← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · PaleoconAvatar
Thread ID: 5684 | Posts: 3 | Started: 2003-03-21
2003-03-21 03:32 | User Profile
Here are a few items you might not have heard on the sanitized news about the war being distributed in America for public consumption:
[url=http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=4066]Iraqi Radar Systems Give US Concern: Air Defenses Detecting, Firing On Stealth Bombers More Accurately Than Expected[/url]
[url=http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=4065]Iraq Repulses US-Israeli Special Forces Unit: Television States An Attack In Western Iraq Defeated; Disputes Status Of Umm Qasr[/url]
Stay tuned. Spread the word. Direct your friends to the various alternative news sites on the Internet. The shadow government occupying Washington D.C. is terrified that the truth will come out and that public opinion will turn against the war more than it already has. The blood, of course, is on W. Bush's hands (or more accurately, on the hands of his New World Order handlers).
2003-03-21 04:35 | User Profile
These comments by 'Maguire' were posted today at FAEM (www.faem.com):
This 'offensive' is being mishandled as badly as everything else was.
Latest development. I'd alluded earleir to the Kurdish Problem Turkey and Iran have in common in northern Iraq. Latest reports are these two countries have now reached a private bi-lateral agreement on what to do if "Iraqi government collapses" in those areas. In other words, rapid ground invasion and occupation to prevent a Sovereign Kurdish State from proclaiming itself. This trails right along with Turkey's refusal to accept US ground troops while providing overflight rights. In other words, Uncle ZOG-Sucker can help destroy Iraqi control in those areas but will not be allowed to influence the post-war settlement.
Since neither Power is under joint command, I rate the potential for 'incidents' extremely high. In fluid situation like this Iraqis, Iranians and Turks all look real similar, even to sensors. This is especially because we armed both of these with tanks and aircraft at various times from the 1950s to now.
First, we had a lot of talk (how Jewish) of Shock and Awe. Now the reality sets, which is a war without any significant ground offensive action in an area where two other states are positioned to move much more quickly. Of course when you launch operations with most of your heavy forces still at sea (4th Mechanized) or Stateside (1st Cavalry) you'll naturally find yourself short of ground troops.
I had wondered if the idiots were stupid enough to build their war plan on the foundational assumption that Iraqi forces would automatically surrender en masse. It appears they have. Now I thought back in November 1991, we already had enough forces in place to FORCE such a result. Bush I/Powell went for overkill, which is fine. That simply increased the probabilty of a collapse occuring. Most enemy troops and all miscegenated ones will in fact surrender to force majeure so long as it is clearly present.
Force/Space Considerations:
1991 Kuwait: 17,820 sq km "slightly smaller than New Jersey" and an allied coalition of nearly 700,000 troops total (French, Saudis, Kuwaits, an Egyptian Armored Corps, even a Syrian armored division. Adding another 7,000 sq km to account for adjacent areas of Iraq that were 'operational' equals a ground theatre roughly 24,000 sq km. Or 700,000/24,000 = 29 troops per sq km. Nor was there any need to 'occupy' Kuwait or 'govern' it.
2003 Iraq: 437,072 sq km "slightly more than twice the size of Idaho". Coalition forces are undoubtedly still below 300,000 at this point. 300,000 troops/437,072 sq km = 0.68 troop per kilometer.
Both calculations included air and naval forces both times for ease of calculation. Since US-ZOG and Brit-ZOG then and now provided a lot of their humanoid power ('troops') in the form of sailors, this method greatly overestimates the ground force concentration this time. If naval forces (and air force ground people) were subtracted from both calculations the force/space computations would be infinitely worse than those implied by 29 in 1991 vs 0.68 in 2003.
Repeat:
Force/Space (under the generous method)
1991: 29 troops per sq/km and no requirement to 'occupy' or 'govern'. Kuwait was mostly empty space with friendlies in the city areas.
2003: 0.68 troops per sq/km, a vast requirement to occupy and provide military government and variable assurance of friendly reception, especially given open Israeli participation in western Iraq.
2003-03-21 21:06 | User Profile
Maguire's war analysis update (March 21, from www.faem.com):
Not everything has changed for the worse for ZOG. For instance, surveillance and sensor intelligence collection and real time computer processing of that data has made immense leaps. This is especially true in the field of computer recognition of things like tanks and artillery pieces. What this means is that resistance by field deployed units will be more easily overcome.
Neither has Iraq's total situation only degenerated from March, 1991. Nor can it be assumed that Iraqi morale merely picks up from the low point of March, 1991. The 1991 enemy was exhausted from 8 years of World War I style warfare against Iran. Hussein's troops now are much younger and not so fatigued. In 1991 these war-weary troops were fighting as largely self-recognized aggressors. In 2003 fresher troops are fighting in defense of their homeland. They also have 12 years of Sanctions to teach them the enemy that will not relent after 'ceasefire'. The Enemy (us in this case) will increase its demographic warfare. The Iraqis have Jewess Madeleine Albright's assurance that 500,000 premature deaths from sanctions and a destroyed water and sewer infrastructure "were worth it".
Continuing our analysis:
"Force/Space Considerations:
1991 Kuwait: 17,820 sq km "slightly smaller than New Jersey" and an allied coalition of nearly 700,000 troops total (French, Saudis, Kuwaits, an Egyptian Armored Corps, even a Syrian armored division. Adding another 7,000 sq km to account for adjacent areas of Iraq that were 'operational' equals a ground theatre roughly 24,000 sq km. Or 700,000/24,000 = 29 troops per sq km. Nor was there any need to 'occupy' Kuwait or 'govern' it.
2003 Iraq: 437,072 sq km "slightly more than twice the size of Idaho". Coalition forces are undoubtedly still below 300,000 at this point. 300,000 troops/437,072 sq km = 0.68 troop per square kilometer."
In 1991 Coalition Forces needed 6 days to gain effective control of 24,000 sq km of Kuwait and adjacent 'land operational areas' of southern Iraq This was a rate of propagation of 4,000 sq km per day. The total distance from the initial assembly areas in Saudi Arabia did not exceed 150 miles at the extreme. This distance was achieved by XVIII Airborne Corps' (101st Airborne Division Air Assault helo assault) 'left hook' push into the Euphrates Valley. The 4,000 sq km per day rate was achieved against an enemy whose morale had already collapsed following 40 days of incessant bombing and the psychological torture of endless low flying jet engines on afterburner with their hundreds of decibels. The numbers of aircraft were far larger and the area of operations far smaller. Thus we cannot expect a repetition of these "Shock and Awe" psychological effects from incessant bombing and jet engine roar. Individual bomb accuracy has increased but this means fewer sorties are needed to destroy pinpoint targets.
Question: How long will the 2003 half-size 'Coalition' need to propagate their occupation of Iraq? Let's make every favorable assumption.
Answer: 437,072 sq km/4,000 sq km/day = 109 days.
"Maguire"