TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Battle for Baghdad

Battle for Baghdad

It has begun. Apparently going MUCH better than expected:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/int...US-Baghdad.html

poor iraqi government

ministry of information, or is it misinformation, or deception, or lies, i just can't figure out which one.

like i said before, yanks will have tanks and bbq's in the centre of baghdad in a week and the ministry of information will claim the hostile invaders are retreating home.

quote:

Originally posted by sifntj0r poor iraqi government ministry of information, or is it misinformation, or deception, or lies, i just can't figure out which one. like i said before, yanks will have tanks and bbq's in the centre of baghdad in a week and the ministry of information will claim the hostile invaders are retreating home.

Hehe the best part was when they said that yesterday's exersion into Bagdhad was fake footage of coalition forces when they were 20 miles out of Bagdhad a few days ago. Yet a few days ago when coalition forces claimed being 20 miles out of Baghdad the Iraqis claimed we were nowhere near Baghdad

quote:

Originally posted by sifntj0r poor iraqi government

Once a lying government, always a lying government... be good to see the end of them

quote:

Originally posted by sifntj0r poor iraqi government

i found it strange how the resistance kept getting lesser the closer they got to baghdad...i hope they dont have sumthing up their sleeve!

Woohoo!!!! Troops are in Baghdad to stay, Presidential Palace is occupied, Chemical Ali is dead, British have captured Basra, potentially chemical weapons are found!!! Hopefully this thing will be over soon.

I can't wait to hear what the ministry of wishful thinking says next!

So at what point when the US hasn't invaded Iran or Syria can I say I told you so? Or are you going to remain the consumate conspiracy theorist and perpetually believe in a US plot to sieze control of al the Middle East?

You're equating the perception of threats, by a select few individuals, and concluding that American foreign policy is going to go to war over each of those threats. Yes Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and the all-mighty all Zionist Ari Fleischer (I still get a kick out of whoever labelled him as a huge Jewish influence in forging American foreign policy), view Iran and Syria with caution as being potential threats to the US. But your twisting their perceptions and concluding that based upon what those men think alone, that they will manipulate US foreign policy into eliminating all those threats by going to war. It's not going to happen. Do you think congress is going to magically sign declarations of war for any country in the middle east?

Also you're equating Woolsey's statements with the position of the American government ... who the hell is woolsey anyway??? He's the former CIA director from 1993-1995! Gimme a break if you take statements from every high level american offical from 1980 to the present day you could possibly conclude that the US is going to invade Pluto!

Your 2+2=4 argument is like saying if you take 2.78989797 and add 2.1324234347077 it'll equal 4 with heavy rounding

So far this war has gone way better then expected. I really thought that Saddam would have something up his sleeve. I guess not. American military planners are damn good. The Aussies and British are pretty darn good too.

I'm sure nobody will ever notice how many lives have been saved by this war.

quote:

Originally posted by FuzzyGreen So far this war has gone way better then expected. I really thought that Saddam would have something up his sleeve. I guess not. American military planners are damn good. The Aussies and British are pretty darn good too. I'm sure nobody will ever notice how many lives have been saved by this war.

Dude haven't you heard? The pentagon war plan is a failure. Peter Arnett said so himself

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Dude haven't you heard? The pentagon war plan is a failure. Peter Arnett said so himself

LMAO!!

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa Possibly in the long run Saddam's downfall will result in more Iraqi lives saved than now have been lost in the invasion. I read somewhere that Saddam was responsible for like a million dead Iraqis. Could this really be possible, or am I mistaken? But don't be too optimistic. The Iraqi death toll is not yet known, and their military losses will probably be much greater than currently thought. And the civilian toll will be huge, too. Streets Littered With Corpses as US Troops Closing In on Downtown Kerbala http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Stor...,931222,00.html Red Cross: Iraq Wounded Too High to Count http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Worl...030406_446.html War is hell

But those articles seem to reference those casualties as Iraqi military casualties. I agree its tragic however, I think it's important to delineate between civilian casualties and combatant casualties. The ICRC does not give estimates on civilian casualties because it is far too difficult to give estimates during a conflict. Ironically the pentagon would probably have the best idea of theh number of casualties. I agree though ... war is hell.

Hmm, this all looks to me like Iraq is pulling a trap on the americans. Remember how Um Quasr was thought to be secured the first day of the attack, and it infact turned out to be filled with Saddam's soldiers just waiting for the chance to strike back. Baghdad probably has tens of thousands Iraqi military/paramilitary troops in it, if not more. If they get themselves mixed up with the civilians, the death tolls may well rise into the 5 figure numbers. Besides, in urban environments, US forces aren't very superior to the Iraqi ones, which means that the losses could very likely be equal on both sides.

I don't think this war will be over soon because as soon as it began, Saddam said he's gonna make his stand in the cities instead of the open ground where his forces are clearly weaker. So far, he hasn't lost a single major city.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Hmm, this all looks to me like Iraq is pulling a trap on the americans. Remember how Um Quasr was thought to be secured the first day of the attack, and it infact turned out to be filled with Saddam's soldiers just waiting for the chance to strike back. Baghdad probably has tens of thousands Iraqi military/paramilitary troops in it, if not more. If they get themselves mixed up with the civilians, the death tolls may well rise into the 5 figure numbers. Besides, in urban environments, US forces aren't very superior to the Iraqi ones, which means that the losses could very likely be equal on both sides. I don't think this war will be over soon because as soon as it began, Saddam said he's gonna make his stand in the cities instead of the open ground where his forces are clearly weaker. So far, he hasn't lost a single major city.

Except he didn't make his stance in the cities. He established the Republican guard right outside of Baghdad rather than in the city. Intelligence reports indicated he did so in order to avoid an uprising against him from within baghdad. The Brits have captured Basra and they have yet to experience a "blood bath" as Saddam predicted. Contrary to this, we see many Iraqis ratting out pro-Saddam forces and celebrating their liberation. I think that Saddam's grasp on his forces beyond the extremes are rather tenuous. You would think that these thousands of defenders would have risen up at 100 tanks entering the city ... what are they waiting for 10,000 tanks?

- I guess all there is now is to wait and see.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.