PDA

View Full Version : Bush to use Hitler's Blitzkrieg war tactic!


peter2002
Jan 24, 2003, 08:17 PM
They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.

If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. As CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.

On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.

"The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml

____________________________________________________

Man, the action is going to be great. I can't wait to watch it on CNN! This will be better than Rambo and Star Wars: Episode II combined. The downside, 1,000-20,000 civlians will be slaughtered. Bad PR for sure.

You got to hand it to Bush for cunning. Bush is taking a page from Hitler's war tactic called Blitzkrieg, the US military calls it "Shock and Awe". Anyway, it is the same thing to attack and punish your enemy into a quick submission. This is how Hitler took over Poland, Austria, Denmark, Finland, and France in a matter of days early in WWII.

Bush is planning to use nukes too. I wonder if he can be tried as a war criminal?

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1750749

Pete

Thanatoast
Jan 24, 2003, 09:16 PM
great, how much longer till the armbands with the american flags on them are standard dress?;)

medea
Jan 24, 2003, 09:32 PM
I'm glad you find amusement in the deaths of others......and thats a big jump from 1,000 to 20,000 dead.

mangoduck
Jan 24, 2003, 09:34 PM
what about every action creating an equal and opposite reaction? if they DO have chemical/nuclear weapons, and if they do see such a large scale strike headed their way, would they not take the opportunity to use their weapons? and they'd get them off the ground fast before the incoming missiles hit their targets.

i KNOW some of you geeks have seen war games.

bobindashadows
Jan 24, 2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by medea
I'm glad you find amusement in the deaths of others......and thats a big jump from 1,000 to 20,000 dead.

I have a strong feeling he was using the common literary device known as sarcasm.. and rather clever sarcasm at that. Though I do agree that i wouldn't trust a number between 1 and 20K people dead. I don't think we should simply use 800 cruise missiles to do the job... for one that'll be 800+ million dollars if i remember correctly (which i probably don't), plus I think that if we are as apalled by our 2500 dead in the WTC plus hundreds more in the Pentagon and those who died ont he planes, how do you think the Iraqi people will respond to 20,000 people dying? We should not be resorting to massive civilian casualties in the first day of battle. I do believe we should go to war. However, i think that we should do it in a much more calculated and humane manner.

janey
Jan 24, 2003, 10:23 PM
man this sucks! of course...something like this could only come from the mind of a PC user :rolleyes:

Not good...killing upwards of at least 10,000 civilians to destroy some government.

peter2002
Jan 24, 2003, 10:29 PM
I'm being just sarcastic. War is always bad. Many will die for nothing. More will sufer for years. The USA will get stuck with the bill. And we will make many more enimies.

Americans don't really care though. We haven't had a real invasion of our shores since the Mexican War of the early 1840's. And in the other wars, we lost tens of thousands, whereas the other nations lost 10's of millions.

Pete

Thanatoast
Jan 24, 2003, 10:45 PM
i don't think that many people realize that perhaps why some countries (read:europe) are so against war is b/c they've seen so much of it. after killing off two entire generations of young men in america, let's see if we're still so gung ho about war, eh?

janey
Jan 24, 2003, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by peter2002
And in the other wars, we lost tens of thousands, whereas the other nations lost 10's of millions.
So does that mean that all those innocent civilians have to die, just so we can declare victory?

LethalWolfe
Jan 24, 2003, 11:15 PM
The thread title feels a bit inflammatory and is off base to boot. If you want to be correct you need to replace "Hitler" and "Blitzkrieg" with "John Fuller" and "Plan 1919."

But that's a moot point since "shock and awe" has absolutely nothing in common w/Blitzkrieg style tactics. Shock and awe is overwhelming air and missle attacks coordinated to take out the most command and control centers in the shortest window of time possible. Blitzkrieg tactics involve fast moving mechanized divisions "leading the charge" while being supported by air and infintry. One is designed to demorialize troops so they surrender w/o a fight, the other to roll over everything in its path.

But why would you bother posting the truth when it's so much easier to post inflammatory and false information...


Lethal

LethalWolfe
Jan 24, 2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Thanatoast
i don't think that many people realize that perhaps why some countries (read:europe) are so against war is b/c they've seen so much of it. after killing off two entire generations of young men in america, let's see if we're still so gung ho about war, eh?


Yer exactly right. Europe was so devistated by WWI that they set back and let Hitler start WWII. But, of course, that wasn't until after they let him take over Austria and Czechoslovakia. Instead of containing Hitler when they had the chance they watched him build a huge army (which was a direct violation of the terms of Germany's WWI surrender) and let him plunge the world into war.

Just think how many millions of lives could have been saved if they only would have stopped Hitler when they had the chance...


Lethal

marcsiry
Jan 25, 2003, 03:33 PM
I doubt all 400 cruise missiles are going to be targeted on apartments buildings filled with orphans and sports stadiums teeming with fans.

More likely they will hit barracks, airfields, fuel depots, radar installations, bridges, etc- places where there may indeed be causalties, but they are likely to be scant in comparison.

In 1999, NATO hammered Belgrade- a city at least as large as Baghdad- and the casualties measured in the low hundreds over the course of the campaign. That includes a botched Stealth Bomber attack that hit the Chinese embassy, killing three, IIRC.

During Gulf War I, a large amount of the damage in Baghdad was caused by anti-aircraft artillery fired by the Iraqi forces falling back to the ground. They'd bring reporters around to the scene of a "missile attack" on a school, but hurry them off when someone noticed the Russian writing on the side of the missile (a dud SAM that missed its target).

I'm not advocating any sort of attack on any population; just trying to counter some of the shrill hysteria.

trebblekicked
Jan 25, 2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe



Yer exactly right. Europe was so devistated by WWI that they set back and let Hitler start WWII. But, of course, that wasn't until after they let him take over Austria and Czechoslovakia. Instead of containing Hitler when they had the chance they watched him build a huge army (which was a direct violation of the terms of Germany's WWI surrender) and let him plunge the world into war.

Just think how many millions of lives could have been saved if they only would have stopped Hitler when they had the chance...


Lethal
0
Which leader is toppling governments in the region? saddam or bush? if bush goes to war w/ iraq, that will be two middle eastern muslim nations in two years. How many aggresive moves has saddam made towards his neighbors since the war in kuwait? none. How many aggresive moves has the US made in the region? Somalia? Iraq? Afghanistan? troops placed in saudi arabia, jordan, kuwait, qatar, etc.

Is he a madman? Sure. Should he be in power? In a perfect world, no. Does he represent a threat to america? You think so? Fine. Prove it.

Mark my words: a US invasion/airstrike campaign against iraq will lead to an uprising in the middle east, the scope of which should not be underestimated. That will be the greatest threat to american security.

marcsiry
Jan 25, 2003, 03:53 PM
How many aggresive moves has saddam made towards his neighbors since the war in kuwait? none.

His army was decimated in 1991 and he has been under constant military supervision byAllied forces via the no-fly zone. It would be difficult to be aggressive under those circumstances.

That said, he launched military attacks against the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south.

If he had made aggressive moves towards his neighbors, Gulf War II would have happened sooner, and he'd be gone by now- and he knows it.

Instead, Saddam pursues a much smarter strategy of passive aggression- pushing it until it looks like he might trigger a military response, and then backing off. In this manner, he exploits the weakness of the international community- a short memory and a general spinelessness.

In this new reality of western military supremacy, tyrants only survive as long as they keep quiet- that's why Milosevic spends his days babbling in court and Mullah Omar is on the run. Hussein is smarter (and thus more dangerous) than the two of them combined.

chrisfx811
Jan 25, 2003, 04:15 PM
will it also be our fault when saddam "relocates" civilians to areas he knows are targetted by the u.s. military? i'm sure the anti-war freaks will all curse bush and blame the u.s. as the iraqi propaganda machine tries it's best to make themselves out to be the victim here.

kenkooler
Jan 25, 2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by chrisfx811
will it also be our fault when saddam "relocates" civilians to areas he knows are targetted by the u.s. military? i'm sure the anti-war freaks will all curse bush and blame the u.s. as the iraqi propaganda machine tries it's best to make themselves out to be the victim here.

And i'm sure that some american guy will curse saddam as american propaganda tries to hide the fact that its the aggressor. Not trying to take anyone's side, but trying to see both points of view would make some people aware of what they are saying...

Sure, Saddam should be stopped, but Bush too.

lmalave
Jan 25, 2003, 05:37 PM
I would hardly give Hitler credit any credit for the "lightning strike" tactic - Genghis Khan developed it 800 years ago. Khan's army moved so quickly that their opponents were completely flabbergasted, and to this day historians are trying to figure out how he was able to move so quickly. The reputation of the Mongol "hordes" was so fearsome that eventually all his potential opponents started surrendering pre-emptively rather than face decimation by Khan. This allowed Khan to quickly amass a domain that stretched from Korea to Poland, and from the Arctic to the Persian Gulf.

The key features of Khan's army were:

- All 250,000 of his troops were on horseback, consisting of about 50% armored cavalry and 50% archers.

- The Mongols were the first army to use archers on horseback (due to their innovation of the stirrup)

- A network of scouts, placed at 25 mile intervals, allowed battlefield intelligence to quickly reach commanders

- Soldiers were trained to look for weaknesses in their opponents's formation and quickly charge to exploit them. Since the Mongols could literally run circles around their opponents, this weakness could be anywhere in the formation, including the flanks and rear. And if the opponent attempted a closed formation, they would be surrounded and decimated by Mongol archers anyway.

The U.S. may have the most advanced military in the world now, just as the Nazis had the most advanced military at the beginning of WWII, but no military in history has had a greater advantage than the Mongols had over their opponents.

LethalWolfe
Jan 25, 2003, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by trebblekicked

0
Which leader is toppling governments in the region? saddam or bush? if bush goes to war w/ iraq, that will be two middle eastern muslim nations in two years. How many aggresive moves has saddam made towards his neighbors since the war in kuwait? none. How many aggresive moves has the US made in the region? Somalia? Iraq? Afghanistan? troops placed in saudi arabia, jordan, kuwait, qatar, etc.

Is he a madman? Sure. Should he be in power? In a perfect world, no. Does he represent a threat to america? You think so? Fine. Prove it.

Mark my words: a US invasion/airstrike campaign against iraq will lead to an uprising in the middle east, the scope of which should not be underestimated. That will be the greatest threat to american security.


What does anything you said have to do w/the historical facts I posted in response to Thanatoast's post?

Well, since I'm already here. It's not my job, nor the job of the US to prove that Iraq has no WMD. Per the terms of their surrender after the Gulf War it's IRAQ's job to prove (through documentation) that they dismantled and disposed of their all their WMD. Currently hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons (found by UN inspectors in '98) are unaccounted for. So unless the WMD fairy flew in, put a quater under Saddam's pillow, and flew off w/all those weapons Iraq still has them.

At times like this I'd love to see the US just say "fine, ****** it" and pull all US forces and resources back into the US. The world doesn't want our help? Fine ****** them. No more food, no more foreign aid (think of all the money we'll save sense the US is the single largest supplier of foriegn aid in the world). How long do you think it will take for the war mongers to start raping and pillaging<sp?> when they know the US isn't waiting in the wings anymore?

But maybe, yer right. Maybe we need to wait until Saddam actually uses chemical weapons (on people besides his own population of course) or nukes before we actually do anything. Just like we waited for the Twin Towers to fall before we went after Bin Laden, and just like Europe waited for Hitler to rebuild his army and invade 3 countries before they said, "Oh *****, he lied to us."


Lethal

LethalWolfe
Jan 25, 2003, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by lmalave
I would hardly give Hitler credit any credit for the "lightning strike" tactic - Genghis Khan developed it 800 years ago. Khan's army moved so quickly that their opponents were completely flabbergasted, and to this day historians are trying to figure out how he was able to move so quickly. The reputation of the Mongol "hordes" was so fearsome that eventually all his potential opponents started surrendering pre-emptively rather than face decimation by Khan. This allowed Khan to quickly amass a domain that stretched from Korea to Poland, and from the Arctic to the Persian Gulf.

The key features of Khan's army were:

- All 250,000 of his troops were on horseback, consisting of about 50% armored cavalry and 50% archers.

- The Mongols were the first army to use archers on horseback (due to their innovation of the stirrup)

- A network of scouts, placed at 25 mile intervals, allowed battlefield intelligence to quickly reach commanders

- Soldiers were trained to look for weaknesses in their opponents's formation and quickly charge to exploit them. Since the Mongols could literally run circles around their opponents, this weakness could be anywhere in the formation, including the flanks and rear. And if the opponent attempted a closed formation, they would be surrounded and decimated by Mongol archers anyway.

The U.S. may have the most advanced military in the world now, just as the Nazis had the most advanced military at the beginning of WWII, but no military in history has had a greater advantage than the Mongols had over their opponents.

Some how I knew you were gonna find me and correct by citing Kahn. :)

If Kahn had tanks and planes I'd agree w/you. ;)


Lethal

lmalave
Jan 25, 2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by LethalWolfe


Some how I knew you were gonna find me and correct by citing Kahn. :)

If Kahn had tanks and planes I'd agree w/you. ;)


Lethal

Well, think of archers as air support, and armored cavalry as mechanized infantry (Khan didn't even bother with the light infantry). Khan had the world's first modern army. The technology might be different, but the concepts are the same. What can I say, I'm just a fan of folks who were way ahead of their time, and Khan I think is the most impressive in the military realm

(Leonardo da Vinci takes the overall prize).

Did I mention that Discovery Channel and History Channel rule? I wish they had that stuff when I was a kid - all we had was PBS.

Thanatoast
Jan 25, 2003, 06:23 PM
the wmd fairy...i like it. :)

otherwise...

how many lives could be saved if we stopped bush now, before the middle east becomes incensed by our actions and the terrorist attacks *really* begin?

actually, i'll go ahead and argue that your "***** it" plan is probably better foriegn policy than we're currently using. but only if we also withdraw from the un. here's my theory. a few petty dictators might try to make some big plays. the un, funtioning properly now w/o u.s. badgering, pulls together troops from across several dozen nations and sends them in to rectify the problem. but only when they have all agreed that's it's the best thing to do. this means a certain amount of debate and time, yes. but it also reduces uncertainty in any ventures that are undertaken that it is the right thing to do. despite your lack of confidence in the rest of the world, i'm sure it would continue to get along w/o our "greatness" there to guide it. the world's come a long way in the last couple of decades. it would go even farther if we'd stop thinking about geo-politics as a zero-sum game.

just b/c the rest of the world doesn't want to invade iraq doesn't mean they'd give him free reign, either.

while we do give more foriegn aid than anyone else, the amount is truly pathetic, considering our resources. the gov't only gives 10 billion in direct aid every year, some with strings attached. 10 billion is 4/10 of one percent of our annual budget. that's a typo in federal dollars. if we really wanted to do some good and stop making enemies we'd send less military overseas and more aid (food and medicine would be my suggestion).

a bit optimitic scenario you say? well someone's gotta be. (wow, never thought it'd be me, though.)

cc bcc
Jan 25, 2003, 07:11 PM
doubt all 400 cruise missiles are going to be targeted on apartments buildings filled with orphans and sports stadiums teeming with fans.

Saddam isn't afraid to use orphans as human shielding. And I'm sure he's enjoying the dissagreement between the USA and Europe about whether to attack or not.

Whatever tactic they'll use, lots of innocent people are going to die. And saying that it's good to save much more people from such a horrible dictator is a good thing, is hypocrit. There are lots of countries where people are being poorly treated. This thing is about oil.
And also, the timing is very strange.. Bush couldn't find Bin Laden, and suddenly shifts attention to Irak. As if he wants a succesful war on his resume?

But if he really has terrible weapons of MASS destruction, I agree steps have to be taken. All other options have to be reviewed before resorting to war. Bush seems a little eager. And afaik only the UK agrees. The rest of the world is against war -at this time-

marcsiry
Jan 25, 2003, 08:33 PM
But if he really has terrible weapons of MASS destruction, I agree steps have to be taken. All other options have to be reviewed before resorting to war. Bush seems a little eager. And afaik only the UK agrees. The rest of the world is against war -at this time-

"All other options"- well, the only reason we currently have the option of inspectors is because of the United States' unilateral threat of war unless Iraq complied with the terms of the cease fire agreement. Without that credible threat, Hussein sees no reason to comply with any UN mandates- it is a laughably impotent world body when it comes to persuading dictators to do anything.

As for the rest of the world being against war- that's the natural state of things. No one wants war; however, war is at the extreme end of diplomacy, and is the ultimate motive force in many negotiations.

Furthermore, we should take a look at reasons for opposition to war- France, China and Russia all have large contracts with Hussein for development of the oild fields once the sanctions drop. There's no guarantee those contracts will be honored by a post-Hussein government, which is why it is in their best interests to oppose his overthrow.

So here you have three large countries diluting the effect of the UN sanctions for their own future gain. What they are currently doing is attempting to block the US in the UN to extract assurances that their interests will be represented in a post Hussein Iraq, because they have neither the will nor the ability to effect change themselves.

It's currently the fashion to portray the US as an imperialistic, greedy bully that can barely restrain itself, while the rest of the world lock arms and sing peace songs out of the goodness of their hearts. This view is innacurate and naive. Every country acts in its own best interests; you would do well to examine those interests before drawing surface conclusions.

THe interest of the United States is to fill the world with countries compliant to international business. A recalcitrant dictator in the world's premiere hotspot is not in the best interests of international business, especially when the world's oil supply is so nearby. France, Russia and China have chosen the path of appeasement and dealing with said dictator, while allowing him to flout the UN resolutions he agreed to. The US, UK, and others have chosen to challenge him. Neither path is "right"- but I prefer to be on the side of the challengers, and not on the side of the appeasers.

lmalave
Jan 25, 2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by marcsiry

THe interest of the United States is to fill the world with countries compliant to international business.

Though certainly economic considerations influence the U.S.'s foreign policy, I don't think it's the primary motivator, especially in this case. Since WWII (at least), foreign policy has been guided by military considerations and real or perceived threats. The Cold War is the obvious example. During the Clinton years economic issues became more prominent, but now that the Cold War old guard is back in the White House, it's back to business as usual.

It is the explicit goal of this administration to do whatever is necessary to remain the world's pre-eminent military and political power. In this context, nuclear proliferation is certainly an important issue. Having nuclear-armed enemies must be avoided, if at all possible. China and Russia already have nukes, so we just have to accept that. And Iraq, Iran, and North Korea just *happen* to be the 3 countries that are closest to achieving nuclear weapons. Does anyone really think this is about terrorism? If this was really about terrorism we'd invade Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - Pakistan is where the terrorist-training madrassas are and Saudi Arabia is where all the funding is coming from.

I see Iraq as a return to the "sphere of influence" thinking of the Cold War. I really think Bush thinks that if he can go into Iraq and establish a democracy, the restless youths of Iran would overturn that government - and voila, you have two pro-American governments where before existed two members of the Axis of Evil. And the influence would spread out over the rest of the region. I don't think you'd ever see the Saudi regime toppled (short of a cataclysmic bloody revolution), but you would see liberalization throughout the region.

LethalWolfe
Jan 25, 2003, 09:52 PM
lmalave: I agree w/you that Kahn was a military genius<sp?> and that Discovery and History channel rock. But I don't think Kahn is the end all, be all of military tactics. I think in todays military the horses would be helicopters (air cav anyone ;)), and the closest thing to heavy armor mother nature has is a elephant I think.


Thanatoast: Thanks for keeping this civil. :)
When it comes to anything military related the UN turns into a finger pointing cluster ***** and nothing gets done 'cause no one (save the US) is willing to send substantional amounts of troops aywhere. It's kinda like if you get mugged on a busy street you are less likely to be helped by a passerby than if you get mugged on a street w/only 1 or two other people on it. The reason is if there are a lot of people each person will all assume that someone else will help you and, in the end, you don't get any help at all.


There are so many agendas going on in the UN that's is flat out amazing anything has ever gotten done. And even when something gets done it's so handicaped that it's just about worthless. Case in point, UN "peace keeping" missions. Here are some UN guidelines for their peace keepers (in no real order):
1. Weapons will be unloaded at all times.
2. Flak jackects cannot be worn unless being fired upon (this one I'm not too sure about, but it wouldn't surprise me).
3. You cannot fire w/o being fired upon (which means if aggressors roll into the town you are defending and start slaughtering everyone there's nothing you can do 'cause the aggressors aren't shooting at you).
4. If, by chance, someone does start shooting at you can only return fire if you can ID the person doing the shooting. So, let's say a small squad of troops in jeeps are rollin' along and suddenly a sniper starts taking pot shots at them from the woods. Well, first of all everyone is gonna take cover, load their weapons, and possibly put on their flak jacket. After that is all done the sniper has probably stopped shooting and is fleeing. But if by chance the troops go after him and find some guy mearbu sitting in the woods w/an AK-47 they can't do anything 'cause no one actually *saw* who did the shooting.

I really hope things have changed, but at least during the 90's this was standard for UN peace keepers.



Without the US the UN has no teeth. And what's the point of having a "regulatory body" if said body can't even enforce it's own regulations? Case in point, Iraq. Saddam defied UN resolutions for what, 10 or 12 years? Did dipolmacy work? No. The only thing sanctions did was make him choose between a lavish lifestyle and military spending or taking care of his people. He chose the former. Why has Saddam finally agreed to abide by the UN resolution and the terms of his surrender after a decade of blowing them off? The threat of a US invasion that's why. And even though he agreed to let the inspectors back we have to keep constant pressure on him 'cause he is gonna try every trick in the book to delay and hinder the inspectors. He knows the longer this drags out the more countries will stop backing the US and eventually the US will either have to given to world pressure and "leave Iraq alone" or invade. And Saddam is hegding his bets that the US won't invade w/o support.

Les Kern
Jan 25, 2003, 10:33 PM
Herr Wolfowitz erklärte mir, daß dieses zur Öffentlichkeit
hinausgehen würde. Jetzt kümmern Sie sich um Ihr eigenes Geschäft
und erhalten Sie zurück zu Arbeit.
Arbeit macht frei, dude.
Signed, Dubya

charboneau
Jan 25, 2003, 10:55 PM
I see Iraq as a return to the "sphere of influence" thinking of the Cold War. I really think Bush thinks that if he can go into Iraq and establish a democracy, the restless youths of Iran would overturn that government - and voila, you have two pro-American governments where before existed two members of the Axis of Evil. And the influence would spread out over the rest of the region. I don't think you'd ever see the Saudi regime toppled (short of a cataclysmic bloody revolution), but you would see liberalization throughout the region.
======
?????????

What????

They're shooting at Americans in Kuwait these days. Do you think the US can establish a peaceful democracy in Iraq, a country it has been bombing on a regular basis for twelve years? A quick fact: THEY DON'T WANT US THERE. Nobody in the region wants us there.

The occupation, which without question would be for the exploitation of oil resources, would be a bloody, expensive mess. Never mind the terrorist attacks that would be launched against US interests throughout the world. And that includes right here. You live in NYC as I do, so you've seen it first hand and it's not pretty.

If Saddam has WMD they are old and have very limited range. The no-fly zone keeps him contained, he's not a threat to Iraq's neighbors.

The oft quoted gassing of the Kurds? Iraq was a US ally at the time, the materials came from the US, and Saddam had the official okey dokey of none other than Donald Rumsfeld. Saddam is interested in job security, he knows that if he acts in a provocative manner that his country is dust. The CIA's own reports say that if he has WMD that he will only use them if attacked and backed into a corner.

To say that an attack will insure security is so ridiculously misguided I almost lose my breath.

Phil Of Mac
Jan 25, 2003, 11:55 PM
They leaked the suspicion that they'll use nukes just to remind Saddam that if he launches some VX or anthrax at Qatar or Israel, we're going to set him up the bomb.

Genghis Khan was totally sweet, I agree.

If we send in 800 cruise missiles in two days and totally destroy Saddam's command and control, then send in the stealths, we can take out most of the Iraqi army pretty quickly, I think. What I want to see is the US deploy the F-22's. It's bloody well time, and an F-22 against a MiG-25 would be like sending panzers against horse infantry.

Kaboom.

(Note: I'm not sure yet whether I'm for or against the war, but I am rather interested about how it will be fought.)

zarathustra
Jan 27, 2003, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by lmalave
I would hardly give Hitler credit any credit for the "lightning strike" tactic - Genghis Khan developed it 800 years ago.

While Gengis Khan was "great", you forgot a little terror known as Attila, also Hannibal comes to mind. They all used surprise tactics. This is why I didn't like the title of the thread - comparing Bush to Hitler.

Just pick an evil leader and compare him to Bush, because he MIGHT use a tactic that has been used for hundreds, thousands of years. In the end his only goal was to say, he hates Bush and thinks he is like Hitler.

If you want to be fair, you could say, Bush is Hannibal, and he will sack Rome (Baghdad), but that might come across flattering, so Hitler was chosen.

Les Kern
Jan 27, 2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by zarathustra
This is why I didn't like the title of the thread - comparing Bush to Hitler.


I can't say I like it either, but you can compare anyone to Hitler. But any sane person will see there is no real comparison, so the whole point is moot. Some folks let their hatred to get in the way of common sense.
That being said, Bush might not be Hitler in any way, shape or form, but he is an idiot that can't formulate an idea to it's coherent end but rather has his handlers do it. It's that silver-spoon thing, and a belief in some divine guidance. The end result? An idiot in control of the world, and we can't do a damn thing about it. Oh, thats IMHO.

Mr. Anderson
Jan 27, 2003, 01:21 PM
Sensationalizing the news is nothing new for Peter2002 - most of his threads seen to be intentionally antagonistic. Its best to try and ignore the troll bait and comment on the subject in a more intellingent manner if you have something to add.

Personally, the comparison is a bit off generally speaking and an unfortunate one at that, but in terms of combat tactics the Blitzkrieg is a modern form of what you all have been discussing. Given the previous showing of the Iraqi military, this is almost a moot point.

My one concern that I've seen lately is the new versions of smart bombs/missles that use GPS guidance systems. They are very accurate and improve upon the systems we saw a decade ago, but there are counter measures that can jam the GPS signal. Simple ones that cost less than $100 that broadcast on the same frequency as GPS that effectively cut off the smart munitions when they get close to the target. So something that can hit its target within a meter now has a 50m+ error.

D

bobindashadows
Jan 27, 2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Les Kern

That being said, Bush might not be Hitler in any way, shape or form, but he is an idiot that can't formulate an idea to it's coherent end but rather has his handlers do it.

Exactly where is Bush's flaw in that he has advisors? George Washington formed the Cabinet - and I'm pretty sure that having a few people to help you improves your ability to govern. And since he is such an idiot, I'd love to see you get an MBA from Harvard. Sure, his wealth probably helped him get in, but did it get him grades? No. I'd also like to see you do as well at Phillips Academy: Andover as he did. What'd he get, B's, C's? I go to a prep school that is ranked a few below Andover, and it is tough, B's and C's are nothing to be ashamed of. I happen to do better than that, but I am a freshman so that doesn't exactly mean much yet. So how about we not judge lest we be judged ourselves.

lmalave
Jan 27, 2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by bobindashadows


Exactly where is Bush's flaw in that he has advisors? George Washington formed the Cabinet - and I'm pretty sure that having a few people to help you improves your ability to govern. And since he is such an idiot, I'd love to see you get an MBA from Harvard. Sure, his wealth probably helped him get in, but did it get him grades? No. I'd also like to see you do as well at Phillips Academy: Andover as he did. What'd he get, B's, C's? I go to a prep school that is ranked a few below Andover, and it is tough, B's and C's are nothing to be ashamed of. I happen to do better than that, but I am a freshman so that doesn't exactly mean much yet. So how about we not judge lest we be judged ourselves.

I agree with you - having very strong advisors is actually the sign of a strong, confident leader.

But please don't defend Bush's academic performance :rolleyes:

For your information he got into Andover (which accepts only 20% of applicants) because his Daddy went there. He wasn't even accepted at St. John's school in Houston!

And despite all the benefits he was given he could only muster a 1200 on his SATs. Not that that stopped Yale from accepting him despite the fact that Yale's average SATs at that time were almost 1400, and Bush was not a sports star or anything (unless you count cheerleading :rolleyes: ). Again, it was just because his Daddy went there.

And the very same thing I'm sure applied when he got into Harvard Business School (not that his parents went there, but, come on, both his father and grandfather had been Congressmen).

And after graduation he was not any more successful in business either - he lost money in almost everything he touched.

In fact, he only really found something he was good at when he got into politics. He's a people person, I'll give him that. He was a popular governor and now he's a popular president. He has qualities that have served him well in politics (wether you agree with his politics or not): charm, discipline, decisiveness. But brains ain't one of them. He's smart enough - but not that much smarter than most people.

Oh, and P.S. - you really shouldn't be challenging people on this forum about wether they'd do well at Andover or Harvard Business School. In case you haven't noticed people on these forums are pretty smart. You'd like to see Les Kern do as well as Bush at Andover or Harvard? Well, well, well, I can't speak for Les Kern but I say bring it on! I know for a FACT I'd do at least as well as Bush, based on the fact that I blew away his SAT scores, did better than him at a much harder college, and am also currently doing quite well in a top 10 MBA program to boot. I'll go mano a mano on any academic challenge! I'm by no means saying I'm better than the president. Hell I would crash and burn in a couple days trying to do his job. But I'm JUST talking academics - DON'T try to convince me that he's much more than average at academics.

macfan
Jan 28, 2003, 12:17 AM
The Bush is an idiot theme is much more myth than reality. Sure, I may have done better in school than he and Gore did, but that doesn't qualify me to be president above either of them.

lmalave
Jan 28, 2003, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by macfan
The Bush is an idiot theme is much more myth than reality. Sure, I may have done better in school than he and Gore did, but that doesn't qualify me to be president above either of them.

I totally agree, it takes an exceptional person to be elected president and then to be effective at it. It's kind of like making lots of money: if it was so darn easy, then why doesn't everyone do it? The fact is we live in an extremely competitive culture, and achieving at the highest level in almost any field takes a very significant amount of both talent and effort.

Backtothemac
Jan 28, 2003, 03:42 PM
That is a total load of crap. They have not forcasted any casualties for civilians, and their won't be that many with cruise missiles being used! Maybe if carpet bombed them.