**OFFICIAL WAR THREAD** 7th Calvary fights off Iraqi attack; Bush seeks 75 billion for war

[Stark]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
American Military success has impressed and startled the Russians and their Generals

Recent reports say that Russians are in Baghdad showing the Iraqis how to repair and use GPS-jamming hardware they sold them. Remember that line "if you're not for us, you're against us"? Looks like the Ruskies do.


Link

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Bluga

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Bluga
Apache sucks, way over rated, shot down by peasants.

Your trolling skills are way over rated, shot down by your average American

same to you.

you sir are an idiot....are you an experienced pilot of said vehicle?

If so when and where? During a military conflict?

If not then shut your hole and move on.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I wonder if the American Forces are going to be blaring Hard Rock towards the Iraqi's prior to attacking them. They did that in Panama and the last Gulf War. Maybe they should be blasting sounds of tanks and Bombs at them for hours prior to attacking them. Maybe even Air Raid Sirens. Anything to rattle the Wags prior to going in for the kill!

hehe

I remember them blaring Ted Nugent from a speaker array attached to a jeep/humvee.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I wonder if the American Forces are going to be blaring Hard Rock towards the Iraqi's prior to attacking them. They did that in Panama and the last Gulf War. Maybe they should be blasting sounds of tanks and Bombs at them for hours prior to attacking them. Maybe even Air Raid Sirens. Anything to rattle the Wags prior to going in for the kill!

hehe

I remember them blaring Ted Nugent from a speaker array attached to a jeep/humvee.

They should repeatedly blast Metallica's "One"

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

How is it that so few troops are involved this time around (~300,000) as opposed to ~500,000 for the last gulf war? I would have thought that since a full scale invasion is on - as opposed to just a push out of Kuwait - a bigger force would be in use?

Cheers,

Andy

There's fewer Iraqi Troops involved this time

Yup. Iraqi army is about 30-40% what it was.

Its just that - with the way the war is being pursued - a kind of "blitzkrieg" variant where the main force rolls up to the capital, only engaging where necessary, a lot of resources, some 20 - 30,000 so far I believe are deployed just to suppress/contain hotspots (i.e. Basra, Umm Qasar, Bridges, oil fields etc.) Now - if you realise that I think some 60 - 70,000 of the ~300,000 are logistic and not frontline fighting troops, then aren't things getting a little tight? That's a 1/3 of troops busy already.

I know it leaves ~200,000 troops but it still seems kind of tight.

Andy

 

[Stark]

Saddam's son Uday... an even worse POS than his father.

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: NFS4
What happens if we end up crushing Saddam, taking over Baghdad, lose a couple hundred soldiers, then find out that Saddam didn't have any WOMD?

Everyone who's against the war "says told you so - did everyone need to die?".

Everyone who's "pro-war" says "we had to make sure" and look at the "liberated" Iraqi people.

Or something in the middle.

Andy

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

How is it that so few troops are involved this time around (~300,000) as opposed to ~500,000 for the last gulf war? I would have thought that since a full scale invasion is on - as opposed to just a push out of Kuwait - a bigger force would be in use?

Cheers,

Andy

There's fewer Iraqi Troops involved this time

Yup. Iraqi army is about 30-40% what it was.

Its just that - with the way the war is being pursued - a kind of "blitzkrieg" variant where the main force rolls up to the capital, only engaging where necessary, a lot of resources, some 20 - 30,000 so far I believe are deployed just to suppress/contain hotspots (i.e. Basra, Umm Qasar, Bridges, oil fields etc.) Now - if you realise that I think some 60 - 70,000 of the ~300,000 are logistic and not frontline fighting troops, then aren't things getting a little tight? That's a 1/3 of troops busy already.

I know it leaves ~200,000 troops but it still seems kind of tight.

Andy

Well how many Iraqi Wags are Generals? How many are worthless conscripts?

 

[Fencer128]

Well how many Iraqi Wags are Generals? How many are worthless conscripts?

I'm kind of cautious about judging the willingness of Iraqi's to fight. Things have already shown themselves to be different to '91. Here's a few reasons.

1) Nutter Rep. Guard with guns at your back

2) Its your country this time - patriotism is a strange thing

3) How do they know we mean business this time? In '91 we left their uprising to be slaughtered

4) Apart from those leaflets + radio, Saddam has quite a grip on the media - they might not appreciate how well they're losing right now! (especially in the cities where most haven't seen a single soldier yet).

I hope that their morale takes a nosedive real soon now.

Andy

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

The entire 4th division isn't even there yet. THANKS TURKEY!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

I remember them blaring Ted Nugent from a speaker array attached to a jeep/humvee.

They should repeatedly blast Metallica's "One"[/quote]

Or Hero of the Day

 

[Stark]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fencer128
Hi,

How is it that so few troops are involved this time around (~300,000) as opposed to ~500,000 for the last gulf war? I would have thought that since a full scale invasion is on - as opposed to just a push out of Kuwait - a bigger force would be in use?

Cheers,

Andy

There's fewer Iraqi Troops involved this time

Yup. Iraqi army is about 30-40% what it was.

Its just that - with the way the war is being pursued - a kind of "blitzkrieg" variant where the main force rolls up to the capital, only engaging where necessary, a lot of resources, some 20 - 30,000 so far I believe are deployed just to suppress/contain hotspots (i.e. Basra, Umm Qasar, Bridges, oil fields etc.) Now - if you realise that I think some 60 - 70,000 of the ~300,000 are logistic and not frontline fighting troops, then aren't things getting a little tight? That's a 1/3 of troops busy already.

I know it leaves ~200,000 troops but it still seems kind of tight.

Andy

Well how many Iraqi Wags are Generals? How many are worthless conscripts?

Why Arabs (like Iraqis) lose wars.

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

There are also global repercussions: The United States is proving that it can win easily and without serious losses -- not only in air but also ground campaigns -- against any army in the world (except maybe for the British or French, but how long can these nations keep up with the pace of U.S. procurement of new weapons?)

The French? hahahahhahha

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

There are also global repercussions: The United States is proving that it can win easily and without serious losses -- not only in air but also ground campaigns -- against any army in the world (except maybe for the British or French, but how long can these nations keep up with the pace of U.S. procurement of new weapons?)

The French? hahahahhahha

Why is that funny?

Andy

 

[Jmman]

You know guys, there is a reason why we are the only superpower. I don't think this war has really done anything to change the perception that our military is the strongest in the world. We spend 65% of the entire world's military budget!! With that kind of spending, you would think that our military would be mighty indeed.......

 

[colonel]

can someone get the link for those videos. Thanks

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

There are also global repercussions: The United States is proving that it can win easily and without serious losses -- not only in air but also ground campaigns -- against any army in the world (except maybe for the British or French, but how long can these nations keep up with the pace of U.S. procurement of new weapons?)

The French? hahahahhahha

Why is that funny?

Andy

hahahahahaha

(your question about the superiority of the mighty French amuses me)



Google

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: NFS4
What happens if we end up crushing Saddam, taking over Baghdad, lose a couple hundred soldiers, then find out that Saddam didn't have any WOMD?

Major embarrassment.

 

[Fencer128]

hahahahahaha

(your question about the superiority of the mighty French amuses me)



Google

But when I type "french military victories" I get

google

or is this just a bunch of anti-france manufactured rubbish?

Andy

 

[Stojakapimp]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: NFS4
What happens if we end up crushing Saddam, taking over Baghdad, lose a couple hundred soldiers, then find out that Saddam didn't have any WOMD?

Major embarrassment.

Then the US would plant WoMD's of their own and make it look like they were there all along.

 

[BooGiMaN]

what the heck is a Wag?

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: BooGiMaN
what the heck is a Wag?

I was thinking the same thing!

Andy

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Stojakapimp

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: NFS4
What happens if we end up crushing Saddam, taking over Baghdad, lose a couple hundred soldiers, then find out that Saddam didn't have any WOMD?

Major embarrassment.

Then the US would plant WoMD's of their own and make it look like they were there all along.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[conjur]

Reuters Raw Video

 

[jahawkin]

I don't know if its been posted on this looooong thread, but Al-Jazeera has a new english site here.