**OFFICIAL WAR THREAD** 7th Calvary fights off Iraqi attack; Bush seeks 75 billion for war

Page 75 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
When one is planning for battle, there are typical targets that are always pre-planned. Some of these targets would be:
power plants, bridges, communications towers/facilities, fuel/ammo depots, military complexes, road intersections, hilltops.
The idea is to cut off communication, supplies and "kill people or break things" as we used to call it.

I understand the strategy . . . but the ultimate outcome would be we win the war and lose the peace. Under your scenario, rebuilding Iraq would require decades and possibly trillions of dollars. What good is it to elect a Republican if we wind up with a welfare client-state that puts Israel and Egypt to shame?! If civilian casualties can be measured in the thousands . . . we better find a nuke . . . if not every legitimate nation in the world will claim the ends did not justify the means. Even great allies like Micronesia and Eritrea may bolt the coalition of the willing.

At peak capacity (1977) Iraq was pumping 3.5m barrels per day. It will take 6+ billion dollars and two years (assuming damage is kept to a minimum) to restore that level of production. It will take Saudi Arabia levels of production to rebuild Iraq . . . not to mention Kuwait is expecting reparations from the 1991 invasion and if the Kuwaitis can get paid . . . the Iranians will definitely expect payback for being invaded a decade earlier.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: deftron
Originally posted by: ncircle
Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge
I wholeheartedly support the wholesale destruction of Iraq.
Might does equal right and I challenge anyone to point me to a time in human history that disproves this.
That said, perhaps it's time to show the 'true' might of the US military?
So far, this has been a war fought with kid gloves? Sound familar? Think Vietnam.
Remove the goddamn kid gloves or we will see many more executed American POWs on TV
and we might even lose the war.

War is war. There is nothing humane about it.
So why try to fight a 'humane' war resulting in massive increases in Coalition deaths?
Simply lay waste from the safety of submarines, ships, and high altitude bombers.
Then whatever is left can be rebuilt.

We are already hated. Most of the M.E. wants us dead.
Let's give them even better reasons to hate us than they already have.

i fvcking agree.
they should carpet bomb baghdad.

What would be the point of the war then?
I thought we were liberating the oppressed Iraqi people, not eleminating them in mass genocide..

<----nods in agreement.

FBR and ncircle need to change the channel or go outside and cut the grass or something.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I agree, to resort to carpet bombing or any method that promotes mass killings of the Iraqi civilians would be an act of the enemy themselves. The United States carries responsibilities because of what it is, a world superpower and under constant criticism. The fact that we don't and won't drop down to their level adds to my list of why I am damn proud to be an American.

Thumbs up for one of the few decent commentaries on the board today.
 

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
50,128
781
126
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
When one is planning for battle, there are typical targets that are always pre-planned. Some of these targets would be:
power plants, bridges, communications towers/facilities, fuel/ammo depots, military complexes, road intersections, hilltops.
The idea is to cut off communication, supplies and "kill people or break things" as we used to call it.

I understand the strategy . . . but the ultimate outcome would be we win the war and lose the peace. Under your scenario, rebuilding Iraq would require decades and possibly trillions of dollars. What good is it to elect a Republican if we wind up with a welfare client-state that puts Israel and Egypt to shame?! If civilian casualties can be measured in the thousands . . . we better find a nuke . . . if not every legitimate nation in the world will claim the ends did not justify the means. Even great allies like Micronesia and Eritrea may bolt the coalition of the willing.

At peak capacity (1977) Iraq was pumping 3.5m barrels per day. It will take 6+ billion dollars and two years (assuming damage is kept to a minimum) to restore that level of production. It will take Saudi Arabia levels of production to rebuild Iraq . . . not to mention Kuwait is expecting reparations from the 1991 invasion and if the Kuwaitis can get paid . . . the Iranians will definitely expect payback for being invaded a decade earlier.
I think you misunderstood me. Those things are pre-planned. Not all of them are carried out. I was just saying that pre-planning for power generator facilities is always done and considered. I would support taking out the power grid in Baghdad this case. It would suprise me if we didn't do it before we went in.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
I hope that before we engage the Republican Units outside of Iraq that we do carpet bomb and use the MOAB ordinances against them hopefully causing much death and destruction to the enemy combatants as possible (Hopefully that would also nullify their option of using WMD's)
 

NOX

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
4,077
0
0
The Americans
Canadian radio commentator Gordon Sinclair wrote this pro-American editorial in 1973.
See more about it on the Snopes Urband Legends site, which verifies its accuracy.
911 Home | Lachances.com home | Webmaster

"This Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as most generous and possibly the least appreciated people on all the earth.
Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of these countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up, and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries in to help. This spring, 59 American communities were flattened by tornadoes. Nobody helped.

The Marshall Plan and the Truman Policy pumped billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, warmongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplane. Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar, or the Douglas 10? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all the International lines except Russia fly American planes?

Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy, and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy, and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy, and you find men on the moon - - not once, but several times - and safely home again.

You talk about scandals, and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even their draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, and most of them, unless they are breaking Canadian laws, are getting American dollars from ma and pa at home to spend here.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the American who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke.

I can name you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbors have faced it alone, and I'm one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them get kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles. I hope Canada is not one of those."

http://www.lachances.com/Family/01JAS/911/Sinclair.html
 

LH

Golden Member
Feb 16, 2002
1,604
0
0
Yeah we need to start using MOABs on the Iraqi forces ASAP. Screw the surrender negotiations. They see us, we see them, if a white flag doesnt go up, bombs away.
 

SherEPunjab

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2002
3,841
0
0
The U.N. was pushing to save Iraq's butt from American wrath earlier, and now we have these punks executing our P.O.W.'s. If they were shot in the forehead as reports indicate, that means they were summarily executed.

Now, I think it is only fair for the U.N. to 'strongly, strongly urge (i.e. we will ALL kick your pathetic butts if you don't)' Iraq to not violate international human rights violations in the treatments of POW's.

On one hand, Iraq was accusing the U.S. of going against the wishes of the world (UN), that we are hypocrites, and tyrants, on the other hand they themselves are not heeding the standard practice of the treatment of POW's.

thoughts?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I think you misunderstood me. Those things are pre-planned. Not all of them are carried out. I was just saying that pre-planning for power generator facilities is always done and considered. I would support taking out the power grid in Baghdad this case. It would suprise me if we didn't do it before we went in.

I don't doubt it was pre-planned. I'm saying it should NEVER be done. A necessary handicap of being the good guy is avoiding civilian casualties and hardship. The population of Baghdad was already living under tenuous conditions . . . promises of a better life ring hollow when the basic necessities of life are the early casualties of war.
 

speg

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2000
3,681
3
76
www.speg.com
they themselves are not heeding the standard practice of the treatment of POW's

I'd like to see how the 9/11 related suspects were treated.

Besides this is a war of a superpower vs a much underpowered opponeent. If some 10', 600lbs guy was beating you down in the street, would you not do every you could to save yourself? Ie, low blow, poke to the eyes, and all those things that wouldn't be accepeted in the fighting world. As far as Im concerned there are no rules in war.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I think you misunderstood me. Those things are pre-planned. Not all of them are carried out. I was just saying that pre-planning for power generator facilities is always done and considered. I would support taking out the power grid in Baghdad this case. It would suprise me if we didn't do it before we went in.

I don't doubt it was pre-planned. I'm saying it should NEVER be done. A necessary handicap of being the good guy is avoiding civilian casualties and hardship. The population of Baghdad was already living under tenuous conditions . . . promises of a better life ring hollow when the basic necessities of life are the early casualties of war.

You know what is wrong with your logic? We are not dealing with logical people. Take today. They executed our guys, yet you think we should play grab ass with them. Yes, we should ALWAYS minimize civilian causalities, but sometimes you just have to do some crap you don't want to do. Unfair. It is simply unfair.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
c0cksuckers. Those fvcking asshat bastards. They executed them.

Not totally analogous BUT . . . anybody remember the AC-130 video?

Wow could you be anymore off the subject? That was the taking out of troops that were firing at us. They were not captured and then ceremoniously executed. If you cannot see the difference then I am SORRY.
 

DeJa

Member
Sep 1, 2000
33
0
0
I have a somewhat off topic question.

As I heard from the Belgium TV the broadcast of the American hostages has not yet been seen on national TV in the USA. Is that true and if so, why?

Is that to not to disturb the american people and if so, isn't that some form of misleading the public? I know the iraqi use a lot, or only, propaganda TV by twisting the truth and I'm not saying that american national TV is doing the same but why the delay? Hasn't the american public a right to know what is going on in Iraq?

Again, this is only what i've heard here and that may, being TV, also be not the whole truth.

DeJa Vu!

 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: DeJa
I have a somewhat off topic question.

As I heard from the Belgium TV the broadcast of the American hostages has not yet been seen on national TV in the USA. Is that true and if so, why?

Is that to not to disturb the american people and if so, isn't that some form of misleading the public? I know the iraqi use a lot, or only, propaganda TV by twisting the truth and I'm not saying that american national TV is doing the same but why the delay? Hasn't the american public a right to know what is going on in Iraq?

Again, this is only what i've heard here and that may, being TV, also be not the whole truth.

DeJa Vu!

Actual murder is not something we play on the news here.
 

colonel

Golden Member
Apr 22, 2001
1,786
21
81
TextThe U.N. was pushing to save Iraq's butt from American wrath earlier, and now we have these punks executing our P.O.W.'s. If they were shot in the forehead as reports indicate, that means they were summarily executed.

dude this is WAR, and they dont have proves about the execution, anytime you take a prisioner and he resist you have to shoot it, we did that in Vietnam, Afganistan if the goverment dont show that pictures is another history but thoses are rules of engagement besides they must be pissed off with Tons of Bombs dropping from the skies and killing civilians, let be realistic. My thought why dont send the special ops to rescue the marinees held? No, yeah they are busy keeping the Oil from the iraquies hands
 

speg

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2000
3,681
3
76
www.speg.com
Umm, what about all those explosions? Thats murder just as much as this was.

I think they didn't show them on TV here yet is because it would be too distubing to the public, not to mention the family of the soldiers. Imagine seeing your husband/father/brother on Tv like that. :(
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: DeJa
I have a somewhat off topic question.

As I heard from the Belgium TV the broadcast of the American hostages has not yet been seen on national TV in the USA. Is that true and if so, why?

Is that to not to disturb the american people and if so, isn't that some form of misleading the public? I know the iraqi use a lot, or only, propaganda TV by twisting the truth and I'm not saying that american national TV is doing the same but why the delay? Hasn't the american public a right to know what is going on in Iraq?

Again, this is only what i've heard here and that may, being TV, also be not the whole truth.

DeJa Vu!

It won't be shown until family is notified -then it "may" be shown
 

FuZoR

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2001
4,422
1
0
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: DeJa
I have a somewhat off topic question.

As I heard from the Belgium TV the broadcast of the American hostages has not yet been seen on national TV in the USA. Is that true and if so, why?

Is that to not to disturb the american people and if so, isn't that some form of misleading the public? I know the iraqi use a lot, or only, propaganda TV by twisting the truth and I'm not saying that american national TV is doing the same but why the delay? Hasn't the american public a right to know what is going on in Iraq?

Again, this is only what i've heard here and that may, being TV, also be not the whole truth.

DeJa Vu!

Actual murder is not something we play on the news here.

errmm.. they didnt show it in respect to the hostages familes i think... and rumsfield asked the american stations not to show the footage....



 

Emos

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2000
1,989
0
0
As I heard from the Belgium TV the broadcast of the American hostages has not yet been seen on national TV in the USA. Is that true and if so, why?
One reason is that the poor soldiers in question need to be identified first and the families informed before it's shown on American TV.
 

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
50,128
781
126
Originally posted by: colonel
TextThe U.N. was pushing to save Iraq's butt from American wrath earlier, and now we have these punks executing our P.O.W.'s. If they were shot in the forehead as reports indicate, that means they were summarily executed.

dude this is WAR, and they dont have proves about the execution, anytime you take a prisioner and he resist you have to shoot it, we did that in Vietnam, Afganistan if the goverment dont show that pictures is another history but thoses are rules of engagement besides they must be pissed off with Tons of Bombs dropping from the skies and killing civilians, let be realistic. My thought why dont send the special ops to rescue the marinees held? No, yeah they are busy keeping the Oil from the iraquies hands
What branch of the service were you in?
There is a difference between executing someone and shooting a combatant.

 

jaeger66

Banned
Jan 1, 2001
3,852
0
0
DeJa
I have a somewhat off topic question.

As I heard from the Belgium TV the broadcast of the American hostages has not yet been seen on national TV in the USA. Is that true and if so, why?

Is that to not to disturb the american people and if so, isn't that some form of misleading the public? I know the iraqi use a lot, or only, propaganda TV by twisting the truth and I'm not saying that american national TV is doing the same but why the delay? Hasn't the american public a right to know what is going on in Iraq?

You'll never see that video on American TV. Right now CNN has Christiane Amanpour blabbering about oil fires while our soldiers are undergoing who knows what kinds of horror.

 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: FuZioN
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: DeJa
I have a somewhat off topic question.

As I heard from the Belgium TV the broadcast of the American hostages has not yet been seen on national TV in the USA. Is that true and if so, why?

Is that to not to disturb the american people and if so, isn't that some form of misleading the public? I know the iraqi use a lot, or only, propaganda TV by twisting the truth and I'm not saying that american national TV is doing the same but why the delay? Hasn't the american public a right to know what is going on in Iraq?

Again, this is only what i've heard here and that may, being TV, also be not the whole truth.

DeJa Vu!

Actual murder is not something we play on the news here.

errmm.. they didnt show it in respect to the hostages familes i think... and rumsfield asked the american stations not to show the footage....

IT DOESN'T MATTER. Of course that is a reason why, but the main reason is we don't show sh!t like that on TV.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: speg
Umm, what about all those explosions? Thats murder just as much as this was.

I think they didn't show them on TV here yet is because it would be too distubing to the public, not to mention the family of the soldiers. Imagine seeing your husband/father/brother on Tv like that. :(

WHAT THE FVCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Bombing them is not even in the same goddamn ballpark as a summary execution. Shut up. :|