Just how short and cost-free did you expect this war to be? Our troops are going to be in Iraq for an extended period of time even if Baghdad falls tomorrow.
Why definitely? Like I said, we'd leave the lights on; the water too.
I don't expect it to be cost-free. I hope it costs you a lot more than expected. That way, it will be longer to the next war...
Just how short and cost-free did you expect this war to be? Our troops are going to be in Iraq for an extended period of time even if Baghdad falls tomorrow.
Why definitely? Like I said, we'd leave the lights on; the water too.
So Baghdad is beseiged - who do you think controls the food and medical supplies. So then who do you think will suffer the most?
It sure as hell ain't Mr. Hussein and his cronies who'll be the worst off.
Wrong. It is called genocide and subject to International Court. You'd better pray that nobody hears your ideas.
If you are referring to the third scenario, how is that genocide? They weren't willing to give up w/o fighting to the death anyway. I did say, "When they are surrounded, doomed to defeat, and refuse to surrender..." All of that implies they will not budge unless you kill them. This is war, not a committee to decide if they should surrender or not.
You should not ignore that this wasn't even my first suggestion. In no way, would I wish it come down to this. I rather like my first suggestion- put'em to sleep and then go in. Like I said, these were crazy ideas. In no way do I feel they are more valid strategies than what the real generals are thinking up. With regard to what really should be done, I default to what the real generals are doing. I have confidence they will do what is right.
I swear to god . . . you actually sound excited when you list over three things that are directly against INTERNATIONAL LAW and the Geneva Convention
and seem to froth in glee when you mention the MOAB!!
is this attitude in anyway indicative of the deep faults with many of your other attitudes?!?!
Don't you feel righteous? I thought this whole topic was in jest actually- as if any "casual observer" could come up with a "better" idea than the "professionals" who really call the shots. Thus I thought we were just brainstorming ideas here, not necessarily assessing them for critical realism and mental indicators of the person who makes the suggestion. Way to kill your own topic!
As to your observations that I may be excited and froth with glee, you should be sure to note that is a context you wish to put on my words. These were just ideas floating around in my head. In no way do I consider them better ideas than what is being done as we speak. See how easy it is for propaganda to slip from your mouth?
...and if International Law and the Geneva Convention truly outlaws bombing your enemy or putting them to sleep when in times of war, then it is all too clear how messed up the rules are with regard to getting anything done.
When the Russians used sleep gas (which killed many people) it was loudly stated that it was against the Geneva Convention.
As for the title of the thread . . yes, partly in jest at the absurdity of such Armchairing
but still, I think that it is plain that people will have opinions as to how things are going and what they could have done/will do/should do
within bounds of reason
Apologies for the frothing statement but it your enthusiasm for laying siege and gassing people seemed to suggest to me that perhaps teh ideas that lead to support for the war before it began could be seen as just as ungrounded and fanciful with more than a touch of the unconsciouse-active aggressive impulse . . . .
So Baghdad is beseiged - who do you think controls the food and medical supplies. So then who do you think will suffer the most?
It sure as hell ain't Mr. Hussein and his cronies who'll be the worst off.
So instead of torturing all of Iraq in this way he'd just be torturing Baghdad. Looks like an improvement to me. Furthermore, his position is eroding steadily. Time is on our side.
So instead of torturing all of Iraq in this way he'd just be torturing Baghdad. Looks like an improvement to me. Furthermore, his position is eroding steadily. Time is on our side.
Well, after some mulling, I think the single biggest missing piece in the current invasion strategy is losing Turkey and with it an easy way to have a northern front.
Tactically, I'm still mystified at the poor coordination of air power and ground power (mobile armor and infantry). Don't really know what's up with that. Any ground division should always have air support at their whim.
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
What would your strategy be?
What about tactics in the field?
I already stated a strategy. Lift the sanctions and have business dealings with the people of Iraq only. If the gov't unduly interferes with business (such as extraordinary taxation and whatnot), the business stops. Iraqis have to want to be free of Saddam, and they have to have an active resistence, before - if required - any invasion begins.
An active resistence movement is vital for any invasion because it provides desperately needed human intelligence and an at least the beginnings of an exit strategy. If it's not there, I don't think I would go.
When the Russians used sleep gas (which killed many people) it was loudly stated that it was against the Geneva Convention.
Please see my later comment that the "sleeping bomb" idea was more of a parody statement of the first suggestion. Had I thought you were going to hold me up to judgement as a cold, heartless psychopath for it, I wouldn't have bothered with your thread.
Per the Russian incident, yeah they did use sleeping gas, and yeah some people died. Would you have preferred they just went in and gunned everybody down? ...or just do an indefinite stand-off until the problem simply disappears by itself. It really appears you are leaning toward the third choice, to which I would say is a bit unrealistic (but warm and fuzzy, nevertheless). Far be it from you seeing that the 1st choice had a good deal of perks over the 2nd, which was pretty much the only other realistic alternative. We all hope for solutions that result in zero casualties, but the opportunities for that are few and far between. So finding every opportunity to waggle your finger everytime casualties do occur doesn't strike me as particularly helpful.
Ummm, when it's raining MUD the procedure is to keep aircraft tied down on the tarmac. Having air power at your beck and call happens AFTER Mother Nature has her say in the matter.
If/when coalition forces move to surround Baghdad the Iraqi forces will fall back into the city and use the city as they see fit. The siege mentality would certainly rally the civilians into support of their own forces, regardless of the ruthless reputation of those forces. The longer a siege lasts the more desperate the situation of the civilians. If a surrender is given, the resident army will likely blend into the population, booby trap the city and set up sniper plans to be executed as coaltion forces move in.
Videogame-style sieges, widespread bomb drops and sci-fi sleeping gas solutions are not something you can use on a civilian population.
If there IS an Iraqi fallback into the city of Baghdad and a subsequent permeable settlement into civilian population BY those forces, Saddam's government will have shown its utter disregard for the people of the country.
Comments
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Just how short and cost-free did you expect this war to be? Our troops are going to be in Iraq for an extended period of time even if Baghdad falls tomorrow.
Why definitely? Like I said, we'd leave the lights on; the water too.
I don't expect it to be cost-free. I hope it costs you a lot more than expected. That way, it will be longer to the next war...
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Just how short and cost-free did you expect this war to be? Our troops are going to be in Iraq for an extended period of time even if Baghdad falls tomorrow.
Why definitely? Like I said, we'd leave the lights on; the water too.
So Baghdad is beseiged - who do you think controls the food and medical supplies. So then who do you think will suffer the most?
It sure as hell ain't Mr. Hussein and his cronies who'll be the worst off.
Originally posted by costique
Wrong. It is called genocide and subject to International Court. You'd better pray that nobody hears your ideas.
If you are referring to the third scenario, how is that genocide? They weren't willing to give up w/o fighting to the death anyway. I did say, "When they are surrounded, doomed to defeat, and refuse to surrender..." All of that implies they will not budge unless you kill them. This is war, not a committee to decide if they should surrender or not.
You should not ignore that this wasn't even my first suggestion. In no way, would I wish it come down to this. I rather like my first suggestion- put'em to sleep and then go in. Like I said, these were crazy ideas. In no way do I feel they are more valid strategies than what the real generals are thinking up. With regard to what really should be done, I default to what the real generals are doing. I have confidence they will do what is right.
Originally posted by RodUK
Not to mention the fact that Iraqi soldiers seem to have gas masks, possibly incase Saddam resorts to using nerve gas.
Yes, that is a good point! Thus refer to the 1st suggestion. I gave the 2nd more in jest- as if there is really a such thing as a "sleeping gas bomb".
Originally posted by pfflam
I swear to god . . . you actually sound excited when you list over three things that are directly against INTERNATIONAL LAW and the Geneva Convention
and seem to froth in glee when you mention the MOAB!!
is this attitude in anyway indicative of the deep faults with many of your other attitudes?!?!
Don't you feel righteous? I thought this whole topic was in jest actually- as if any "casual observer" could come up with a "better" idea than the "professionals" who really call the shots. Thus I thought we were just brainstorming ideas here, not necessarily assessing them for critical realism and mental indicators of the person who makes the suggestion. Way to kill your own topic!
As to your observations that I may be excited and froth with glee, you should be sure to note that is a context you wish to put on my words. These were just ideas floating around in my head. In no way do I consider them better ideas than what is being done as we speak. See how easy it is for propaganda to slip from your mouth?
...and if International Law and the Geneva Convention truly outlaws bombing your enemy or putting them to sleep when in times of war, then it is all too clear how messed up the rules are with regard to getting anything done.
As for the title of the thread . . yes, partly in jest at the absurdity of such Armchairing
but still, I think that it is plain that people will have opinions as to how things are going and what they could have done/will do/should do
within bounds of reason
Apologies for the frothing statement but it your enthusiasm for laying siege and gassing people seemed to suggest to me that perhaps teh ideas that lead to support for the war before it began could be seen as just as ungrounded and fanciful with more than a touch of the unconsciouse-active aggressive impulse . . . .
Originally posted by Happy Camper
So Baghdad is beseiged - who do you think controls the food and medical supplies. So then who do you think will suffer the most?
It sure as hell ain't Mr. Hussein and his cronies who'll be the worst off.
So instead of torturing all of Iraq in this way he'd just be torturing Baghdad. Looks like an improvement to me. Furthermore, his position is eroding steadily. Time is on our side.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
So instead of torturing all of Iraq in this way he'd just be torturing Baghdad. Looks like an improvement to me. Furthermore, his position is eroding steadily. Time is on our side.
I hope you're right
Tactically, I'm still mystified at the poor coordination of air power and ground power (mobile armor and infantry). Don't really know what's up with that. Any ground division should always have air support at their whim.
Originally posted by pfflam
What would your strategy be?
What about tactics in the field?
I already stated a strategy. Lift the sanctions and have business dealings with the people of Iraq only. If the gov't unduly interferes with business (such as extraordinary taxation and whatnot), the business stops. Iraqis have to want to be free of Saddam, and they have to have an active resistence, before - if required - any invasion begins.
An active resistence movement is vital for any invasion because it provides desperately needed human intelligence and an at least the beginnings of an exit strategy. If it's not there, I don't think I would go.
Originally posted by pfflam
Let's each try it:
What would your strategy be?
What about tactics in the field?
. . . . I'll write some ideas later . . .
what are your ideas to get a fast, less politically volatile victory?
all I got...
Originally posted by pfflam
When the Russians used sleep gas (which killed many people) it was loudly stated that it was against the Geneva Convention.
Please see my later comment that the "sleeping bomb" idea was more of a parody statement of the first suggestion. Had I thought you were going to hold me up to judgement as a cold, heartless psychopath for it, I wouldn't have bothered with your thread.
Per the Russian incident, yeah they did use sleeping gas, and yeah some people died. Would you have preferred they just went in and gunned everybody down? ...or just do an indefinite stand-off until the problem simply disappears by itself. It really appears you are leaning toward the third choice, to which I would say is a bit unrealistic (but warm and fuzzy, nevertheless). Far be it from you seeing that the 1st choice had a good deal of perks over the 2nd, which was pretty much the only other realistic alternative. We all hope for solutions that result in zero casualties, but the opportunities for that are few and far between. So finding every opportunity to waggle your finger everytime casualties do occur doesn't strike me as particularly helpful.
If/when coalition forces move to surround Baghdad the Iraqi forces will fall back into the city and use the city as they see fit. The siege mentality would certainly rally the civilians into support of their own forces, regardless of the ruthless reputation of those forces. The longer a siege lasts the more desperate the situation of the civilians. If a surrender is given, the resident army will likely blend into the population, booby trap the city and set up sniper plans to be executed as coaltion forces move in.
Videogame-style sieges, widespread bomb drops and sci-fi sleeping gas solutions are not something you can use on a civilian population.
If there IS an Iraqi fallback into the city of Baghdad and a subsequent permeable settlement into civilian population BY those forces, Saddam's government will have shown its utter disregard for the people of the country.
This is what I expect to happen though.
It seems a bit quiet on the Western front.