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

[conjur]

BWA HA!!

Iraqi Ambassador says this act of aggresion is a material breach of UN resolutions.

And he's got the WORST comb-over I've seen since Gene Keady of Purdue!

 

[MoobyTheGoldenCalf]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf
Russia is already saying they won't believe us when we find the WMDs... link

....And he (Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov) counseled Washington and London not to make unsubstantiated claims to have found caches of banned weapons in Iraq to justify their military offensive.

"If there are claims by coalition forces about discovering weapons of mass destruction...only international inspectors can make a conclusive assessment of the origin of these weapons," he said. "No other evaluation and final conclusion can be accepted."

Sounds reasonable to me. If the Coalition wants to legitimately claim something, independent 3rd party confirmation should be required.

It's the implication that they won't trust or believe us that's disturbing. I'm sure that the United States has some of the most advanced equipment for detecting chem/bio weapons on the planet. Although we won't object to it, we certainly don't need 3rd party help with our verification process....

 

[PG]

When we find the WMD I want Chirac and Blix flown into Iraq so we can rub their noses in it.

Bring on the 3rd party verification! I just want our guys there too so they don't tamper with it or destroy it all to try making us look bad.

 

[Lonyo]

Nice missile aiming by the US.
I'm sure Iraq will welcome the missile landing in a market, killing civilians.

 

[Lonyo]

And congrats on (almost) stopping Iraqi TV.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Nice missile aiming by the US.
I'm sure Iraq will welcome the missile landing in a market, killing civilians.

Possible the deaths were caused by shrapnel/debris when the anti-aircraft installation (which was placed in a residential area) was destroyed.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Appy the WWII ratio to this war and you wind up with 15,000 americans dead.

Could you show me your maths in the other war thread please? I still think 15,000 allied dead is big.

Cheers,

Andy

CNN or CNBC recently had a piece on the service/death ratios of US participants fromm WW1 to Gulf War. WW1/2/Vietnam all had a 1:13(maybe 15), Korea was a little lower, Gulf War much lower. If the current war mimics the earlier wars, then some 17,500ish deaths would occur.

Oops beaten to it, and somewhat inaccurate(damn memory)

 

[Morph]

Heavy fighting raged in south and central Iraq on Wednesday and at least 15 Iraqi civilians were killed in a Baghdad street by what may have been an errant U.S. missile.

Reuters correspondents counted 15 scorched corpses lying amid blackened, mangled cars and rubble from broken buildings. Flames poured from an oil truck. Yelling residents pulled a man with a bloody head from rubble and said a pregnant woman was among the dead.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: sandorski

CNN or CNBC recently had a piece on the service/death ratios of US participants fromm WW1 to Gulf War. WW1/2/Vietnam all had a 1:13(maybe 15), Korea was a little lower, Gulf War much lower. If the current war mimics the earlier wars, then some 17,500ish deaths would occur.

B]

In those earlier wars the allies were at a technical disadvantage. The enemy had control of the skies in many areas, and their armored forces were better. As time progressed our equipment got better and our kill/loss ratio got better. Now we have a huge advantage in technology and equipment, and I'd expect our kill/loss ratio to remain extremely favorable.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Morph
Heavy fighting raged in south and central Iraq on Wednesday and at least 15 Iraqi civilians were killed in a Baghdad street by what may have been an errant U.S. missile.

Reuters correspondents counted 15 scorched corpses lying amid blackened, mangled cars and rubble from broken buildings. Flames poured from an oil truck. Yelling residents pulled a man with a bloody head from rubble and said a pregnant woman was among the dead.

Morph, I've read many of your posts and you don't seem to have a firm grip of reality. Do you just play the antagonist or are you really like that? And about your sig, that doesn't have much significance. The electoral college votes are what matters. You seem to be far too liberal... bleeding heart in fact.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Morph, I've read many of your posts and you don't seem to have a firm grip of reality. Do you just play the antagonist or are you really like that? And about your sig, that doesn't have much significance. The electoral college votes are what matters.

I think you just answered your own question.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf
Russia is already saying they won't believe us when we find the WMDs... link

....And he (Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov) counseled Washington and London not to make unsubstantiated claims to have found caches of banned weapons in Iraq to justify their military offensive.

"If there are claims by coalition forces about discovering weapons of mass destruction...only international inspectors can make a conclusive assessment of the origin of these weapons," he said. "No other evaluation and final conclusion can be accepted."

Sounds reasonable to me. If the Coalition wants to legitimately claim something, independent 3rd party confirmation should be required.

It's the implication that they won't trust or believe us that's disturbing. I'm sure that the United States has some of the most advanced equipment for detecting chem/bio weapons on the planet. Although we won't object to it, we certainly don't need 3rd party help with our verification process....

Trust no one, don't expect others to trust you. Sometimes temptation can turn even the most principled. It's better to avoid any appearance of impropriety and to remove all doubt from others.

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Morph
Heavy fighting raged in south and central Iraq on Wednesday and at least 15 Iraqi civilians were killed in a Baghdad street by what may have been an errant U.S. missile.

Reuters correspondents counted 15 scorched corpses lying amid blackened, mangled cars and rubble from broken buildings. Flames poured from an oil truck. Yelling residents pulled a man with a bloody head from rubble and said a pregnant woman was among the dead.

Morph, I've read many of your posts and you don't seem to have a firm grip of reality. Do you just play the antagonist or are you really like that? And about your sig, that doesn't have much significance. The electoral college votes are what matters. You seem to be far too liberal... bleeding heart in fact.

Just reporting the news

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: sandorski

CNN or CNBC recently had a piece on the service/death ratios of US participants fromm WW1 to Gulf War. WW1/2/Vietnam all had a 1:13(maybe 15), Korea was a little lower, Gulf War much lower. If the current war mimics the earlier wars, then some 17,500ish deaths would occur.

B]

In those earlier wars the allies were at a technical disadvantage. The enemy had control of the skies in many areas, and their armored forces were better. As time progressed our equipment got better and our kill/loss ratio got better. Now we have a huge advantage in technology and equipment, and I'd expect our kill/loss ratio to remain extremely favorable.

In the open, yes, but most of those advantages disappear in house-to-house combat. This is one of many reasons that comparing this war to the Gulf War is erroneous. In the Gulf War most of the destruction came through Air Strikes on targets in the open. Towards the end ground forces were picking off retreating Iraqi forces desperate to leave Kuwait. This war is nothing like the Gulf War and will, barring some dramatic event, be much more costly. This war is very much, or likely will become, a more traditional war.

 

[conjur]

Clinton urges Americans to support Bush and the troops

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Morph

Just reporting the news

You're not just reporting the news. Your track record speaks for itself. I've noticed that you pick and choose your arguments carefully and will never concede a point even when someone makes one. You use "hit and run" tactics, which is typical of someone that is losing an argument.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Morph

Just reporting the news

You're not just reporting the news. Your track record speaks for itself. I've noticed that you pick and choose your arguments carefully and will never concede a point even when someone makes one. You use "hit and run" tactics, which is typical of someone that is losing an argument.

Some might even say Morph's hit and run tactics are analogous to a country losing a war, that has to use guerilla tactics *cough* Iraq *cough*

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Morph
Heavy fighting raged in south and central Iraq on Wednesday and at least 15 Iraqi civilians were killed in a Baghdad street by what may have been an errant U.S. missile.

Reuters correspondents counted 15 scorched corpses lying amid blackened, mangled cars and rubble from broken buildings. Flames poured from an oil truck. Yelling residents pulled a man with a bloody head from rubble and said a pregnant woman was among the dead.

Morph, I've read many of your posts and you don't seem to have a firm grip of reality. Do you just play the antagonist or are you really like that? And about your sig, that doesn't have much significance. The electoral college votes are what matters. You seem to be far too liberal... bleeding heart in fact.

Just reporting the news

Funny...I don't seem to recall you mentioning anything about the US taking ground and bringing humanitarian aid. Pretty incomplete news reporting.

LOL@U.hippy.liberal

 

[Morph]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor


Funny...I don't seem to recall you mentioning anything about the US taking ground and bringing humanitarian aid. Pretty incomplete news reporting.

LOL@U.hippy.liberal

Ok, here's a news blurb for ya:

Iraqis chant anti-US, pro-Saddam messages as they are cleaning out trucks full of humanitarian aid suppplies.

(I'm paraphrasing the story I just saw on a local news channel. Of course, I can find no mention of this on the major US news sites. I wonder why?)

 

[Alistar7]

I got morph to concede earlier this week on WMD..........

So I can at least say that in the face of undeniable fact he will admit his misperception...

Any word on the damage the A-10's were able to do to that convoy? Or estimate of time until contact with ground froces?

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: iwearnosox
LOL an iraqi armored column made a run for it from basra.

Don't they know there's hardware just waiting for them to do that?

makes you wonder how "minor" that revolt was.....

British artillery has been shelling them from a distance for quite some time. The Iraqi column was trapped in the city and they were slowly getting picked off.

I think the column from Basra would be trying to cut the supply lines while the main Iraqi column from the north used the darkness and last of the cover of the sandstorm to attack from the north. They know they will lose but hope to cause causaulties among the coalition forces.
The main danger would be if they could keep the supply lines cut while making the US forces to the north use up their gas and ammo. I don't think it will work but it's probably the best gamble the Iraqi troops have. They know that if they sit still they will be slowly cut to pieces. Think of it as a Battle of the Bulge in Iraq.

This is making me really nervous....

 

[Michael]

A sign of how fierce the resistence is, from a NY Times article:

"Cpl. Benjamin R. Richardson, who was among the engineers who went to the bridge, said he saw two civilian vehicles with armed Iraqis drive straight toward Americans. A tank drove simply over one of the vehicles without firing a shot, while a Bradley raked the other vehicle with gunfire."

The Iraqis are charging US troops with whatever they have (to expected consequences).

Michael

 

[prontospyder]

Originally posted by: conjur
Clinton urges Americans to support Bush and the troops

nice words by Clinton.

 

[Morph]

Another story you won't see much mention of:

No trace of recent weapons work at plant.

US military investigators have found no evidence that chemical weapons have been made in recent years at a suspect chemical plant secured by US troops in southern Iraq, a senior defense official said yesterday.

 

[exp]

Has this story about monkeys trained to detonate land mines been posted yet?