It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pre Emptive Attack By Iraq?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I wouldn't be surprised if you see Iraq pre emptively striking our troops in Kuwait or the Israelis as they have said exile isn't an option. The President is going to address the nation at 8pm EST giving Sad'am a 48 hr ultimatum for exile (at least that's what I hear). Looks like war is set for either Wed night or Thru. If your in Iraq I'd get the hell out!




posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 08:33 PM
link   
I would agree with that. Personally, I think they will launch whatever scuds/other missles they have at US forces in Kuwait, and Israel with whatever VX they have available. This will certainly illicit an Israeli response, which will only further rile the rest of the arab world. It will of course illicit the US response, which will be to mow down all Iraqi forces on the way to Baghdad.

When we get to Baghdad, I expect that we will find very flimsy defense, and penetrate deep into the city fairly easily. Once we are committed deeply into the urban landscape of Baghdad, that is when I would expect the best trained and equipped Republican Guards to show themselves and engage US forces much more fiercly than we have ever seen, mainly because the close proximity and the enemies previous knowledge of the landscape will negate whatever technological advantages we have.

The Republican Guard will likely engage US forces so close as to make effective air support impossible for fear of hitting our own troops. Once the spearhead is engaged and temporarily immobilized, they will call for reinforcements, which will arrive and balloon US presence within the city within 48 hours of initial engagement. As our presence expands, and are stalled in street fighting, that is likely when Saddam will let loose with whatever chem/bio/nuclear weapons he has, in an attempt to kill as many US/Iraqi civilians as possible.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 08:48 PM
link   
the battle of baghdad is no doubt going to be a long drawn out affair. a siege if you've never seen one. the iraqis will die of starvation lack of supplies, and relentless american attack. however, that is not to say that we won't fall at the gates of the castle either. i see the us taking heavy losses as well, as a loss in morale stealing any national support for american military attempts in the future. this will either be a fast success, low possibility, or the fall of american superpowerism, and the rise of a new european power.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 08:51 PM
link   
To be honest, the only way out of being caught in a huge quagmire in Baghdad is if US forces basically forgo any humanity, and take the view that those Iraqi civilians caught in the city are dead already, or will be killed during the fighting/release of WMD. IF they take this course, the only expedient way out would be sustained carpet bombing of the entire city with FAEs.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 09:04 PM
link   
my mood says it all. most of the iraqis are guilty of no agreeing with america. that makes them evil. so they should die? wtf is wrong with us. really.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 09:06 PM
link   
I didnt say it was right, but I could see the US military doing so. I also said that it was likely the only way we could win such an engagement without extreme numbers of causualties.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I agree with you Dragon, the RG is the big threat right now (leaving NK out of the discussion, obviously).

Although I care to disagree on one point- you are assuming that Saddam has control of ALL the chem/bio weapons in Baghdad. I wouldn't be surprised if our military pulled some pre-emptive chem/bio and blamed it on Saddam. Just don't forget that the US may resort to such a, "necessary evil".



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Just don't forget that the US may resort to such a, "necessary evil". Posted by MKUltra

I would agree with that, and that may well be how we justify carpet bombing with FAEs. However, I dont think they will stoop to that unless the Iraqis have some kind of WMD that would make conventional confrontation untenable.



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonrider
Just don't forget that the US may resort to such a, "necessary evil". Posted by MKUltra

I would agree with that, and that may well be how we justify carpet bombing with FAEs. However, I dont think they will stoop to that unless the Iraqis have some kind of WMD that would make conventional confrontation untenable.


I dare emit (since war hasn't been declared yet, and as i am therefore entitled not to shut up) the thought that the american infantry is relatively ineffective since undisciplined. If they need to take Baghdad, there will be a carpet bombing no matter what since losses are unacceptable. Now if Iraq didnt have or use WMD ... what is the President going to tell us then ?



posted on Mar, 17 2003 @ 10:13 PM
link   
the thought that the american infantry is relatively ineffective since undisciplined Posted by Karl Molarius

Well, I would agree with this partially, as I have posted extensively about the average Army foot soldier having next to no marksmanship skills in this current army. However, the Army will NOT be on the spearhead of this invasion, it will be the USMC, which is MUCH better trained. (They still teach the USMC that every man is a rifleman, and to actually pick and aim at an individual target rather than blasting away an entire clip in the general vicinity of the enemy).

Having said that, the average Iraqi conscript is about one step below dragging a homeless hobo off the street, handing him an AK-47, and threatening him at gunpoint to defend the country or die where he stands (I think this is Iraqs main recruitment strategy????)

The Republican Guard is considerably better armed, equipped, and trained than the average Iraqi conscript, and they may even be on a par with our average Army foot soldier... but that is still a number of steps below the USMC.... Also, consider that these same USMC forces have been training extensively in Israel for the last 9 months, specializing in urban combat (and who has better urban combat experience than the Israelis?)

Now if Iraq didnt have or use WMD ... what is the President going to tell us then Posted by Karl Molarius

If none is used, it will likely be a slightly drawn out ground combat, but not as bad as I described. We will likely still "find" chemical weapons, one way or the other, to give us a legitimate reason for this however.



posted on Mar, 18 2003 @ 08:27 PM
link   
first up, i wasn't saying that the people were the evil ones. i'm well aware that that isn't the case. i'm just asking why do the warhawks act so eagerly to get in there and blow something up. if our pres was a bit more competent then we wouldn't be in this mess. and if his father has one more ball, it would have been over the first time. no time to waste on could/should/would haves though.

secondly, if you had people like me fighting wars, the first gulf war would have been it. you don't know what kind of person i am and are no judge on that. first up, none of my posts have any relevance to my personality, only my opinion. my opinion doesn't define my personality. i contradict myself a lot. can't help it


the new european power would be the EU. france and germany are third rate powers, with nothing to gain from us excpet a useless attempt to usurp our power. i would have to say that american opinion has been suffieciently lowered to a point where both the US and UN have or will have little relevance in the near future.

me to be the judge on a siege? what authority do i have. none. it's mere speculation based on fact and expirience. it's entirely possible for a consolidated force of heavily armed iraqis to at least hold off a US attack for more than a month, before their morale drops to a point where they say f*ck it. i bet you have never had the chance to be a desperate man in a position where anything you do could mean death. or at least a LOT of pain. these people are desperate, and while many of them aren't willing to die for sodamn insane, there is also a number of them who would. never underestimate the will of mankind to protect what they hold dear, even if we see it as nothing more than a city in the desert. anyway, a siege would be possible in urban combat, where the iraqis have a large advantage in the fact that they know their cities, two they know the underground passages and could lead us onto the sense of victory, and come in behind us for a clean sweep. thirdly, urban warfare would render the USAF nearly useless, unless we are willing to drop our bombs on civilians.


on a side note, mail call kicks arse!!!



posted on Mar, 19 2003 @ 04:14 AM
link   
I agree Iraq will use weapons of mass destruction but I doubt he will strike first.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join