Stalingrad II

Davidu · March 16, 2003

I've seen some interesting thing this evening at the news.

Iraq has been divided into four defensive quarters, each led by someone trusted by Saddam. He took control of the aviation, falk-guns, and ground-to-ground missles.

The cities are fortified with traches and sand bags, and the army is preparing for street fighting as well as guerilla warfare.

About 80% of the population supports Saddam... (as estimated by a Romanian worker retreived by the Romanian embassy before the embassy was closed).

Massive domonstrations against US in Iraq. The people look like they would take up weapons to fight off the US forces.

So... it looks quite bad for the US. They could create a new Vietnam in Iraq, and they could also relive the history of Stalingrad (in the role of the invaders). I'm starting to wonder if the US really needs this war...

Dunenewt · March 16, 2003

Also in the news today - Iraqi oppostion grows as sabotage in Iraq grows.

Dude_Doc · March 16, 2003

The point of this war is to disarm Saddam and to replace him with a democratic government, a government that listens to the people, not one man.

Besides, the Gulf War did not last long. Iraqs army is weak, they can't compare with the technology and weapons of the US.

And remember, the forces of good has always been much smaller than the enemy, but more powerful. Many who demonstrate against this war is communists or anti-US. We have seen it everywhere. Have they ever asked themselves: Why do we support a dictator?

Egeides · March 16, 2003

The problem is that people seem to be against USA AND Saddam.

Gobalopper · March 16, 2003

Well which is worse? Hopefully that isn't too hard to answer. :)

exatreide · March 16, 2003

This will not be another Vietnam, becouse it is open warfare, hard to launch ambushs in the flat desert with nothing to hide behind. It wont be anothe Vietnam, if the Us atakcs Iraq will fall in two weeks top.

Egeides · March 16, 2003

Well which is worse? Hopefully that isn't too hard to answer. :)

USA since it is why Saddam is there and because it most probably do not have the intention to arrange the situation once it takes the place. A war = bombings + the guy in charge of killing Kurds beeing proposed at power by USA.

GhostHunter · March 17, 2003

[quote author=ExAtreides

exatreide · March 17, 2003

in korea they had equel tech and their forces wernt cowards(most of the time)

Iraq will fall in two weeks at most.

SurlyPIG · March 17, 2003

Well which is worse? Hopefully that isn't too hard to answer. :)
USA since it is why Saddam is there and because it most probably do not have the intention to arrange the situation once it takes the place. A war = bombings + the guy in charge of killing Kurds beeing proposed at power by USA.

That's utterly ridiculous. The USA had nothing to do with Saddam coming into power. You need to learn about this subject much, much more before answering with such a harsh position if you think the US put Saddam in power. Nothing could be farther from the truth. He was part of the Baathist Arab party that invaded the presidential palace and took control of the county by themselves in 1968.

Where on Earth did you here that the US put him into power?

And to you thinking the US worse, let me ask you these three questions;

1) Have you ever been to the USA?

2) Have you ever been to Iraq?

3) If you had to live in either the USA or Iraq, which country would you choose?

Caid Ivik · March 17, 2003

Problem of city fights should be easily solved. Look at palestinian villages. If Bagdad or Tikrit will be such blocked, it is just about time when they surrender, if natives won't bring him down by themselves. No need to fight inside, just a nice blockade.

Miles · March 17, 2003

[quote author=ExAtreides

Edric O · March 17, 2003

Since when does Bush care about human lives?

Now, if the war turns out to cost him a lot of money, that's a problem.

Dante · March 17, 2003

[quote author=ExAtreides

Miles · March 17, 2003

Since when does Bush care about human lives?
Now, if the war turns out to cost him a lot of money, that's a problem.

Then I suppose the US should just carpet bomb iraq with unguided weapons. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper. ::)

Edric O · March 17, 2003

Yes, but it would ruin Bush's public image. And that's the last thing he wants.

Dante · March 17, 2003

He has a public image other than warmonger? And more importantly, he knows what one is?! :O

Davidu · March 17, 2003

Some more news I saw today at TV: Saddam says he can mobilise 7 milion soldiers, and if USA attacks he'll unleash a global war against USA.

Well, we'll see about that...

SurlyPIG · March 18, 2003

Since when does Bush care about human lives?
Now, if the war turns out to cost him a lot of money, that's a problem.

That argument is self-dismissive. The war is going to cost him HOARDES of money. And it has already grossly cost him public image (unjustly).

Anathema · March 18, 2003

Bush and economy...lol. Nobody seems to pay attention to the mess Bush made at home while everybody was staring at Iraq. The budget shortages are huge, and the tax cuts Bush gave will mean that the next generation will have to pay their asses off- well, not that he cares, anyway.

Well, if things turn out bloodless and if the new Iraqi government is any good at all it won't be that bad I suppose.

However, any argument that Bush gave us for not caring a rats ass about the opinion of the security council is bogus. The safety of the US is not impared by Sadams weapons in the slightest, he's just looking for an excuse. Right after the 9/11 attacks he said that Sadam had helped Bin Laden in the attacks, but he was proven wrong, so suddenly a report came up that said Sadam had nukes. That report turned out to be bogus as well, and now the US is attacking in order to enforce UN resolutions. LOL

Don't tell me sh1t about Sadam giving anthrax to Bin Laden or any such thing, cause it's not proven. Sadam's a psycho, but he ain't crazy. He cares about his own life foremost, and he doesn't want to be associated with terrorists that attack the US. He doesn't want to become a martyr, otherwise Haifa would have a population of twelve by now and Kuweit would be a smoldering collection of ash. With such juicy targets within firing range, why didn't he fire his weapons over the past twelve years? Because he ain't crazy.

lowzeewee · March 18, 2003

Since when does Bush care about human lives?
Now, if the war turns out to cost him a lot of money, that's a problem.
That argument is self-dismissive. The war is going to cost him HOARDES of money. And it has already grossly cost him public image (unjustly).

the figure has been released-U$90 billion

Edric O · March 18, 2003

Ace, you forgot to factor in the money he'll get back by plundering Iraq's oil reserves.

Caid Ivik · March 18, 2003

If he would "plunder" it in quick time to restore the losses, than oil cost will be so low that he wouldn't have much of it ;)

Sign In

Stalingrad II

Recommended Posts

Davidu

Dunenewt

Dude_Doc

Egeides

Gobalopper

exatreide

Egeides

GhostHunter

exatreide

SurlyPIG

Caid Ivik

Miles

Edric O

Dante

Miles

Edric O

Dante

Davidu

SurlyPIG

Anathema

lowzeewee

Edric O

Caid Ivik

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information