Iraqi soldiers already surrendering -- oops.

[Alexander's Horse]

Maybe they are trying to take the record time off the WWII Italians for spontaneous surrendering. They gotta get something out of this mess.

They'll find the Italians hard to beat though, which may have prompted the false start

[faded glory]

"This is all speculation. In the first Gulf War the Iraquis didn't really want to fight. The RG were supposed to get the hell out of the way as fast as they could.


LOL no they werent. The Iraqi war plan was based on an attack on kuwait city. We swung around the desert and ran headlong into Iraqi positions. Four IRG divisions. That was 1/2 of the Republican Gaurd. There is no speculation too it... they dug themselves in, we dug em' out.

Medina Ridge, 73 Easting, and Khafjii. Look up the battles on Google, you will be enlightened. I promise you.

Im curouis what you base this next piece on?

"We shall see about the RG. I have a policy of not believeing Gulf War propaganda, based on talking to people who were there. "

Theres no propaganda to it. They were crushed, over 50,000 Iraqi soldiers dead... 62,000 prisoners. 62000 ! When all was said and done 500 Coalition troops were dead, half to friendly fire and 1/4 were saudi's.

"Anyway, the interesting stuff happens the day after the war ends. Every Iraqui with a gun and a grudge against the US is going to go shooting. And it looks like being a target rich environment."

Ya right...like the afgans

[Pekka]

You can make someone your enemy, because it's the enemy of your own or your friend. Like Iraqis getting ready for the US attack, because they defend their own country even if they don't like Saddam. Then there are people who don't want to fight because they don't dislike the US, or identify more with the US as in hating Saddam even more. Works both ways, I think the key here is Saddam, how much you like him compared to how much you like your country (two different things) and these combined and comparing to how much you hate the US. Many of them (maybe majority) loves their own country and would fight to death because of it, but don't like Saddam and again understands that the US wants Saddam, not Iraqi people and think they are fighting the wrong war here since it has no meaning to them.

They either think they fight for their country and stay with weapons, or they think they fight for their country that is owned by Saddam and wages is it worth it because he is crap.

They're going to lose anyway, they die or surrender. It's not a question about freedom. If they would win, they still be ruled by Saddam. They have only bad choices, and they try to figure out themselves what is the least bad choice to make, and surrendering might be good choice.

[Alexander's Horse]

They really need to put some signs up along the border:

The POW camp is: OPEN/CLOSED.

[Dinner]

Hehe, they may get a flood of visiters once they put the Open sign up.

[Promethus]

faded glory

Medina Ridge, 73 Easting, and Khafjii. Look up the battles on Google, you will be enlightened. I promise you.

Links Please>

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by faded glory
agathon. The IRG didnt have a chance. And we didnt just engage 'rabble' conscripts. What have you been smoking? The left hook through the desert ran head long into 4 of the 7 Iraqi Republican Gaurd divisions (Tala****a, Hammurabai, and Hussien).Contrary to popular belief only shattered remnants of the IRG escaped Kuwait, the rest were sitting in Baghdad. Anyway, all 4 divisions were massacred and some 900 Iraqi
T-72's, BMP's, and other vehicles were blown to hell at the loss of 11 Coalition AFV's and 2 deaths. Just to prove my point, A story about some 30 British Scimitar's armed with only 30mm cannons destroyed some 60 Iraqi tanks manned by RG forces.

The IRG is over-rated. Sure they fought better than the conscripts. But that isnt much of an improvement considering the conscripts didnt fight at ALL.

Okay, I just have to know...what the heck was starred out in the first name?

[Lord Merciless]

It's a little unfair that the airforce got all the credit in Gulf War I: Saddam's armors survived the 6-week bombardement relatively intact, it was the 100 hours ground campagn that destroyed the great majority of weapons.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
They really need to put some signs up along the border:

The POW camp is: OPEN/CLOSED.

perhaps the army can obtain some hotel vacancy/no vacancy signs...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by curtsibling
But curse Saddam to hades for what he is about to put his army through, his stubborn arrogance disgusts me.

A lot of men are going to die for nothing.

I don't understand this.

Isn't it GWB who initiated this whole thing, that Hussein violated UNSC resolutions etc. etc.? So why is this Hussein's fault, not Dubya's?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I don't understand this.

Isn't it GWB who initiated this whole thing, that Hussein violated UNSC resolutions etc. etc.? So why is this Hussein's fault, not Dubya's?

Didn't Saddam instigate everything by expelling UN inspectors in '98, and never really disarming in the first place?

oh well, i think this is heading in the same direction as, "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"

[Urban Ranger]

Why is this an issue all of a sudden? Why not in 1998? Really, you have to admit that all these talks of violating UN resolutions is just a pretext.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Why not in 1998? "

The US was led by a person of moral cowardice. That person tried limited actions such as Operation Desert Fox to ensure compliance, but said person was unable to take the actions needed to uphold the demand for disarmanent.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I don't understand this.

Isn't it GWB who initiated this whole thing, that Hussein violated UNSC resolutions etc. etc.? So why is this Hussein's fault, not Dubya's?

If Saddam wanted to do Iraq a favour, he would step down.
He has proven to be unworthy of national leadership.

His stubborness will only result in thousands of dead Iraqis, and Bush II is happy to do the honours.

It is not really Bush II's fault, he is an opportunist, and doing what he see as the correct thing for the USA.

(personally, I think Bush II is side-stepping the issue of real terrorism)

Saddam is the one who is a mad beast and unfit to rule.
He is the one who is going to but thousands of young Iraqi men through the Allied meat-grinder for no purpose.

[Tattila the Hun]

I'm doubtfull that those blokes told anyone of their attempt to surrender.