Well since you didn't bother to read my links that I posted, I won't waste further time with a ridiculer.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Not that we know of.
However, ONLY the FOREIGN Arab fighters continued to attack the troops . . . in fact they complained that they were deserted by the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard and left to fight ALONE. There was NO defense of Baghdad. :Q
Might want to tell that to marines who were shot at while entering Baghdad.....
That was a weak resistance. Something fishy went on. How can a city like Basra take a few weeks to capture but Baghdad took 1 day? One surprising thing is that all of his palaces were empty of furniture. What happened to it? According to sources, Saddam slept at different palaces every night so there would be no reason for them to be empty of furniture.
Because by the time we got to Baghdad there was little command and control left. Even the most blind commanders could see defeat was unavoidable.
What makes you think that there wouldn't have been a blood bath with snipers shooting from a variety of buildings? Arabs aren't the French. They fight until death.
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: charrison
Well since you didn't bother to read my links that I posted, I won't waste further time with a ridiculer.
He brings up an interesting point. Where did the guy sit?
Originally posted by: apoppin
Well since you didn't bother to read my links that I posted, I won't waste further time with a ridiculer.
I read the articles, i even saved the repost bit....
But feel free to answer my questions, but I know you wont.
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Not that we know of.
However, ONLY the FOREIGN Arab fighters continued to attack the troops . . . in fact they complained that they were deserted by the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard and left to fight ALONE. There was NO defense of Baghdad. :Q
Might want to tell that to marines who were shot at while entering Baghdad.....
That was a weak resistance. Something fishy went on. How can a city like Basra take a few weeks to capture but Baghdad took 1 day? One surprising thing is that all of his palaces were empty of furniture. What happened to it? According to sources, Saddam slept at different palaces every night so there would be no reason for them to be empty of furniture.
Because by the time we got to Baghdad there was little command and control left. Even the most blind commanders could see defeat was unavoidable.
What makes you think that there wouldn't have been a blood bath with snipers shooting from a variety of buildings? Arabs aren't the French. They fight until death.
Why do we have several thousand pows now?
Why did the iraqi army have very high desertion?
Why did we have ~90,000 pows in gulf war 1?
Interesting spin, but no real facts only conjecture.
But let me ask again. What is the problem if a deal was struck with commanders to hand over Baghdad? Were you wanting a blood bath there?
I simply don't believe that - in the four minutes between the time I posted links to TWO articles and the time YOU replied that you even skimmed them - let alone read them or considered them and formulated a thoughtful reply.Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Well since you didn't bother to read my links that I posted, I won't waste further time with a ridiculer.
I read the articles, i even saved the repost bit....
But feel free to answer my questions, but I know you wont.
You are a ridiculer. You don't give my posts ANY thought. Why should I bother with your ridiculous views?
(I won't)
The problem is that Bush alleged that Saddam was a war criminal and now he's letting him go. It sounds very hypocritical to me.
I'm thinking that the point here is that the public should have known that this deal was taking place.
EDIT: In other words this is what I think that the original poster meant.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Hey here's a thought:Q
Maybe Baghdad fell so easily cuz WE BOMBED THE S#!T OUT OF IT!!! Now I'm not saying that we didn't or couldn't have struck a deal or two along the way, infact I hope we did do just that as that would have saved us lives(Iraqi and our Soldiers). But I'm going to act the part of the sceptic just like you guys do in the WMD threads..."until there is independantly verifiable PROOF..."
CkG
Maybe Baghdad fell so easily cuz WE BOMBED THE S#!T OUT OF IT!!! Now I'm not saying that we didn't or couldn't have struck a deal or two along the way, infact I hope we did do just that as that would have saved us lives(Iraqi and our Soldiers). But I'm going to act the part of the sceptic just like you guys do in the WMD threads..."until there is independantly verifiable PROOF..."
CkG
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Why? Cripes - you guys and your "We want to know..." whining. You need to get over that fact that our government has a need to keep some things confidential.
CkG
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: BarneyFife
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: apoppin
Not that we know of.
However, ONLY the FOREIGN Arab fighters continued to attack the troops . . . in fact they complained that they were deserted by the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard and left to fight ALONE. There was NO defense of Baghdad. :Q
Might want to tell that to marines who were shot at while entering Baghdad.....
That was a weak resistance. Something fishy went on. How can a city like Basra take a few weeks to capture but Baghdad took 1 day? One surprising thing is that all of his palaces were empty of furniture. What happened to it? According to sources, Saddam slept at different palaces every night so there would be no reason for them to be empty of furniture.
Because by the time we got to Baghdad there was little command and control left. Even the most blind commanders could see defeat was unavoidable.
What makes you think that there wouldn't have been a blood bath with snipers shooting from a variety of buildings? Arabs aren't the French. They fight until death.
Why do we have several thousand pows now?
Why did the iraqi army have very high desertion?
Why did we have ~90,000 pows in gulf war 1?
Yeah, several thousand more died fighting
Many in the Iraqi Army were conscripts forced to fight, or face retribution, not true soldiers
There were an estimated 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed during the Gulf War and even then many of the "soldiers" were conscripts
Say what you want about the Arabs, even with all our weaponry, they still put up a valiant, if ultimately futile, fight. Forget the French, how many Americans would be willing to strap dinamite to themselves to kill an enemy soldier?
When I said that I was thinking that the point here is I was referring to the original poster, sheesh
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hey here's a thought:Q
Maybe Baghdad fell so easily cuz WE BOMBED THE S#!T OUT OF IT!!! Now I'm not saying that we didn't or couldn't have struck a deal or two along the way, infact I hope we did do just that as that would have saved us lives(Iraqi and our Soldiers). But I'm going to act the part of the sceptic just like you guys do in the WMD threads..."until there is independantly verifiable PROOF..."
CkG
I hope you do remain skeptical and keep your own view.
I am certainly not sure what to believe. But - as I have repeated - it's very interesting.
The Jordanian "freedom fighters" sure think a "deal" was struck at the highest levels. The French are picking up on it.
I'd actually have a better opinion of Bush if he did "strike a deal" with the devil, Saddam to "save" Baghdad and especially our troops. At least, we'd have "assurances" the WMD would be found and the Iraq government changed with minimal bloodshed.
But I fear we shall never know for sure.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Originally posted by: Spyro
When I said that I was thinking that the point here is I was referring to the original poster, sheesh
My point is still valid whether or not you actually agree with what you posted.
CkG
Because it's going to make the US look bad? I don't see how national security would be effected if this information was released.
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Hey here's a thought:Q
Maybe Baghdad fell so easily cuz WE BOMBED THE S#!T OUT OF IT!!! Now I'm not saying that we didn't or couldn't have struck a deal or two along the way, infact I hope we did do just that as that would have saved us lives(Iraqi and our Soldiers). But I'm going to act the part of the sceptic just like you guys do in the WMD threads..."until there is independantly verifiable PROOF..."
CkG
I hope you do remain skeptical and keep your own view.
I am certainly not sure what to believe. But - as I have repeated - it's very interesting.
The Jordanian "freedom fighters" sure think a "deal" was struck at the highest levels. The French are picking up on it.
I'd actually have a better opinion of Bush if he did "strike a deal" with the devil, Saddam to "save" Baghdad and especially our troops. At least, we'd have "assurances" the WMD would be found and the Iraq government changed with minimal bloodshed.
But I fear we shall never know for sure.
Until this has been verified. I'm not really going to buy into it myself, but, yes, the idea is actually quite intruiging, in some ways it even seems to make sense. However I don't think that it will blow over well with the American public anyway, so in other words, unless some kind of clever spin is put on it we porbably won't ever know for sure.
I find it difficult to believe we put a member of Saddam's regime into the gunner's seat of an Apache.
Anyone who does believe that needs to contact the mothership about getting their fillings replaced.
Anyone who does believe that needs to contact the mothership about getting their fillings replaced.
Your point is only "valid" from YOUR point of view.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Spyro
When I said that I was thinking that the point here is I was referring to the original poster, sheesh
My point is still valid whether or not you actually agree with what you posted.
CkG
I know you like to live in your little world . . . I am simply posting what the REST of the WORLD (the OTHER 6 BILLION humans) thinks . . .
Perhaps you are not capable of handling the truth and prefers to swallow everything the government spoon feeds you.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Spyro
When I said that I was thinking that the point here is I was referring to the original poster, sheesh
My point is still valid whether or not you actually agree with what you posted.
CkG
Hrmmm..... Good point. However, I'm trying to avoid getting, needlessly, PM'd with another flame. And I thought I was the dragon
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
It may be released (if it happened) but maybe we haven't gotten them to a secure place yet, or maybe they haven't held up their end of the bargain yet...too many variables to know.
CkG
The public did know, we only talked about attempting negotiating surrenders for several weeks before the war started. This would not be a surprise if true. Even Sun Tzu would have prefered this strategy.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter