Iraq = Vietnam part 2?

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: sward666
Are there any hookers in Baghdad? If not, then No, this will not be another Vietnam.

You wouldn't believe how many female GI's were selling their services in 1991.

You're right, I wouldn't. C'mon man, tell some stories.

 

[Jmman]

Do you guys really think Iraqi troops are going to fight to the death for Saddam?? I think the troops who tried to surrender before the actual fighting started are just a sign of what is to come. I doubt you could find a soldier anywhere in their armed forces that hasn't had a family member, friend, associate, etc killed by Saddam. They are going to turn on him.....

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: sward666
Are there any hookers in Baghdad? If not, then No, this will not be another Vietnam.

You wouldn't believe how many female GI's were selling their services in 1991.

:Q:Q:Q
Really??

i doubt it

 

[TheCorm]

Although I don't reckon it will be I think that being totally over confident and just saying a straight "No" is not the way to go.....Sometimes these insignificant groups can cause massive damage on much larger groups....ie September 11th....

I think there is little choice but for it to happen though....

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: sward666
Are there any hookers in Baghdad? If not, then No, this will not be another Vietnam.

You wouldn't believe how many female GI's were selling their services in 1991.

You're right, I wouldn't. C'mon man, tell some stories.

Actually, it's always been that way. Finding a piece of tail was never hard. You just have to lower your standards and "go ugly early".

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Do you guys really think Iraqi troops are going to fight to the death for Saddam?? I think the troops who tried to surrender before the actual fighting started are just a sign of what is to come. I doubt you could find a soldier anywhere in their armed forces that hasn't had a family member, friend, associate, etc killed by Saddam. They are going to turn on him.....

I've heard that the Shi'ite (sp?) and other non-Sunni soldiers will fight like they fought in Gulf War I, with the white flag. But the loyalists to Saddam will be in Baghdad, and they're the ones that will fight to the death.

 

[Soybomb]

I wonder if there is a point where we should stop protesting and offer our support to the troops.

Protesting the war has nothing to do with supporting our troops. I am against the war but have nothing but respect for our troops.

 

[nemesismk2]

no

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: sward666

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: sward666
Are there any hookers in Baghdad? If not, then No, this will not be another Vietnam.

You wouldn't believe how many female GI's were selling their services in 1991.

You're right, I wouldn't. C'mon man, tell some stories.

Actually, it's always been that way. Finding a piece of tail was never hard. You just have to lower your standards and "go ugly early".

Deployment ho's. Tell em about how all the guys in the wardroom locked thier wedding rings in the safe...ummmm...I didn't say that.....It sucks. I really think that having men and women serve together is extremely bad for morale/professionalism/etc.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: maladroit

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: jemcam

Originally posted by: sward666
Are there any hookers in Baghdad? If not, then No, this will not be another Vietnam.

You wouldn't believe how many female GI's were selling their services in 1991.

:Q:Q:Q
Really??

i doubt it

I'm not asking you to believe. I'm telling the truth. Ask someone who was there any time from August 1990 to March 1991, he'll tell you. Lots of girls were busted. Some did it to get pregnant so they could go back state side.

 

[FoBoT]

no

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: CPA
No.

Nadda

Not a chance

LOL! Iraqi soldiers were already surrendering to troops while they were on target range........yep, their ready to die for Saddam...........

I'm sure there will be *some* troops whom will fight, but, realisticly, Saddam will put all his eggs in the proverbial "Baghdad basket" and this will provide several scenarios for limited casualties such as surrounding Baghdad and simply waiting them out or sending spec. forces in to take out specific targets........

 

[HOWITIS]

actually the prob with vietnam was that we wanted to prevent another North Korea. that was what everyone was saying at the time.


we felt we could minalize casualties by going into a war of attrition. we also wanted to keep china out of the war, unlike korea.

 

[Pocatello]

Kind of hard to fight to the death for a regime you know won't be there for long. The Russians fought hard for Stalingrad because they knew they if they surrendered, they and their family members would be killed by the Nazis or Stalin's death squads. The Germans fought hard in Berlin against the Russians so that their families could escape toward the western allied forces. The Iraqis know that we are not going to round up thousands of civilians for the gas chambers or slavery. In fact, the US wants to keep the Iraqi army in good shape after the war, in case Iraq's neighbors get greedy. Lastly, I don't think the Pentagon brass want to satisfy Saddam's wish by fighting for Baghad street to street.

 

[Red Dawn]

North Viet Nam was armed and supported by the Soviet Union and had Soviet Advisors, the Iraqi?s under Hussien haven?t that kind of support from any outside Military Power.

 

[human2k]

Originally posted by: jemcam

The ground war this time will take considerably longer because urban warfare is much more dangerous and will have a significantly higher casualty rate. The city will have to be taken block by block, building by building, floor by floor. That can't be done quickly and safely.

Can anyone say "black hawk down"?

 

[Stark]

negative!

 

[ToBeMe]

The ground war this time will take considerably longer because urban warfare is much more dangerous and will have a significantly higher casualty rate. The city will have to be taken block by block, building by building, floor by floor. That can't be done quickly and safely.

Franks, Rumsfeld and powell already discussed this and stated that if strong resistance is found, the surround and wait tactic will be used with special forces going in regualarly to take out specific targets of oppertunity......................

 

[Zebo]

No,
- There is no "ho chi min trail" and powerful Russians and Chinese to supply them
- There is'nt 1/2 the will to fight because they are fighting for a man (saddam) not an idea (communism)
- There is'nt dense foliage to hide behind
-There is'nt a network of tunnels
-We know who the enemy is unkike veitnam
-We have learned to go all-the-way not half ass

 

[jjones]

Originally posted by: Savij
So do you guys think that this war is going to be a second vietnam for the US? We assumed that Vietnam would be a quick little skirmish and the country seems to be operating under the same assumption now. Just like before, the U.S. is very divided about the war.

I'm starting to think that this will end up being a politically run military campaign and a lot of American soldiers are going to suffer b/c the war will be run by politicians instead of military planners. I wonder if there is a point where we should stop protesting and offer our support to the troops. I feel sorry for the soldiers who signed up, hearts filled with patriotism, after 9/11 and will return to a country where a lot of people are going to hate them because they followed the orders that they were given by the country that they signed up to defend.

I want to know that ATOT thinks on this issue...please don't post about whether or not we should go to war there are 50 million plus other places to discuss that.

-SS

In a word: No.

The first Gulf War had ten times as much chance as being a politically run military campaign than this one.

Edit: And in fact, it ultimately was. Political and diplomatic pressures were two of the primary reasons the decision was made not go into Baghdad in '91.

 

[Bulk Beef]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

The ground war this time will take considerably longer because urban warfare is much more dangerous and will have a significantly higher casualty rate. The city will have to be taken block by block, building by building, floor by floor. That can't be done quickly and safely.

Franks, Rumsfeld and powell already discussed this and stated that if strong resistance is found, the surround and wait tactic will be used with special forces going in regualarly to take out specific targets of oppertunity......................

I really don't see us getting involved in a Stalingrad-like quagmire. The PTBs know that massive casualties will send their tentative support up in a puff of smoke.

 

[StageLeft]

No. Did you watch the first golf war? The difference between now and the first gulf war is: 1) Iraq's military is weaker and 2) US's military is stronger.

It won't be a big blackhawk down with fighting in the streets because Saddamn's regime will crumble fast.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: Jmman
Do you guys really think Iraqi troops are going to fight to the death for Saddam?? I think the troops who tried to surrender before the actual fighting started are just a sign of what is to come. I doubt you could find a soldier anywhere in their armed forces that hasn't had a family member, friend, associate, etc killed by Saddam. They are going to turn on him.....

I've heard that the Shi'ite (sp?) and other non-Sunni soldiers will fight like they fought in Gulf War I, with the white flag. But the loyalists to Saddam will be in Baghdad, and they're the ones that will fight to the death.

Look to history to see your answer. Once Germany began to fall to the West, even the most fervent of Nazi's begin a) high-tailing it outta there b) surrendering c) ratting out their friends. A few fought, but most didn't. The russian advance was a different story. They fought because they knew what the Russians would do to them once they got there.

And I doubt Saddam has as many fervant supports as Adolph did. They like his cigars and brandy and new cars.