Baghdad's fall was a 'deal' ..

Here:

www.kavkaz.org.uk...

After reading that i really understand what i saw then in my tv.. because i could not belive my eyes.. a blitzkrieg like advance in a city.. that Iraqis didnt put up any resistance against US Army in Baghdad.. cause if they would have resisted there would still be heavy fight going on.. as urban warfare is allmost impossible to the attacker.. Remember Grozny, Stalingrad, Beirut and Hue..

And you should allso check out this:

www.kavkaz.org.uk...

[Edited on 7-8-2003 by Uninen]

THis may sound dumb, but isn't it odd that some of the best explosions were caught on tape for the entertainment value? I think that Saddam left Iraq long before the war started...

This is a very interesting idea. If Saddam is in Moscow now, could this lead to renewed tensions between Russia and US? Was Saddam's escape part of the deal, or did he abandon his people before the fighting started? A little away from the topic, but whatever happened to the Iraqi Communications Minister that always said the Americans were being beaten...even up to the point when they were in Baghdad?

*sigh*

Saddam's own daughters recently stated that his closest advisors/generals sold him out. That's not really suprising once you look at his popularity and the size and capability of the force that he was up against.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I would have thought that was a far more feasible explanation but of course - reality wouldn't make as good a conspiracy theory.

Read the article on the lower link allso it clears many things.. what happened and why..

"Second, and this fact is obvious as well, Saddam Hussein did not get the country ready for the war. Until the very last moment he was convinced that the war would not happen. He was not ready for the war, hoping that the absence of weapons of mass destruction and the position of the international community would stop the US aggression. Being a dictator to the bone, he in the most paradoxical way all of a sudden believed in the power of �the opinion of the international community� and in democracy. Saddam never understood that it was the absence of weapons of mass destruction that spurred Washington to the military invasion. Had he had such atrocious weapons, the Americans would think a hundred times before invading Iraq."

Damn Bush.. Saddam started finaly playing fair and nice.. but was stabbed to the back.. this is not the way to do bussines..

Well there is an article that needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I think most of the people(Iraqi) were surprised that that the Iraqi military chain of command ran away. They are looking for excuses. Saddam was all full of bravado,but in reality he planning his escape route. As were his generals and other commanders. They knew what was coming, I doubt the Iraqi people did. Also I think the 1st did more damage than we realize. That is why there was no chain of command.
I doubt there was a deal,they are dead or they fled.

One of my points is: That like in Grozny.. The Chechens armed only with rifles, machine guns, rifle grenades, rpg:s, mines and some other traps and light to medium weapons.. but no heavy weapon at all.. were such a hard enemy to beat.. even by Russians who dont give sh!t what they destroy or how many casualities they take.. IMAGINE what kind of HAVOC i would have been if Iraqis had resisted US invasion of Baghdad in same manner as Chechens resisted Russians.. as Iraqis did have tanks, altillery.. all the heavy weapons.. Even the old T-54/55 would have been effective weapon against M1 Abrams as range would have been: point blank to 500m..

But it was not to be.. as Iraqi commanders and leaders fled or made deals with US.. Saddam is most propably now taking a cruise in his yaht in Caribian Ocean..

[Edited on 7-8-2003 by Uninen]

The biggest difference is that the majority of normal Iraqis Wanted Saddam gone. If they liked the way the country was being run and were happy they would have fought us in the streets. Then of course if that were the case it would be quite unlikely that we would have been there in the first place.

edit---We blew up his Yaht

[Edited on 7-8-2003 by Fry2]

Originally posted by Fry2
The biggest difference is that the majority of normal Iraqis Wanted Saddam gone. If they liked the way the country was being run and were happy they would have fought us in the streets. Then of course if that were the case it would be quite unlikely that we would have been there in the first place.

edit---We blew up his Yaht

[Edited on 7-8-2003 by Fry2]

You didnt blow it up.. it was sunk by USAF / US NAVY.. And sure.. Iraqis wanted Saddam kicked the hell out of office.. But they dont want US and their puppets in the office either..

Looks pretty Blown up to me
news.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by Fry2
Looks pretty Blown up to me
news.bbc.co.uk...

OMFG! Still seems like it didnt sunk.. But it it isnt "blown up" either.. Heavily damaged however it is.. That should have been captured.. i have seen photos from interior of the ship.. 1st class i tell ya.. much silver and gold used.. The ship wast build in Finland during 80s..

I remember right at the beginning of the war that Rumsfeld was crowing about how they were in communication with senior members of the Republican Guard. Then, like two days later, he vehemently denied that they were negotiating a surrender.

Guess it would affect news ratings if people knew it was like shooting ducks in a barrel (I mix metaphors like a drunken chef).

Here's the links I dug up to support my memories:

www.pbs.org...

"DONALD RUMSFELD: "....We are in communication with still more people who are officials of the military at various levels. The regular army, the special republican... the republican guard, the special republican guard who are increasingly aware that it's going to happen, he's going to be gone..."

newsblaster.cs.columbia.edu...

"Appearing with Myers at a Pentagon briefing, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld denied that the United States is negotiating an end to war with Iraq. "The only thing the coalition will discuss with this regime is their unconditional surrender," he said."

So, um, what exactly were they talking about if it wasn't surrender?

Uninem: Saddam didn't think the US was going to attack? Based on what? They bombed the crap out of him in 1991 and have been bombing the crap out of anyone they want to since (and him too, the US and UK continuously bombed the US/UK imposed No-Fly Zones for more than ten years).

Did he think maybe this GW Bush guy was a softie? Did he think that all the hundreds of thousands of troops massed along the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border were there to collect seashells? Of course he knew. He might have been a mean, evil dictator, but he wasn't a total moron.

And even if he was, he has advisors, right? (:



Jakomo

Originally posted by Jakomo
I remember right at the beginning of the war that Rumsfeld was crowing about how they were in communication with senior members of the Republican Guard. Then, like two days later, he vehemently denied that they were negotiating a surrender.

Guess it would affect news ratings if people knew it was like shooting ducks in a barrel (I mix metaphors like a drunken chef).

Here's the links I dug up to support my memories:

www.pbs.org...

"DONALD RUMSFELD: "....We are in communication with still more people who are officials of the military at various levels. The regular army, the special republican... the republican guard, the special republican guard who are increasingly aware that it's going to happen, he's going to be gone..."

newsblaster.cs.columbia.edu...

"Appearing with Myers at a Pentagon briefing, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld denied that the United States is negotiating an end to war with Iraq. "The only thing the coalition will discuss with this regime is their unconditional surrender," he said."

So, um, what exactly were they talking about if it wasn't surrender?

Uninem: Saddam didn't think the US was going to attack? Based on what? They bombed the crap out of him in 1991 and have been bombing the crap out of anyone they want to since (and him too, the US and UK continuously bombed the US/UK imposed No-Fly Zones for more than ten years).

Did he think maybe this GW Bush guy was a softie? Did he think that all the hundreds of thousands of troops massed along the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border were there to collect seashells? Of course he knew. He might have been a mean, evil dictator, but he wasn't a total moron.

And even if he was, he has advisors, right? (:



Jakomo

Well in order to come as dictator one cant be a moron.. many have even said that Saddam was a genious..

And what comes to the Saddam thinking that there isnt going to be a war was because: he had allready given up those WMD for good that were the issue of the conflict.. and as there were no more Iraqi WMD:s he thought that there aint going to be any war allso.. He was fooled totally wasnt he..

Jakomo

Shooting ducks in a barrel????

I want a metaphor for what is to happen when the Bush administration criminals are picked off (at least politically) one by one...

I'm all for Bush's statement...I say "Bring them ON!" too...and when WW3 comes, I'll "Pour it ON!"

You no-good-peace-knicks.

Again, who cares if we've found any WMDs, finding the Mass Graves was enough.

I suspect it was a deal based on cash/amnesty or a combination of both. And - if it saved a great many lives -a good thing.

Originally posted by Estragon
I suspect it was a deal based on cash/amnesty or a combination of both. And - if it saved a great many lives -a good thing.

I was goming to this.. it is really better that there were no heavy combat between Iraqi army and US / UK Troops.. as this saved many lives on both sides.. If there had been real a battle.. there would been thousands killed on both sides..