It's Started(the war that is)

[JeffreyLebowski]

the link

March 19, 2003

First shots fired at sea as allied battle plan unfolds
By David Sharrock in Kuwait and Michael Evans, Defence Editor



THE first shots of the war have been fired, killing at least one Iraqi during a suspected operation to mine the waters off Kuwait. But that opening skirmish is about to be dwarfed by the most formidable military assault in modern warfare: 250,000 British and American troops ? backed by more than 1,000 aircraft, 400 tanks and a 110-strong armada ? are poised to unleash their awesome power on Saddam Hussein?s Iraq the moment the order is given.
The first clash occurred in the mouth of the Khawr al-Zubayr river, a few miles south of the port of Umm Qasr, when a Kuwaiti gunboat challenged a flotilla of about 25 Iraqi dhows. The boats failed to respond and the Kuwaitis opened fire. It was unclear whether the dhows had laid any mines.

The Royal Navy has four mine counter-measure vessels in the Gulf which were searching the waterway last night.

Tensions in the waters off Iraq are running high and coalition ships are alert to the threat of mines and terrorist strikes. A British ship escorting Royal Navy and US minesweepers was threatened yesterday while at anchor in the northern Gulf. A cargo vessel, feared to be on an al-Qaeda suicide mission, came within 800 yards of RFA Sir Bedivere during a tense hour-long stand-off. Crew members trained two machineguns on the 500-tonne ship, The stand-off ended only when it was driven away by the heavily armed USS Ardent.

 

[Howard]

US represent!

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Howard
US represent!

 

[Anubis]

we gonna kick some ass

 

[slydecix]

Originally posted by: Howard
US represent!

hahaha

 

[LSUfan]

I think that it will start soon. I'm still waiting to be called!

 

[SilverThief]

here we go!

 

[Dacalo]

its good to hear that it has started, but i hope it ends soon and casualties are minimal

 

[Alistar7]

Unfortunately I think we will see high nubmer of Iraqi dead. We should sweep through the desert to Baghdad even easier than last time, again with susbstantial Iraq forces surrendering. However in the last conflict we did not engage the republican guard or the elite rep guard, they fled to Baghdad at the start of the war. They will be in place their again to defend the capital city, along with armed citizens. I do not feel the US will risk heavy losses in a guerilla war for one city, I strongly think they will instead LEVEL Bagdhdad and come in to sweep up the rubble. If this strategy would allow for a substantial saving of American forces I am all for it as well.

 

[N8Magic]

Link

(make sure you have sound on )

 

[rudeguy]

naah..that was just a lil target practice to make sure the guns were workin ok....just wait til the real thing starts

 

[ECUHITMAN]

According to MSNBC we have 21 hours 13 mins and a handful of seconds to "something".... I am sure we are not going to kick this off when that timer ends, but what do I know. I just think that would be very strange if MSNBC is correct on the time frame.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Unfortunately I think we will see high nubmer of Iraqi dead. We should sweep through the desert to Baghdad even easier than last time, again with susbstantial Iraq forces surrendering. However in the last conflict we did not engage the republican guard or the elite rep guard, they fled to Baghdad at the start of the war. They will be in place their again to defend the capital city, along with armed citizens. I do not feel the US will risk heavy losses in a guerilla war for one city, I strongly think they will instead LEVEL Bagdhdad and come in to sweep up the rubble. If this strategy would allow for a substantial saving of American forces I am all for it as well.

You do realize, of course, that it is about 300 miles from the Kuwait border to Baghdad. You don't "sweep" tanks and armored vehicles over 300 miles quickly. You have to secure every inch of your supply line in order to keep fuel, food and ammunition close by. You are also going to have to deal with tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers surrendering. They have to be taken care of.

The U.S. will never "level" Baghdad. It is unnecessary to kill tens of thousands of civilians. To do so would create an unacceptable animosity in the Middle East.

Once we surround Baghdad and Saddam and his sons have slipped out the back door, the Republican Guard is going to surender as well.

 

[rudeguy]

thats til the end of the 48 hour deadline...look for fireworks at around 5 pm eastern time the next day (which is when it will be night in Iraq)

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Unfortunately I think we will see high nubmer of Iraqi dead. We should sweep through the desert to Baghdad even easier than last time, again with susbstantial Iraq forces surrendering. However in the last conflict we did not engage the republican guard or the elite rep guard, they fled to Baghdad at the start of the war. They will be in place their again to defend the capital city, along with armed citizens. I do not feel the US will risk heavy losses in a guerilla war for one city, I strongly think they will instead LEVEL Bagdhdad and come in to sweep up the rubble. If this strategy would allow for a substantial saving of American forces I am all for it as well.

You do realize, of course, that it is about 300 miles from the Kuwait border to Baghdad. You don't "sweep" tanks and armored vehicles over 300 miles quickly. You have to secure every inch of your supply line in order to keep fuel, food and ammunition close by. You are also going to have to deal with tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers surrendering. They have to be taken care of.

The U.S. will never "level" Baghdad. It is unnecessary to kill tens of thousands of civilians. To do so would create an unacceptable animosity in the Middle East.

Once we surround Baghdad and Saddam and his sons have slipped out the back door, the Republican Guard is going to surender as well.

I read that the plan is to allow the Iraqis to surrender but not take them in as prisoners of war. Basically, we will allow the commander to keep a small firearm to maintain order, but all other weapons must be given up. The Iraqis then must promise to go to their camps and not engage in any fighting. This will allow us to escape from several requirements we would be obligated to if we took them in as POWs. I will try to find a link.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Unfortunately I think we will see high nubmer of Iraqi dead. We should sweep through the desert to Baghdad even easier than last time, again with susbstantial Iraq forces surrendering. However in the last conflict we did not engage the republican guard or the elite rep guard, they fled to Baghdad at the start of the war. They will be in place their again to defend the capital city, along with armed citizens. I do not feel the US will risk heavy losses in a guerilla war for one city, I strongly think they will instead LEVEL Bagdhdad and come in to sweep up the rubble. If this strategy would allow for a substantial saving of American forces I am all for it as well.

You do realize, of course, that it is about 300 miles from the Kuwait border to Baghdad. You don't "sweep" tanks and armored vehicles over 300 miles quickly. You have to secure every inch of your supply line in order to keep fuel, food and ammunition close by. You are also going to have to deal with tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers surrendering. They have to be taken care of.

The U.S. will never "level" Baghdad. It is unnecessary to kill tens of thousands of civilians. To do so would create an unacceptable animosity in the Middle East.

Once we surround Baghdad and Saddam and his sons have slipped out the back door, the Republican Guard is going to surender as well.

I read that the plan is to allow the Iraqis to surrender but not take them in as prisoners of war. Basically, we will allow the commander to keep a small firearm to maintain order, but all other weapons must be given up. The Iraqis then must promise to go to their camps and not engage in any fighting. This will allow us to escape from several requirements we would be obligated to if we took them in as POWs. I will try to find a link.

I heard pretty much the same thing. It would be a bigger problem to put them in POW camps and take care of them. If they agree to stay out of the way, we will leave them alone. I'm sure we will keep an eye on them, though.

 

[Savarak]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
the link

March 19, 2003

??????????

oh, nevermind, just noticed it was co.uk

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: HappyPuppy

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Unfortunately I think we will see high nubmer of Iraqi dead. We should sweep through the desert to Baghdad even easier than last time, again with susbstantial Iraq forces surrendering. However in the last conflict we did not engage the republican guard or the elite rep guard, they fled to Baghdad at the start of the war. They will be in place their again to defend the capital city, along with armed citizens. I do not feel the US will risk heavy losses in a guerilla war for one city, I strongly think they will instead LEVEL Bagdhdad and come in to sweep up the rubble. If this strategy would allow for a substantial saving of American forces I am all for it as well.

You do realize, of course, that it is about 300 miles from the Kuwait border to Baghdad. You don't "sweep" tanks and armored vehicles over 300 miles quickly. You have to secure every inch of your supply line in order to keep fuel, food and ammunition close by. You are also going to have to deal with tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers surrendering. They have to be taken care of.

The U.S. will never "level" Baghdad. It is unnecessary to kill tens of thousands of civilians. To do so would create an unacceptable animosity in the Middle East.

Once we surround Baghdad and Saddam and his sons have slipped out the back door, the Republican Guard is going to surender as well.

I read that the plan is to allow the Iraqis to surrender but not take them in as prisoners of war. Basically, we will allow the commander to keep a small firearm to maintain order, but all other weapons must be given up. The Iraqis then must promise to go to their camps and not engage in any fighting. This will allow us to escape from several requirements we would be obligated to if we took them in as POWs. I will try to find a link.

Sounds risky.

 

[StinkyMeat]

IIIIIIIIIRAQ
IIIIIIIIIRAQ
YOU SUCK