News Can Baghdad be taken quickly by the coalition forces?

[Viper]

How long do you think it will take us to take baghdad (us I mean the coalittion. Do you think the republican gaurd will offer much fight?

 

[Duncan]

I would go for about three weeks. In the previous three weeks, things have gone well for the 'Coalition', now they have their hardest part.
In three weeks time I will look back to see how wrong I was.

 

[Viper]

I think the republican gaurd will put up quite a fight. I feel that saddams airport will be an important capture.

 

[Mulder]

What's kinda freaky is that Saddam is now saying that victory is nearer thatn ever (for his regime)

 

[Viper]

Im not siding with him but I suppose he has to say something to keep his remaining troops moral up.

But is he dead?

 

[russ_watters]

Initially I had said this whole war would take two weeks (oops). Toward the end of week two, I said two more - so I'll go with one more week now. The army and marine corps have sliced through the few republican guard divisions they have faced like a hot knife through butter.

 

[N_Quire]

I hope the Republican Guard turns out to be all smoke and bluster when compared with superior coalition forces. Within two weeks, Baghdad should be under coalition control even though sporadic fighting might continue. There is now no doubt that the war has been won.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

It is extremely difficult to estimate this.
First of all, because we have little data
avalible to us and because we are not military
stratagists...

Further more, the ease of the coalition's advance
is somewhat "fishy". It is possible that seeing
they have no real chances many forces were pulled
back to defend Baghdad itself. It is also possible
that the regime is falling apart and will soon
disappear all by itself - where are the hundreds
of phousands of soldiers if there are 10,000 PoWs
and hardly so little forces seemingly left.
It is also possible that Saddam will use WMDs,
in which case the war probably won't be slowed
down but many civilians will die.

In short, I have no idea...

Live long and prosper.

 

[damgo]

The Republican Guard is putting up virtually no fight, to the point where I'm half-worried. Where the heck are they? Apparently I'm not the only one:

"This is weird," said Col. William F. Grimsley, commander of the division's First Brigade, whose troops led the assault on the airport, about 10 miles from the heart of Baghdad. "It's like spooky weird." His forces had faced only light resistance at dusk and then later virtually no resistance at all.

Colonel Grimsley and other officers speculated that the Iraqi soldiers had deserted or had died after more than two weeks of aerial bombardment, including intense strikes on the airport itself in the last 48 hours. Others were at a loss. "I'm flabbergasted," said Capt. Michael J. MacKinnon, a staff officer with the brigade's tactical command post.

In at least one case it created an acute edginess. "They're there," Sgt. Maj. Gary J. Coker, an engineer, said as he arrived Thursday night, gesturing into the blackness. "They're out there right now."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/04/i...nted=1&ei=1&en=29ff3e54b0cd4a63&ex=1050433911

I'm guessing 2 weeks - 2 months to take Baghdad, depending on how they go about it. Maybe a month past that for the rest of the war, assuming all goes well.

 

[Viper]

Good post, they just seem to have dissapeared

 

[Zargawee]

Duhh !

I wonder how did you judge that War will end in two weeks or less ... this is not afghanistan , this is iraq ... and remember Iraqies make their weapons by their own , so they can make more weapons in order to face the allies forces .

Baghdad is the city that cannot be entered this easy , if would take very long time to enter Baghdad .


I Have something to tell , If the war didn't end in two weeks , allies forves might end up loosing forves because of the heat and sand there , Our area is a very hot one ... Your troops might not bear it.

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by Zargawee
I wonder how did you judge that War will end in two weeks or less ... this is not afghanistan , this is iraq ... and remember Iraqies make their weapons by their own , so they can make more weapons in order to face the allies forces .

Baghdad is the city that cannot be entered this easy , if would take very long time to enter Baghdad .

We've been driving in and out of Baghdad for the last 24 hours at will.

 

[Viper]

Im not sure what youve been told in America but in England at the time of posting they say that there are coallition troops walking around baghdad!

 

[damgo]

The "we can move around Baghdad at will" line isn't really IMO accurate... we do have the airport, and made one lightning raid through the city. It's not like troops are just driving downtown and hanging out... there are enough defensive forces in the city that they'd get massacred. A BBC correspondent there referred to the raid (somewhat tactlessly) as the "world's biggest drive-by shooting" which is sort of accurate.

Not to downplay the raid though... it was damn impressive, they just ran straight down the highway, through heavy fire at 30-40 kph, blowing the **** out of every target in sight. Look at http://www.gomemphis.com/mca/america_at_war/article/0,1426,MCA_945_1868008,00.html .

 

[Viper]

Aparetnly this morning they killed a thousand Iraqis, can you imagine it. Another thing in ww1 we lost 40.00 a day at the somme. We lose 1,2,3 a day in Iraq pandermonium.
Funny

 

[Mulder]

Originally posted by Zargawee
I wonder how did you judge that War will end in two weeks or less ... this is not afghanistan , this is iraq ... and remember Iraqies make their weapons by their own , so they can make more weapons in order to face the allies forces .

Baghdad is the city that cannot be entered this easy , if would take very long time to enter Baghdad .


I Have something to tell , If the war didn't end in two weeks , allies forves might end up loosing forves because of the heat and sand there , Our area is a very hot one ... Your troops might not bear it.

Like Alias said.

By the way, I believe the severe temperature would cause more problems for equipment than the troops.

 

[BoulderHead]

I think the lack of effective opposition to the advancement of the invading army ought to make people think twice about all the pro-war hype they were/are fed...or not, haha

 

[kat]

I think the issue with the heat is also that it's impossible to wear the chem suits once it reaches a certain tempature, which is why the rush to start before the mid april heat waves.


Boulder-my suspicion is that it's a mixture of hype and Saddam's own hands on mismanagement. There were firsthand reports of how Saddam enforced loyalty by it's top officers by planting camera's within their homes, tapped their phones and took movies of their daughters being raped and then used them to threaten humiliation to the families. I would think this wouldn't make for very loyal troops.

 

[Viper]

Ian says it will all be over soon. Ian is the keeper of all knowledge and buddha in his spare time

 

[Mulder]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I think the lack of effective opposition to the advancement of the invading army

Yeah we killed them all on the run into Baghdad.

Not long now folks - Saddam's time is nearly up. The people of Baghdad will soon be celebrating like the people of Basra.

 

[Viper]

Did you see the pictures, celebrate good times come on etc

 

[N_Quire]

Zargawee, the Middle-East doesn't have a monopoly on desert and hot weather. Have you ever been to Phoenix, Arizona in the summer? America has plenty of sand and sunshine. Come to California and find out. Death Valley or Malibu, take you pick.

 

[BoulderHead]

I actually thought taking Bagdad might prove difficult, but from what I've seen it may fall rather easily.

 

[Zargawee]

We've been driving in and out of Baghdad for the last 24 hours at will.

I have pictures denys this ... every viachle tried to enter Baghdad is destroyed , want to see them ? try this link but the language is arabic www.aljazeera.net

Zargawee, the Middle-East doesn't have a monopoly on desert and hot weather. Have you ever been to Phoenix, Arizona in the summer? America has plenty of sand and sunshine. Come to California and find out. Death Valley or Malibu, take you pick.

I didn't say so .. But our weather is badly hot , White-skined soldiers might see it unbearable , but others might accept it .
add to that that our air is polluted , it's ( in industrial areas ) like living in China's Capital .
And what is worse than that , the sand storms that happens everyday .

I Never been to America , but i Know that CA is very hot , also Arezona .

I actually thought taking Bagdad might prove difficult, but from what I've seen it may fall rather easily.

Wait , and the days will tell you ...

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by Zargawee
I have pictures denys this ... every viachle tried to enter Baghdad is destroyed , want to see them ? try this link but the language is arabic www.aljazeera.net

Regardless of what any press report says, the families of the US volunteer soldiers will validate our reported losses in the War.

Also, Zargawee, the US has many 'embedded' reporters within our military. The fact that we currently have soldiers within Baghdad is very difficult to dispute.

I am sure that you will try.

 

[Zargawee]

I Prefer waiting until days tell us what is going to happen ...

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't say so .. But our weather is badly hot , White-skined soldiers might see it unbearable , but others might accept it .

Wow, could you be any more RACIST? Ever hear of sunblock? There is no phsyiological difference between the races that makes one any more or less suited to desert warfare.

I have pictures denys this ... every viachle tried to enter Baghdad is destroyed

Lol, take a closer look at that pic. Not only can you NOT positively ID the burning object, but you CAN positively ID the two *INTACT* APC's on the road. Looks like they are not destroyed. I can't believe you are so naive as to believe Iraq's propaganda even though their own pictures contradict it.

 

[damgo]

Basreh has fallen.

 

[Viper]

But remember they said that they would take bsara easily and it took a further two weeks. Ans Baghdad is bigger!

 

[Mulder]

Zargawee I firmly believe that you are living in a fantasy World. The conflict is practically over, there's more talk of what the future Iraqi government will look like now than of victory.

Viper, we could have taken Basra easily, however charging into the city gung-ho without having killed as many Iraqi rebels as possible beforehand would have led to more British casualties - ones which would have been unnecessary.

 

[Viper]

No its not nearly over, I reckon another three weks

 

[Zargawee]

Let's get back to memory ...

Not very time ago , Russian troops tried to enter the Chechen capital , they succeeded in entering it ...
But they lost more than 2000 soldiers in action

Remember that Russia didn't suffer friendly fire while entering there ..

Entering Baghdad won't be a picnic !

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Zargawee
Let's get back to memory ...

Not very time ago , Russian troops tried to enter the Chechen capital , they succeeded in entering it ...
But they lost more than 2000 soldiers in action

Remember that Russia didn't suffer friendly fire while entering there ..

Entering Baghdad won't be a picnic !

The Russians fought for 10 years in Afghanistan, and lost. The US is not Russia.

Njorl

 

[Zargawee]

Who supported Afghanistan at that time ?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zargawee
Who supported Afghanistan at that time ?

The US. Who supports Iraq now? Russia. So it evens out. The point is we rolled over Afghanistan like a training exercise. This isn't the quagmire you want it to be.

And c'mon, PLEASE comment on my response to your picture (which by the way shows two Bradley's driving past the BUNKER they just destroyed).

 

[Zargawee]

Give me something prooves that Russia supports Iraq ...
Russia have enough problems ..

And c'mon, PLEASE comment on my response to your picture (which by the way shows two Bradley's driving past the BUNKER they just destroyed).

I Couldn't see the picture , the server seems have some technical problems .

If you have a copy of it , post it here.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zargawee
Give me something prooves that Russia supports Iraq ...
Russia have enough problems.

Um, unless I'm mistaken virtually all of Iraq's current weapons are of Russian (Soviet) origin. Those are T-88 tank carcasses and ak-47's, are they not? Also, recent aid includes the night vision goggles that Bush specifically had a conversation with Putin about.

I Couldn't see the picture , the server seems have some technical problems.

What? *YOU* posted the picture, not me. Are you saying you didn't even look at it before posting it? Your photo can be seen Here. Click "war photos," the photos from Monday, 3rd photo.

Your bias is so opaque, its blinding you. You show me a picture of a tree and claim its a dog.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Um, unless I'm mistaken virtually all of Iraq's current weapons are of Russian (Soviet) origin. Those are T-88 tank carcasses and ak-47's, are they not? Also, recent aid includes the night vision goggles that Bush specifically had a conversation with Putin about.

Not to mention the oil trade agreements they have with them. The French as well. Why do you think they opposed the war?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by enigma
Not to mention the oil trade agreements they have with them. The French as well. Why do you think they opposed the war?

And America supports the war to grab the oil...


Let's get back on topic.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
And America supports the war to grab the oil...

Uh huh. Its always our intent to grab oil, isn't it? Why then in 1991 did we first put out 500 oil well fires, THEN give ALL of the oil wells back to Kuait and Iraq?

 

[kyleb]

lol it is always funny to see someone make up an bad argument and then try to pin it on someone else; you might as well just play with yourself russ.

 

[BoulderHead]

Uh huh. Its always our intent to grab oil, isn't it? Why then in 1991 did we first put out 500 oil well fires, THEN give ALL of the oil wells back to Kuait and Iraq?

Well, let's have a look then;

Kuwait:
State Companies:
Subsidiaries of Kuwait Petroleum Corp. include: Kuwait Oil Co. (KOC), Kuwait National Petroleum Co., Petrochemical Industries Co. (PIC), Kuwait Oil Tanker Co., Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Exploration Co. (Kufpec), and Kuwait Petroleum International (KPI, London)

Original Concession Holders:

Kuwait Oil Co. Ltd., subsidiary of BO (Kuwait) Ltd., and Gulf Kuwait Co., Kuwait Shell Development Co. Ltd., owned by Royal Dutch/Shell Group

For Kuwaiti portion of Neutral Zone:

Offshore: Arabian Oil Company Limited, Japan Petroleum Trading Co. Ltd.

Onshore: American Independent Oil Co., joint venture of Phillips Petroleum, Signal Oil and Gas, Ashland, J.S. Abercrombie, Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co., Globe Oil and Refining Co., and Pauley Petroleum Inc.

Major Foreign Oil Company Involvement:

British Petroleum Co. Plc

Chevron

Getty Oil Co.

Gulf Oil

Japan's Arabian Oil Co. (AOC)

Mobil Corp.

Royal Dutch/Shell,

Shell International Petroleum Co. Ltd.

Texaco

Taken from; http://www.virginia.edu/igpr/apagoilcompany.html

 

[FZ+]

Can you clarify this point please.
Let's just say for a moment that you are right, that France etc are in it for the oil or other self interest. Why the hell would this mean they are opposed to the war?
It was obvious that the US was going into war. What would opposing it acheive? It seems to me that their economic interests would be best served if they supported the war, so that they can benefit from (a) trade incentives from the US and UK, (b) security for their existing agreements worth 100s of billions of dollars, (c) a say in the formation of the new iraqi government hence giving opportunities for a renewal of any past deals, (d) a slice of the billion dollar reconstruction contracts and (e) the preservation of their international diplomatic position. Since it's pretty clear the coalition is (eventually) going to win, how can they expect to preserve their (alleged) old weapons contracts? As they opposed the war, they are denied all that and are now undeniable worse off.

In terms of economic and diplomatic arrangements, opposition to the war is apparently sheer lunacy. I doubt all five anti-war nations are struck down with that simultaneously.

 

[Njorl]

FZ,
You are discounting the possibility that the anti-war nations might have been successful.
Njorl

 

[enigma]

Yes, now in hindsight that certainly appears to be the case, doesn't it?

Before the US gave up on the UN, war wasn't certain though.

Don't get me wrong: I'm sure that the French and Russian (and others) oil contracts were not the only reason they were opposing the war... but I'm also sure that they were a factor, just as much as I'm sure that oil contracts for the US is also a factor.

Stability is good for industry and business. Before the war started and before the sabres started rattling, there was stability (of a sort). Will the region be more stable in the future? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by enigma
Before the US gave up on the UN, war wasn't certain though.

well it was no less certain then than your speculation as to why they did oppose the war is now; so i don't really see where your argument is.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by kyleb
well it was no less certain then than your speculation as to why they did oppose the war is now; so i don't really see where your argument is.

If I could figure out what this means I might argue with it.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Well, let's have a look then;

Thats all very nice, BoulderHead, but what that proves is that we BUY oil from Kuait. The others here are implying that we intend to STEAL it from Iraq.

lol it is always funny to see someone make up an bad argument and then try to pin it on someone else; you might as well just play with yourself russ.

Have you given up making rational arguements, Kyleb? If there is something wrong with my reasoning, please do point out the flaw. I know we're the same age, Kyleb, but "...play with yourself..."? We're not in junior high anymore. Grow up.

FZ+, you are right that France gains nothing from continued opposition to the war except: the problem of the catch-22. France believes the war is bad for them economically. So they opposed it. Were they to now do an about face and support it they would come off as two-faced. Catch-22. They are currently pursuing the only reasonable course of action left to them: petitioning to have the post-war reconstruction administered by the UN. That way they can ensure that they get (get back) their piece of the pie. They tried to keep the game from being played, but now that it has started they want to share in the victory party. This is why I believe the US and UK should take the lead in the reconstruction.

 

[BoulderHead]

Thats all very nice, BoulderHead, but what that proves is that we BUY oil from Kuait. The others here are implying that we intend to STEAL it from Iraq.

Then I would disagree with them. I think it is about business.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Then I would disagree with them. I think it is about business.

Heh. Glad we're agreed. And let me amplify slightly: I certainly *DO* think we stand to gain economically through this war (which is PART of the reason, imo, for fighting it): Lower oil prices and new contracts for our companies. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that.