War by tea time Monday???
Discussion
What do you recon then? War for tea on Monday? Hearing the comments from messurs Bush and Blair today it seems that they have made their minds up and are just waiting for the formalities....
Or am I paranoid and worried about something that is just brinkmanship.... never been good at body language!
Just wondering what people think....
Cheers,
Paul
Or am I paranoid and worried about something that is just brinkmanship.... never been good at body language!
Just wondering what people think....
Cheers,
Paul
It allready has started,The nothern and southern no Fly zones have seen more and more sorties by Us and Uk planes and fired on Sam's.
If you are on about the Official Start then I reckon you'll get up Tuesday Morning to find its started and wake up Wednesday morning to Hopefully Find its Finished.
BB
If you are on about the Official Start then I reckon you'll get up Tuesday Morning to find its started and wake up Wednesday morning to Hopefully Find its Finished.
BB
Hope that you're right about the duration BB (looks like a forgone conclusion that we're going in). Thing is, they put up a bit of a fight last time, so it may last a bit longer 
.
btw - does anybody know what this is about? Keep hearing crap about moral case, or he has weapons etc (if we know where they are why don't we tell the weapons inspectors). I'm not really pro or against war at the moment as I don't have enough information to form an opinion. Is this right ?
. btw - does anybody know what this is about? Keep hearing crap about moral case, or he has weapons etc (if we know where they are why don't we tell the weapons inspectors). I'm not really pro or against war at the moment as I don't have enough information to form an opinion. Is this right ?
I reckon once the Tanks etc are seen camped on the outskirts of Baghdad the Iraq Military will be doing what they have been wanting to do for years and overthrough Saddam and his Croonies.Hence not a shot fired by the allies in the capital, ok maybe a few bombs before hand from the planes.
BB
BB
I would agree it looks almost certain that we are going in.
Some interesting points I have heard today in the news;
1. Where is Sadams force? Journalists in Baghdad say there is no sign of tanks/military vehicles etc anywhere in sight around the city. THe majority are stationed at military bases. Is that not a little strange?!
2. Are there systems in place for Sadam to burn the oli fields and will/when will he use them?
Some interesting points I have heard today in the news;
1. Where is Sadams force? Journalists in Baghdad say there is no sign of tanks/military vehicles etc anywhere in sight around the city. THe majority are stationed at military bases. Is that not a little strange?!
2. Are there systems in place for Sadam to burn the oli fields and will/when will he use them?
Starts tmw. Over by 8th April. War, as such, never declared (Heaven forfend that we should obey the Geneva Convention-as a declaration of war would dictate) Iraqi casualties huge, allied casualties relatively small (and information on them totally suppressed), more allied troops killed by uncoordinated discharge of ordinance (what we're calling 'friendly fire' ATM) than anything else, utter collapse of UN influence globally. Then (3 weeks) puppet regime installed in Baghdad, (3 months) upsurge in Islamic radicalism in the middle east and terrorism in Europe and the US, (18 months) deliberate American destabilisation of Saudi regime, further armed action, (10 years) war with puppet regime in Iraq who we've by now fallen out with.
Still, at least we won't go to war with N. Korea because, unlike in the gulf, we give a damn about its neighbours (40000 pieces of ordinance aimed at Seoul and NBC capabilities).
>> Edited by mrsd on Monday 17th March 01:06
Still, at least we won't go to war with N. Korea because, unlike in the gulf, we give a damn about its neighbours (40000 pieces of ordinance aimed at Seoul and NBC capabilities).
>> Edited by mrsd on Monday 17th March 01:06
mrsd said: Starts tmw. Over by 8th April. War, as such, never declared (Heaven forfend that we should obey the Geneva Convention-as a declaration of war would dictate) Iraqi casualties huge, allied casualties relatively small (and information on them totally suppressed), more allied troops killed by uncoordinated discharge of ordinance (what we're calling 'friendly fire' ATM) than anything else, utter collapse of UN influence globally. Then (3 weeks) puppet regime installed in Baghdad, (3 months) upsurge in Islamic radicalism in the middle east and terrorism in Europe and the US, (18 months) deliberate American destabilisation of Saudi regime, further armed action, (10 years) war with puppet regime in Iraq who we've by now fallen out with.
Still, at least we won't go to war with N. Korea because, unlike in the gulf, we give a damn about its neighbours (40000 pieces of ordinance aimed at Seoul and NBC capabilities).
>> Edited by mrsd on Monday 17th March 01:06
You know what - change a few names and places and you pretty much have US foreign policy for the last 30 years!!! You would have thought that they would have learnt from Vietnam, Iran etc....
Oh well, hope that it is over for teatime anyway. Just dont like the thought that there will be British soldiers dying for the sake of one man - who isnt the prime minister! Mmm, while I am on a rant.... why is it that British soldiers and airmen have to do the risky bits of any war? I mean, we did all of the really dangerous airfield bombing and special operations in the Gulf last time....mainly cos the US wouldnt or couldnt! Same with Afganistan... first in to Kabul, first to clear some of the mountain hideouts, first to secure the forward operating bases. My fear is that this time our soldiers will have to do the same.... why cant they just do the artillery or logistics support? You know, something not as dangerous? We can demonstrate our commitment and support in easier ways....
Reading the paper yesterday, the US tactic is to demonstrate complete and overwhelming firepower in the first couple of days - so much so that they show that they need not resort to nuclear weapons, but do it with conventional ones only...Interesting tactic but not sure if it works against a country who you are invading. Might work against a country who is the invador... but hey, I am no military planner and have always been crap at those Command & Conquer games on the PC...
Cheers,
Paul
P.S. Not that anti-USA really, its just that this time it isnt as transparent as it should be....
I reckon a short action is on the cards.
Based mainly on the fact that when the iraqi troops are nearer the US/UK forces than they are to Saddam they will feel it safe to surrender without fear of reprisals from Saddam.
Most of the Iraqi army are conscrpts, who no more want war than any one else i would imagine.
Once it gets going the security forces will crumble i believe. Certainly no Stalingrad in Baghdad.
Based mainly on the fact that when the iraqi troops are nearer the US/UK forces than they are to Saddam they will feel it safe to surrender without fear of reprisals from Saddam.
Most of the Iraqi army are conscrpts, who no more want war than any one else i would imagine.
Once it gets going the security forces will crumble i believe. Certainly no Stalingrad in Baghdad.
pbrettle said: why is it that British soldiers and airmen have to do the risky bits of any war? I mean, we did all of the really dangerous airfield bombing and special operations in the Gulf last time....mainly cos the US wouldnt or couldnt!
P.S. Not that anti-USA really, its just that this time it isnt as transparent as it should be....
Got it in one Paul, AFAIK the US mission statement for their airforce is not low-level airfield attacks, therefore the UK airforce gets the job, this is exactly the type of mission they have trained for.
Exactly why this is the case (US) I do not know......
Edited to add: BTW who do Bush, Blair and the Spanish chap think they are? If they do ride rough-shod over the UN I think the whole world will suffer for it. If they comply themselves with the UN mandates then fine, but they must follow the rules themselves or they are no better than those they are keen to wage war against.
>> Edited by kevinday on Monday 17th March 11:58
Aren't they checking the legalities?? It would be terribly ironic, not to mention amusing if Blair and £$%£ were held at a criminal war tribunal....
The UK troops generally do the tricky stuff because they are usually in smaller, better trained groups. The bog standard US troops are generally only good for showing numbers.
The UK troops generally do the tricky stuff because they are usually in smaller, better trained groups. The bog standard US troops are generally only good for showing numbers.
Well in the racey household it's all about as interesting as the fireman strike 
, the length of time it's all dragged on for we've lost all interest of who's right and who's wrong and just wish they'd get on with it so the nightly news can be filled with issues that actually have a bearing on everyday life for the masses like the hugh rise in poll tax, sorry council tax, and not some numpty news reporter standing in the desert moaning about it being a bit sandy
, the length of time it's all dragged on for we've lost all interest of who's right and who's wrong and just wish they'd get on with it so the nightly news can be filled with issues that actually have a bearing on everyday life for the masses like the hugh rise in poll tax, sorry council tax, and not some numpty news reporter standing in the desert moaning about it being a bit sandy
kevinday said:
Got it in one Paul, AFAIK the US mission statement for their airforce is not low-level airfield attacks, therefore the UK airforce gets the job, this is exactly the type of mission they have trained for.
Exactly why this is the case (US) I do not know......
I'm sure Eric or Apache will chip in here but as I understand it the low-level tactic is a hangover from the pre-Stealth Cold War era, when the only way to acheive any degree of survivability in the face of Warsaw Pact AAA was to fly very low and fast. This carries inherent dangers obviously and so as usual the US threw technology at the problem, first with sophisticated electronic warfare systems and latterly with Stealth aircraft. Obviously we don't have stealth aircraft and so continue to fly low and fast, though I know this was abandoned later on in the last Gulf War.
I expect flying low is more fun, too...
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff