Marines learn the Harsh realities of Urban combat

[wylin]

urban combat (http://www.msnbc.com/news/797549.asp)

excerpt
GEORGE AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., Aug. 22 — If the U.S. wants to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Americans will probably have to fight his best-trained troops in downtown Baghdad. It’s a thought that gives U.S. generals pause.

But two events persuaded the Marine Corps it couldn’t simply bypass urban warfare. The first was the 1993 debacle in Somalia, when Army Rangers sent to capture a hostile warlord got into a nightlong firefight in Mogadishu that killed 18 Americans, including one dragged afterward through the streets. A year later, the U.S. watched as Chechen rebels inside the city of Grozny managed to destroy 102 of 120 Russian tanks sent after them.


Interesting i guess fighting in between buildings and such is very costly. That brings me to the point that ya war is violent and devestiating and cant just be faught from the air and will have a human cost...?

would u as an american or what not, support invading iraq if us soldiers had to engage in the type of house to house fighting thats sustains heavy losses and allows the enemy to perform/use guerilla tactics and attacks.

which causes such out comes as this other excerpt:
In the assault on “al-George,” however, it took 980 Marines to roust just 160 rebels from urban terrain. And despite wielding a 6-to-1 advantage, the Marine force still took about 100 casualties.

?do u support us intervention in iraq? even at the cost of so many lives...?



<!--EDIT|wylin|Aug 23 2002, 09:00 AM-->

[achtungbaby]

I think the President needs to be more clear, specific and concise on such an undertaking, and so far, as I can tell, the Administration hasn't done this. I remember when he first started talking about the "War on Terror" and, despite my support of him, thinking that that was going to open up a huge can of worms, possibly akin to the Cold War. And invading Iraq, I think, would take us along that path -- invading countries and toppling regimes to "contain" our enemy.

[wylin]

i agree w/ that comment AB, pretty much the united states is going on other peoples lands and dealing with other peoples problems in the name of justice and victory over terror.

Pretty much i think the united states is acting like a international police force and forcing its only globalistic agenda onto alot of other countries and the can of worms they opened up a long time ago w/ the push toward economic dominance. Namely fundamentalism.

[wylin]

dammit we need my big mechs for urban combat =X

[wylin]

also seriously how do u think the war if fought in iraq will go fast and easy or long and costly like vietnam.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 16 2002, 09:38 PM
as long as there is a country that controls and makes policies of their own natural resource (i.e. oil) that we greedy americans want, they will be labeled as 'terrorists' and 'dictatorships' - oh, and uh it's even easier to wage war on that country if america had put sanctions on it (killing thousands of children), and even better if they are of another major religion

love, prof. frink. (sarcasm at end - dont take literally)
I would concede that it looks like we're trying to pick a fight. Does this mean that Saddaam Hussein isn't trying to build weapons of mass destruction?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 17 2002, 07:01 AM
amerika doesnt have weapons of destruction? and with our budget on the military, bush can't not afford to pick a fight
cut the "amerika" crap trying to draw moral equivalence between USA and Iraq. America will get the hell kicked out of it in any urban war because we're not willing to:

a: conduct political assassinations, especially those which put family members of victims at risk
b: knock down civilian apartment blocks by using bulldozers, tanks, or bombs, even if military and paramilitary units are occupying said buildings
c: fire at vehicles displaying an ambulance sign, even if it is obviously carrying ammunition

like most Middle Eastern countries (both Muslim and Jewish) do in time of war.



<!--EDIT|AliBabaIncorporated|Sep 17 2002, 10:32 AM-->

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by wylin@Aug 23 2002, 09:58 AM

would u as an american or what not, support invading iraq if us soldiers had to engage in the type of house to house fighting thats sustains heavy losses and allows the enemy to perform/use guerilla tactics and attacks.

?do u support us intervention in iraq? even at the cost of so many lives...?
That's an interesting question. Would I support urban combat in Iraq?

Overall I'm tired of this bullshit hegemonic US world cop thing that America has been doing, and I take responsibility for my part as a non-politically active consumer. I vote, volunteer and pay my taxes but I'm not rioting in the streets or throwing myself against the White House gates to tear out Bush's throat... so I don't consider myself as politically active as I could be.

But that's not what you were asking, wylin. I would like to be able to take the pacifist route and wave my magic fairy wand to erase global debt, even out unfair trade practices, accelerate the gains womens' and childrens' rights worldwide, eradicate world hunger and so on and so forth.

However, shit has gotten real escalated lately, and now we're in direct confrontation with areas and peoples who have been fighting for thousands of years and are willing to take combat to a level that scares the bejeezus out of me.

In the situation where it's going to be me vs. them, regardless of who got us there and what type of crappy foreign relations created the mess, I'll admit that I think of myself first and I'm picking me.

Urban combat would be a reality if we continue to engage the Middle East. There will be no such thing as a distance war, unless we're talking nukes and I'll take urban combat over nukes.

I'm getting a little mired in my thinking. Good question. I need a little more time to digest and think about this before I can answer more.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 16 2002, 11:01 PM
amerika doesnt have weapons of destruction?
Do you think that the U.S. and Iraq are the same -- or even equal? Or maybe you're trying to say that we should be equal, so that maybe every nation should get one...?

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 17 2002, 02:31 AM
a: conduct political assassinations, especially those which put family members of victims at risk

I dunno about this one...!

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Sep 17 2002, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 17 2002, 02:31 AM
a: conduct political assassinations, especially those which put family members of victims at risk

I dunno about this one...!
AliBaba might be referring to a law which, I believe, states that political assassination is not an acceptable course of action for the US.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Sep 17 2002, 09:02 AM
AliBaba might be referring to a law which, I believe, states that political assassination is not an acceptable course of action for the US.
We actually have a law that for this? Is the CIA aware?:)

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Sep 17 2002, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Sep 17 2002, 09:02 AM
AliBaba might be referring to a law which, I believe, states that political assassination is not an acceptable course of action for the US.
We actually have a law that for this? Is the CIA aware?:)
I believe there is some sort of regulation on the books that names that specifically, yes. Emphasis on on the books.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Sep 17 2002, 05:33 PM
Originally posted by achtungbaby@Sep 17 2002, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Sep 17 2002, 09:02 AM
AliBaba might be referring to a law which, I believe, states that political assassination is not an acceptable course of action for the US.
We actually have a law that for this? Is the CIA aware?:)
I believe there is some sort of regulation on the books that names that specifically, yes. Emphasis on on the books.
actually, it's an executive order. I think it was put into place by Jimmy Carter, but I can't tell you offhand. So since it's considered as a standing military order, the military and the CIA take it more seriously than anything passed by the legislature. notice we didn't assassinate Mr. Hussein in 1991.

this actually would be the cheapest way to end the conflict. Iraqis may have mixed feelings about Saddam, but they really hate some of the people in his administration and would tear them to shreds given the chance (e.g. if the power structure started turning against itself and stopped paying so much attention to population control as generals jockey for power after Saddam's death creates a vacuum), because they are guilty of atrocities against citizens.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 17 2002, 10:14 AM

actually, it's an executive order. I think it was put into place by Jimmy Carter, but I can't tell you offhand. So since it's considered as a standing military order, the military and the CIA take it more seriously than anything passed by the legislature. notice we didn't assassinate Mr. Hussein in 1991.

*nods* It's not like I have it right here in front of me but that was the roughly the timeframe I was thinking of. Only I thought it was early Bush Sr. years. Then again it might have been that I heard of it the first time during Bush Sr.'s term in office on why we weren't snuffing Saddam out through assassination.

[wylin]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Sep 17 2002, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 17 2002, 07:01 AM
amerika doesnt have weapons of destruction? and with our budget on the military, bush can't not afford to pick a fight
cut the "amerika" crap trying to draw moral equivalence between USA and Iraq. America will get the hell kicked out of it in any urban war because we're not willing to:

a: conduct political assassinations, especially those which put family members of victims at risk
b: knock down civilian apartment blocks by using bulldozers, tanks, or bombs, even if military and paramilitary units are occupying said buildings
c: fire at vehicles displaying an ambulance sign, even if it is obviously carrying ammunition

like most Middle Eastern countries (both Muslim and Jewish) do in time of war.
on point B and point C

the american public really needs to stop believing the BS the american military is giving them that smart bombs and missiiles make war bloodless and only target combatants.

1. missiles hit 25-50% of the time.
2. Guided bombs hit their target bout 25% of the time, un guided .1% of the time.
3. majority of casualties in afghan theater combat were caused by friendly fire or mis-aimed/ weapons that missed and hit civillians.
4. its arrogant to assume Saddam and Baghdad are a pushover u got entrenched troops who are fighting for their motherland that makes things different then fighting in open field like desserts.

the american people need to accept the harsh reality of warfare and accept in urbanized combat the US needs to have very open rules of engagement and should and be willing to fire at any hostiles or anyone supplying aid to hostile forces and to understand in war no ones just a civillian.

doit the Slavic way like russia and serbia do in urban combat kill every man woman and child and level their city, thats the only way to ensure almost nil casualties in urban combat.

USE GIANT MECHS! :ph34r:



<!--EDIT|wylin|Sep 17 2002, 01:25 PM-->

[kimpossible]

fanning wylin's flames

article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=578&e=3&cid=578&u=/nm/20020918/ts_nm/attack_usa_command_dc)

U.S. to Boost Use of Elite Troops in Terror War
Wed Sep 18, 1:21 PM ET
By Charles Aldinger

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon plans to put the U.S. military's elite Special Operations Command in charge of most anti-terrorist actions around the world in a shift to a more covert war against al Qaeda, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.


The command includes shadowy and highly trained special forces troops and counter-terrorism units that can conduct "snatch" or "kill" missions, among them Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force.

The officials also told Reuters that up to 500 Special Operation troops had recently moved to a base at Djibouti in East Africa for possible missions against al Qaeda guerrillas believed hiding throughout the region, especially Yemen.

"We have been looking at that part of the world for many months. It's obvious that al Qaeda -- including terrorists who have run from Afghanistan -- are there," said one of the U.S. officials, who asked not to be identified.

"They (the forces) are waiting for specific intelligence," said another official.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by wylin@Sep 17 2002, 01:24 PM
the american people need to accept the harsh reality of warfare and accept in urbanized combat the US needs to have very open rules of engagement and should and be willing to fire at any hostiles or anyone supplying aid to hostile forces and to understand in war no ones just a civillian.
I disagree, you friggen G.I. Joe commando:P I think I asked you before but dont' remember if you replied, but -- do you subscribe to Soldier of Fortune?!? How do you know all of this stuff? I think it's cool, I would just never try and break into your house at night, because you'd probably be ready for me, decked out in camo with a 22-inch blade in your mouth.

Anyway, I think U.S. forces learned quite well from the Vietnam War of what can happen when you start targeting civilians. Granted, a lot of civilians were actually fighting for the Viet Cong -- but whose fault was that? If the U.S. gets involved in a war against a regime *and* it's civilians, its purpose and scope of mission have to be crystal clear.

[CrX3183]

Originally posted by professor frink@Sep 17 2002, 07:01 AM
amerika doesnt have weapons of destruction? and with our budget on the military, bush can't not afford to pick a fight
Bullshit we don't have the weapons of destruction... We'll light Saddam up, there already cutting alot of time off of basic training to graduate alot of marines and soldiers...

[wylin]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Sep 18 2002, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by wylin@Sep 17 2002, 01:24 PM
the american people need to accept the harsh reality of warfare and accept in urbanized combat the US needs to have very open rules of engagement and should and be willing to fire at any hostiles or anyone supplying aid to hostile forces and to understand in war no ones just a civillian.
I disagree, you friggen G.I. Joe commando:P I think I asked you before but dont' remember if you replied, but -- do you subscribe to Soldier of Fortune?!? How do you know all of this stuff? I think it's cool, I would just never try and break into your house at night, because you'd probably be ready for me, decked out in camo with a 22-inch blade in your mouth.

Anyway, I think U.S. forces learned quite well from the Vietnam War of what can happen when you start targeting civilians. Granted, a lot of civilians were actually fighting for the Viet Cong -- but whose fault was that? If the U.S. gets involved in a war against a regime *and* it's civilians, its purpose and scope of mission have to be crystal clear.
no i dont i just read stuff and took a class on warfare and intervention in college. if u broke into my house i'd just pop you w/ my baseball bat, kenshin style Ryu Tai Shen.

i dont think so, civillians are just extra targets and obsticales in combat when sum jackass is shooting at u, u'd be on ur survival instinct and fire in that direction civillians be dammed. civiillians are just expendable in a conflict and thats the way it should be. human lifes cheap. always has been and always will be.