Speaking my brains...
- Thread starter Justin Owen
- Start date
- Status
Wasn't that written by one of the Monty Python lot? Or maybe I am thinking of something else...?
hmmm...
Mark ,with all respect ,gimme a break about Saddam's reign of terrorism. All of us know that many nations leaders are doing far worse than he does. And of course it's not the U.S.'s responsibility to solve all this. Like in Iraq.
This is not the time to say "enough" ,and the reason is cuz Saddam did nothing NOW.
Oh ,and please excuse me for my mistakes and my simple language but I don't speak so good English ,as you do. So you could enlighten me with the money market I never heard of.
And one thing more again. After the war ,the reason will be obvious to everyone. Just check which nation's companies will emerge to "help" rebuilt Iraq.
Lastly some of you guys asked how can Saddam still want to stay in Power.Many of his citizens ,are with him cuz
1. They are hardened by war ,they lived this again(this is their statement),and they're not afraid of the U.S..
2.They hate the U.S. ,of course.
3.They would never let their worst enemy to decide who will be THEIR leader ,especially if this enemy has no right to.
Antony Pashos
Mark ,with all respect ,gimme a break about Saddam's reign of terrorism. All of us know that many nations leaders are doing far worse than he does. And of course it's not the U.S.'s responsibility to solve all this. Like in Iraq.
This is not the time to say "enough" ,and the reason is cuz Saddam did nothing NOW.
Oh ,and please excuse me for my mistakes and my simple language but I don't speak so good English ,as you do. So you could enlighten me with the money market I never heard of.
And one thing more again. After the war ,the reason will be obvious to everyone. Just check which nation's companies will emerge to "help" rebuilt Iraq.
Lastly some of you guys asked how can Saddam still want to stay in Power.Many of his citizens ,are with him cuz
1. They are hardened by war ,they lived this again(this is their statement),and they're not afraid of the U.S..
2.They hate the U.S. ,of course.
3.They would never let their worst enemy to decide who will be THEIR leader ,especially if this enemy has no right to.
Antony Pashos
Bringing pball into this briefly...what sort of reaction are TonTons gonna get at Vegas? See any extra love being sent their way by tha moronic minority?
Maybee ?
Hopefully not though, ive read on another forum - the question "Bomb Iraq or Bomb France"
If they do I hope the people sending the extra love are kicked off site straight away.... This is Paintball, not international politics
Or maybe the US teams don't back Toulouse quite so well ?.
I agree - this is paintball ot politics, and one thing I love about the sport is the "inclusive" feel it has. Hope that wont change.
On the Iraq subject my stance is I agree with what ultimately we are doing but disagree with how it's being done.
However, if there are Brit soldiers out there for whatever reason I will support them, they don't make the politics.
Tactics n bombs.
I'm going to attempt to explain some off my points re military strategy (Mark, you wanted the evidence re weapon failability).
The actual number of Kills (dud or kill) reported by Patriots (according to the US General Accounting Office) is no more than 25% (US Army confidence rating). Independent analysis using the Army's methodology but not involving the manufacturer (Raytheon) actually comes to a more realistic 9% Warhead kill figure. US army claims of 80% effectiveness have been greatly exaggerated and now discredited (60% over Israel and 90& over Saudi Arabia). Originally the army claimed Patriots had destroyed all bar 2 Scud missiles launched. This information is available from your government sources. Whilst Software improvements have since been made, many factors still remain questionable about Patriot missile performance and systems (it was originally designed as anti-aircraft system not a ABM system). Ok so the new Pac-3 variety does have a number of improvements, and is designed to be a hit to kill weapon as opposed to proximity kill, however this has still been dogged with problems
My point was not to be critical of the US armed forces, but the belief in the infallibility of the US army and it's weapons systems. If you took the reports from the last Gulf war re guided munitions (of the 167,000 munitions dropped, fewer than 10,000 were guided precision weapons including Tomahawks), the impression is that Guided precision kills accounted for a much higher percentage.
Without a doubt the ratio of guided precision weapons will increase this time round, but electro-optical guided weapons are not without fault or problems. Recent campaigns (Kosovo) have indicated problems with various systems, notably their susceptibility to weather conditions. OK the Gulf is hardly likely to get much precipitation, but Sandstorms etc will likely have a distorting effect. These transitional weapons are likely to be used due to cost overruns and delays to the new breed of Navstar GPS guided systems. And lest we forget that such weapons are only as good as the intelligence that feeds them (somebody say Chinese Embassy).
Also Pentagon briefings are currently discussing the possibilities of Urban warfare. The US military reliance on Helicopters in Urban conflict environments is being called into question. Simulated engagements have suggested casualty rates as high as 50-75% (Pentagon briefing sources you can check). Air-mobility is a tactic likely to be used, but is causing some concern due to it's vulnerabilities.
On a another note, the Republican guard, is mainly comprised of Shia-Arabs, who are quite prepared to fight and die against an American led foe and are largely "indifferent" to Saddam's rule . The indoctrinated belief is that given 13 years of US sabre rattling, the allied coalition lacks the balls for a real fight. This is set out by both religious and political indoctrination and increased perks (50% greater pay). The Republican guard is kept in line by Siriya death squads, fanatical supporters and followers of the regime (ran by one of Saddams son). These are universally feared, but install discipline within the Republican guard. The regular army is not regulated as such and even the Iraqis expected it to fold. The republican guard may surrender (ABC sources), but this is only a possibility. Oh and the Republican guard is fully equipped for NBC operations (makes you wonder?).
Note also evidence suggesting that Al-Quaida is active in Iraq, and should they gain access to WMD are more than likely to use them. Again a view taken seriously given recent events in Afghanistan and Al-Quaida desperate for some form of victory / assertion of purpose. Al Quaida have zero worry about civilian casulties.
Ok so, this is worst case scenario, but you know what they say about "assumption, being the muther of all......". I do concede the point re the quality of Military leadership in Iraq, as given Saddam's paranoia, has purged any able military leaders due to their perceived threat. I just struggle to believe it will be a complete piece of pi$$. Like I said previously I do think we should be kicking his and anybody who thinks likewise asses, just we gotta do the job correctly. I do think 2-7 days of armed ground conflict to be realistic, but of the 180 US and 26 UK dead (amoungst others) last time, we should be prepared to stomach more this time.
If we're talking Technical and military strategy as suggested by Buddha, I still believe that the use of Chemical Weapons by Saddam, would be tactically a good move.
Firstly it will degrade the combat effectiveness of US/UK units severely hampering any potential ground assault. It may or may not result in large scale casualties but the psychological impact of operating in a chemical environment will make a ground assault unlikely
Secondly. If an invasion from Kuwait is thwarted where else are allied forces going to invade from. Once WMD are involved, I can't see Turkey etc allowing a ground based assault to be launched from their soil, likewise any other gulf state.
Thirdly. This will enforce the view within the Iraqi military and command structure that the allies are defeatable
Fourthly. Puts the allies in a difficult response position. Although I personally would nuke him, this is likely to be highly undesirable politically, especially given the French/Russian position.
Fifthly, this will lead to an extension of his power, as it's the only delaying tactic he good use. As soon as the first Allied casulties are taken exile's not really an option. Better to die fighting.
As odorous as the thought of WMD are, I was under the impression that Nato strategy for fighting Warsaw Pact / Soviet forces in the cold war called for the deployment of both Nuclear and Chemical weapons to counter Soviet force of numbers (could be wrong though).
Of the 25 Biologically equipped Scuds known to off existed in 1998, 24 are still missing, even if one or two of these are successful in exploding in Allied staging areas, any allied invasion will suffer greatly.
I'm going to attempt to explain some off my points re military strategy (Mark, you wanted the evidence re weapon failability).
The actual number of Kills (dud or kill) reported by Patriots (according to the US General Accounting Office) is no more than 25% (US Army confidence rating). Independent analysis using the Army's methodology but not involving the manufacturer (Raytheon) actually comes to a more realistic 9% Warhead kill figure. US army claims of 80% effectiveness have been greatly exaggerated and now discredited (60% over Israel and 90& over Saudi Arabia). Originally the army claimed Patriots had destroyed all bar 2 Scud missiles launched. This information is available from your government sources. Whilst Software improvements have since been made, many factors still remain questionable about Patriot missile performance and systems (it was originally designed as anti-aircraft system not a ABM system). Ok so the new Pac-3 variety does have a number of improvements, and is designed to be a hit to kill weapon as opposed to proximity kill, however this has still been dogged with problems
My point was not to be critical of the US armed forces, but the belief in the infallibility of the US army and it's weapons systems. If you took the reports from the last Gulf war re guided munitions (of the 167,000 munitions dropped, fewer than 10,000 were guided precision weapons including Tomahawks), the impression is that Guided precision kills accounted for a much higher percentage.
Without a doubt the ratio of guided precision weapons will increase this time round, but electro-optical guided weapons are not without fault or problems. Recent campaigns (Kosovo) have indicated problems with various systems, notably their susceptibility to weather conditions. OK the Gulf is hardly likely to get much precipitation, but Sandstorms etc will likely have a distorting effect. These transitional weapons are likely to be used due to cost overruns and delays to the new breed of Navstar GPS guided systems. And lest we forget that such weapons are only as good as the intelligence that feeds them (somebody say Chinese Embassy).
Also Pentagon briefings are currently discussing the possibilities of Urban warfare. The US military reliance on Helicopters in Urban conflict environments is being called into question. Simulated engagements have suggested casualty rates as high as 50-75% (Pentagon briefing sources you can check). Air-mobility is a tactic likely to be used, but is causing some concern due to it's vulnerabilities.
On a another note, the Republican guard, is mainly comprised of Shia-Arabs, who are quite prepared to fight and die against an American led foe and are largely "indifferent" to Saddam's rule . The indoctrinated belief is that given 13 years of US sabre rattling, the allied coalition lacks the balls for a real fight. This is set out by both religious and political indoctrination and increased perks (50% greater pay). The Republican guard is kept in line by Siriya death squads, fanatical supporters and followers of the regime (ran by one of Saddams son). These are universally feared, but install discipline within the Republican guard. The regular army is not regulated as such and even the Iraqis expected it to fold. The republican guard may surrender (ABC sources), but this is only a possibility. Oh and the Republican guard is fully equipped for NBC operations (makes you wonder?).
Note also evidence suggesting that Al-Quaida is active in Iraq, and should they gain access to WMD are more than likely to use them. Again a view taken seriously given recent events in Afghanistan and Al-Quaida desperate for some form of victory / assertion of purpose. Al Quaida have zero worry about civilian casulties.
Ok so, this is worst case scenario, but you know what they say about "assumption, being the muther of all......". I do concede the point re the quality of Military leadership in Iraq, as given Saddam's paranoia, has purged any able military leaders due to their perceived threat. I just struggle to believe it will be a complete piece of pi$$. Like I said previously I do think we should be kicking his and anybody who thinks likewise asses, just we gotta do the job correctly. I do think 2-7 days of armed ground conflict to be realistic, but of the 180 US and 26 UK dead (amoungst others) last time, we should be prepared to stomach more this time.
If we're talking Technical and military strategy as suggested by Buddha, I still believe that the use of Chemical Weapons by Saddam, would be tactically a good move.
Firstly it will degrade the combat effectiveness of US/UK units severely hampering any potential ground assault. It may or may not result in large scale casualties but the psychological impact of operating in a chemical environment will make a ground assault unlikely
Secondly. If an invasion from Kuwait is thwarted where else are allied forces going to invade from. Once WMD are involved, I can't see Turkey etc allowing a ground based assault to be launched from their soil, likewise any other gulf state.
Thirdly. This will enforce the view within the Iraqi military and command structure that the allies are defeatable
Fourthly. Puts the allies in a difficult response position. Although I personally would nuke him, this is likely to be highly undesirable politically, especially given the French/Russian position.
Fifthly, this will lead to an extension of his power, as it's the only delaying tactic he good use. As soon as the first Allied casulties are taken exile's not really an option. Better to die fighting.
As odorous as the thought of WMD are, I was under the impression that Nato strategy for fighting Warsaw Pact / Soviet forces in the cold war called for the deployment of both Nuclear and Chemical weapons to counter Soviet force of numbers (could be wrong though).
Of the 25 Biologically equipped Scuds known to off existed in 1998, 24 are still missing, even if one or two of these are successful in exploding in Allied staging areas, any allied invasion will suffer greatly.
Naw. Dynasty does that to everybody.
As to Paintball's big, happy family and not supporting Toulouse did anybody like the French before all this happened?
Si--Cleese wrote that bit
>>>> I still believe that the use of Chemical Weapons by Saddam, would be tactically a good move.<<<<
OK question here...if he launched chemical/biological weopons, would it not solidify the credibility of the U.S. and what Bush/Powell have been saying all along about the Iraqis harboring these weopons? So far as I can tell, all the opposition (like France, etc.) keeps saying "there's no evidence...blah-blah...give the inspectors more time" and Saddam's said "we had WMD in the past but no more." So if he launches these weapons, is it likely to unite the coalition and totally destroy any ounce of credibility and such that he may have left? Will that matter to his supposed/possible allies???
A serious question.
~J~
OK question here...if he launched chemical/biological weopons, would it not solidify the credibility of the U.S. and what Bush/Powell have been saying all along about the Iraqis harboring these weopons? So far as I can tell, all the opposition (like France, etc.) keeps saying "there's no evidence...blah-blah...give the inspectors more time" and Saddam's said "we had WMD in the past but no more." So if he launches these weapons, is it likely to unite the coalition and totally destroy any ounce of credibility and such that he may have left? Will that matter to his supposed/possible allies???
A serious question.
~J~
- Status