The Battle of Baghdad

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Azazel
so, who are the barbarians who are about to kick your ass?

the barbarians who killed 3000 of us, who left a smoking hole in lower manhattan, and who left the acrid smoke pouring out of the Pentagon, that I remember smelling. Those barbarians. But we're gonna beat them, cause we're a fundamentally different kind of polity than ancient Rome.

[Alex]

DP

[Alex]

Caesar, morituri te salutant.

(Hm, my Latin is a bit rusted)

What came after the glorious Roman Empire? The Dark Age. Oh boy.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Alexnm
Caesar, morituri te salutant.

(Hm, my Latin is a bit rusted)

What came after the glorious Roman Empire? The Dark Age. Oh boy.

Fortunately, history doesn't repeat itself exactly.

[Az]

the barbarians who killed 3000 of us, who left a smoking hole in lower manhattan, and who left the acrid smoke pouring out of the Pentagon, that I remember smelling. Those barbarians. But we're gonna beat them, cause we're a fundamentally different kind of polity than ancient Rome.

then his entire point is void.

[Willem]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
[SIZE=1]

Since 1991
the US went into somalia as part of a UN operation, at teh urging of the UN.
The US fought in Kosovo, as part of a multilateral NATO operation, which Blair pushed as much as more than the US govt, after having been very reluctant to get involved in the Balkan conflict.
We went into Afganistan after an attack ON OUR SOIL that killed 3000, could easily have killed more. One which we entered with the approval of the entire world.
The implication that the US goes to war at the drop of a hat is false. Invading Iraq may or may not be justified, but the idea you imply is wrong, and to hope for high US casualties to avoid it is vile.

What about Panama, Grenada, Vietnam? And what about all the US support for puppet regimes, as in Nicauragua, the Shah of Iran?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Willem


What about Panama, Grenada, Vietnam? And what about all the US support for puppet regimes, as in Nicauragua, the Shah of Iran?

Note I said since 1991. Panama was in 1989 (iirc) grenad in 1984, and US withdrew from Viet nam in 1972.
The shah was overthrown in 1979, Somoza in the mid-70's IIRC.

The cold war was a different time, I was trying to refer to the post cold war era.

You did read my post, didnt you?????

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Azazel

then his entire point is void.

His point:
"We don't lose brothers or sons because we kick so much ass. The Romans, our geopolitical forebears, went to war all the time to maintain the Pax Romana, against smaller and less well trained armies. They did very well in those engagements. America is the same way."

Well im not sure if "geoppolitical forebears" can be reconciled with "A very different polity" (though i suspect it can be) but his main point, that low US casualties are associated with (and caused by) geopolitical dominance seems to stand - how is it contradicted by what i said????

[Willem]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Note I said since 1991. Panama was in 1989 (iirc) grenad in 1984, and US withdrew from Viet nam in 1972.
The shah was overthrown in 1979, Somoza in the mid-70's IIRC.

The cold war was a different time, I was trying to refer to the post cold war era.

You did read my post, didnt you?????

When it comes to international trust, you can't just draw a line and say that actions before then don't count. Americans may not care to much about history, but many cultures still get angry over things that occured a hundred years ago. They aren't just going to ignore past indiscretions by the US, especially when the current administration is acting in the same way as they did in the "bad old days".

Hell, most of Bush's staff also served under Reagan. I'm sure more than a few of them had a hand in all those engagements I mentioned. Oliver North certainly wasn't acting alone.

[Az]

Well im not sure if "geoppolitical forebears" can be reconciled with "A very different polity

this was my biggest problem.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Willem


When it comes to international trust, you can't just draw a line and say that actions before then don't count. Americans may not care to much about history, but many cultures still get angry over things that occured a hundred years ago. They aren't just going to ignore past indiscretions by the US, especially when the current administration is acting in the same way as they did in the "bad old days".

Hell, most of Bush's staff also served under Reagan. I'm sure more than a few of them had a hand in all those engagements I mentioned. Oliver North certainly wasn't acting alone.

He was not speaking what makes him angry in general, but his fear that the US will regularly start wars if things dont go badly for us in Iraq. If we're trying to guess at future behavior it makes sense to draw a line where the situation changed enough to impact behavior. (Isnt it europeans who are always telling israelis to forget about Arafats history as a terrorist???)


Every nation has indiscertions in its past. If we are to be paralyzed because of that, no democracy will act - and thats just what people like Saddam hussein want. And the US, without defending each indiviudal action undertaken in the cold war, was by and large doing the right thing. As our allies, by and large agreed. If youre going to go back to history, you need to go back to the WHOLE history - the defense of Europe in NATO for 40 years, not just a Grenada or Nicaruagua.

[Sandman]

I don't expect the Iraqis to put up much of a fight at Baghdad. It'll just be loads of civilian casualties, and hand-wringing from warmongers mumbling about collateral damage and 'these things happen in war'.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Sandman
I don't expect the Iraqis to put up much of a fight at Baghdad. It'll just be loads of civilian casualties, and hand-wringing from warmongers mumbling about collateral damage and 'these things happen in war'.

Boy, aren't we out of line.

[Sten Sture]

Originally posted by Oerdin
We'll probably use the AirCav to take key points which we can easily defend and then we seige the city and starve out the resisters.

Tactically I think this is how it might unfold, though I would argue that because of the nature of the defensive positions around Baghdad, the more likely end game is to try to turn the outer circle Rep Guard against the inner circle Special Guards. Since they cannot move their positions, a defection by one section would allow the civilians in the city to be evacuated. I would seriously doubt if there will be either carpet bombing (in an urban area???) or house to house fighting. A surrounded and emasculated Saddam for a peoiod of weeks is a containment policy that could work easier than the DMZ in Korea, and with very low overall casualties. Could be as low as a couple hundred total - on all sides.

[Ned]

The US got into some very intense battles in WWII, both theaters, and in Korean and Vietnam. We did very well in those most of those battles, all told. The reason we did well was firepower.

But, if the enemy is determined and has plenty of ammo, it can put up quite a resistance. I am thinking of the Russians before Moscow in '41 and at Stalingrad late '42 and the Germans in the winter '42-43 attack on Army Group Center and at Berlin in '45. Those were bloodbaths.