox. Bring 'em home.

Let the Europe and Canada send their blue-helmeted peacekeepers. Then no one can accuse the US of imperialism, I mean hey, everbody loves the Canadians, right? The Canadians love peacekeeping. They have a blue-beret weaing peacekeeper on their $10.00 bill, for crying out loud.

LET THEM do that. As soon as the war is done, BRING OUR GIs HOME.

SodaPop
February 7, 2003, 05:05 PM
Can anyone tell me how many troops we really have called up? I still don't think we have the 200,000 troops in the middle-east. I keep hearing about this 200,000 troops that are going to invade Iraq. Last I heard there were less than 90,000 in the "region".

Sean Smith
February 7, 2003, 06:46 PM
Here is how Iraq can fight and make us lose this war.

1. De-centralize command and biological/chemical/radiological weapon use authority. This is contrary to his natural inclination to centralize control in his hands, but is absolutely necessary because the U.S. will blow out all his communications in the first hours of the war.

2. Move all armed forces into the urban areas. There is no clean, easy way to fight in urban terrain. By doing so, he can deny us a quick victory. Airpower is less relevant when you have to kill lots of civilians to use it. Even the limited airpower used by Task Force Ranger in the Battle of Mogadishu caused immense civilian casualties (bearing in mind that many of the civilians were, in fact, attacking us in the first place). Thus, our "victory" in such a situation is almost certain to cause a public relations disaster.

Remember, Baghdad has a population of over 4,000,000 people... any fighting that takes place there will be a total mess.

3. Make massive use of land mines and demolitions. Use persistent chemical agents and radioactive materials (pre-emplaced bombs would be the best bet) to contaminate large areas. This will almost certainly cause casualties and generally hamper U.S. operations.

4. Arm the population with AKs and RPGs. Again, this will run against Saddam's natural inclination to keep the population helpless. Iraq probably has millions of the stupid things stockpiled. Even if he can get only a small fraction of the general population involved in shooting Americans, it can make for nasty going in congested urban areas.

5. Attack Israel with some chemical/biological/radiological-warhead Scuds. This will by default make him the hero of the vast majority of the Muslims out there. Sad but true. Israel would nuke them, but of course U.S. forces will already be on the ground, which would complicate things.

Iraq would be wasting its time to try to confront our air forces at all, either from the air or the ground; no offense meant to anybody, but it would be hugely moronic to even consider it. Likewise, if they try to fight us in a conventional engagement force-on-force, they are just committing suicide. Urban terrain is a great equalizer.

This course of action will only happen if Saddam has decided to go down in flames and become a hero of the Muslim world for the next 1,000 years. He can't really win, but it is not impossible for him to make us lose... just unlikely he'd take the necessary actions to do so.

SodaPop
February 7, 2003, 07:15 PM
There is absolutely NO WAY we are going into Baghdad.

Wouldn't it be funny if one of Sadam's sons does him in?

:evil:

CampX
February 7, 2003, 10:22 PM
I don't think this is gonna be a 2 week romp in the sandbox, fun in the sun like '91. The CBC interview with Tariq Aziz was interesting. No real big 'America must die' statements, just that they are ready for it, and they know there will be a lot of death. Not just to the Americans, but to each side.
Will they use human shields? Does Baghdad, with the millions of people that populate it, count as a shield? It's the capital city, of course they are gonna defend it! Will the rest of the world enjoy seeing civilians bombed and massacred? Probably not.
I think it's gonna be a street fight, and street fighting historically has been the messiest, biggest casualty producing form of warfare. America does have superior air power, but I think the Iraqis will fall back into defensive cover in the cities, and force a ground war. Could be real ugly.
I am still undecided that Iraq needs to be burnt to the ground. The whole State of the Union address, and Colin Powell show-and-tell session looked pretty theatrical. I don't know how dangerous Iraq actually is to the welfare of the USA. Certainly dangerous to the surrounding countries like Isreal, but I haven't seen the hard proof of danger to America.
Test some new ordnance, get the economy rolling, scoop some oilfields, and live knowing you took out a madman. Sweet. And if Saddam does unleash some bio and chem weapons, you can say "See, told ya so..." to the rest of the world.


www.cbc.ca/national/news/iraq/interview_030127.html

Ol' Badger
February 8, 2003, 09:30 AM
Regardless of what happends. I'll be glued to the tube! I have a brother and a friend over there. I want'em to come home. If we have to, kill everything that prays to the east and burn the place down. It may be selfch of me, but F*** Iraq. Make sure our men come back and send a message to the world "This is what happends when you f*** with us!"
AMF
:fire:

Selfdfenz
February 8, 2003, 10:46 AM
There are many, many men in Iraq that saw first hand just what US firepower can do and many of them are officers in Saddam's army.

Read that to mean there will be many Iraqi troops deploying with their cleanest pair or white underway ALREADY tied to a stick and ready to be waved at the first opportunity. Since they are fully aware that we will nuke them if they start firing bio/chem ord. they are probably just real fearful that some nimrod in their sector will draw fire by doing same and get them killed before they have a chance to surrender. They have to know we are going to take Saddam out this time and are just praying to the east they live long enough to surrender. If they live, things will be different. Not everyone over there is an idiot or zealot.

NK will have their transistor radios tuned in to the show in Iraq. They are a wild card for sure. If we dispose of Iraq in a hurry, I expect the NK world view and posturing to change quickly. In the past they have always gotten what they wanted from the free world by acting bipolar and threatening. If we actually use a few nukes in Iraq I expect the NK calculas to change. The nukes they have will get them much, much more as bargaining chips whereas if they fire them they wind up becoming extinct.

Somewhere out in the Pacific the boomer with NK' s name on it is already sitting, ready to go. Figure China to be too wise to get themselves fried over the likes of their NK brothers if even they can't get them to read the tea leaves.

Long term out comes:
1.Present leadership in Iraq will be removed if not the whole country. Some losses to US formations. Even some surprising losses. Iraqi forces will go chem/bio and in response the World will see nukes uesed for the second time in history.
2.Present leadership in NK WILL come to the table and back down OR, post Iraq, NK will go moron and do something to get NK situated on the "List or Nations That Once Were" not sure of the timing of #2 without knowing the timing of #1.
3.Other nations that act as or support terrorists will think about the wisdom of this and
4. The US will focus on terrorist groups around the World with unrelenting intensity as there are now two less "distractions" and not even a short list of countries that to be "distractions"
5.Biggest wildcard of the whole deal....will Iraqi/AlQ/NK plants in the US act meaningfully in retaliation, where and when.
6. With NK, Iraq and AlQ taken care of and any groups of their murdering plants in the US removed or neutralized, we start to slowly return to some level or normal living here and in the World at-large.

No matter what happens in the US, our nation will survive.
No matter what.

Too many people and politicians in the US have been asleep to the fact the World is a dangerous place. That is all about to change forever and already is. OTOH there are people in the World that are about to find out trying to bugger a bear to make your point will get you killed.

I for one will be praying for our troops in the field and for our people at home and for our swift and absolute victory in all places we are engaged.
S-

grampster
February 8, 2003, 04:20 PM
Dontcha just yearn for the safe good ole days of the cold war?:banghead:

waterdog
February 8, 2003, 04:44 PM
To much Clancy, and to many video games.

Nuke this, and Bio that.

waterdog

Bruce H
February 8, 2003, 07:52 PM
I see everything going to a well thought out plan of attack, for about thirty seconds. Everybody from Lebanon to Afganistan will jump on the band wagon to stomp hell out of us. There are absolutely no people in this region we can turn our backs on without fear of attack. Take the country of Iraq and multiply the land area by a figure of fifty. That turns out to be quite a sandbox to have to play in. NK will watch but they have everything to gain and nothing to really loose. Mainland China Is probably behind the NK retoric. They can sit off to the side with innocent looks on the surface but don't bet on it. Attacks on CONUS are a very real posibility. With the ease of movement into this country, and with what happened on 9-11 I believe the pieces are allready in place. Large urban areas wouldn't be a very good place to be right now.

HS/LD
February 8, 2003, 08:13 PM
The majority of Iraq's military resources will be destoryed in the first 3 nights of bombing.

HS/LD

If you enjoyed reading about "Armchair Generals: Iraq and North Korea." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!