They're still checking the story, but Fox News is reporting that the garrison at (forgive my spelling) Al-Kute in southern Iraq have surrendered!
the regular Iraqi army doesn't really matter. for the most part, these are guys pulled off the street and given a gun. no real training, hardly equiped. they give up immediately because they don't want to get killed, which considering the odds, is a good bet. they surrendered in mass in 1991, they do so again (although we hope they don't surrender and just don't fight because we don't want to deal with POWs) the real forces are the republican guard and the special republican guard. that's where the fighting will occur.
i just have a belief that when this things starts you are going to see so many iraqi soldiers <regular and republican guard> putting down their weapons and walking away. they know that bush isnt stopping until saddam is gone so why would they ever wanna fight, especially once the know they can give up and not have to worry about saddam coming after them.
Provided they don't remember how we (allegedly) bulldozed Iraqi soldiers the last time they tried to surrender. And remind me how you're supposed to surrender to a cruise missile. If we're going to "Shock and Awe" Baghdad, the whole army could surrender instantly and we'd still have killed at least 100,000 people.
No wonder France didn't want to be a part of this war ... they knew the Iraqis would have the quicker white flag!
Many of the regular troops and Republican Guard will surrender. They will also try to maintain (hide) as many weapons as they can until the civil war starts, probably by June.
Gen Barry McCaffrey stated the same story last night on MSNBC. Apparently, the troops surrendered because they needed to get to a local record store to get the new Stephen Malkmus CD "Pig Lib" which was released today. Murf
Just curious, what leads you to conclude that anywhere near 100,000 people will die? How many have we killed in previous wars (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Gulf War I)? 100,000 seems outrageously overblown.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat6.htm#Gulf Shortly after the war, the US Defense Intelligence Agency made a very rough estimate of 100,000 Iraqi deaths, and this order of magnitude is widely accepted -- even improved upon: B&J: 50,000 to 100,000 Compton's: 150,000 Iraqi soldiers killed World Political Almanac 3rd: 150,000 incl. civilians. Our Times: 200,000.
yup a website from a guy who says the second most important person of the 20th century is Gorbachev .... hmmm
I will raise you a paragraph and call: "* Other authoritative sources working with more detailed data have come up with lower numbers. The British govt. put the death toll at 30,000 (War Annual 6, 1994) A May 1992 report by the US House Armed Services Committee estimated that 9,000 Iraqis were killed by the air campaign. The PBS news show Frontline estimates 2300 civilians, 10-20,000 military in air war and, 10,000 military in the ground war; for a total of 27,300 ±5000. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html) "
Gringo answered your casualty question - as if the idea that launching 800+ missiles at a city bigger than Chicago might actually KILL someone was a controversial statement. So I'll just point out that the man who helped peaceably end the Soviet Union, a scenario many people thought would have included a nuclear exchange or hundred, deserves at least some props. Who's your second most important person of the 20th century, Milton Friedman?
No one is disputing there will be casulties. The extent of the casulties is the question. I would argue that war is the best option at the current time. The policy that many on the ant-war side argue that we should leave Saddam in power and continue the sanctions results in many Iraqi deaths as well.
You morbid so-and-so. Try to imagine loosing twenty or thirty thousand people in your community or state. Who gives a crap if it's the UK version or the Compton's Encyclopedia version? You're talking about human beings that OUR armed forces are going to kill in OUR name. Less than 10% or so of those humans will have been actively involved in maintaining this regieme. The rest will just be ordinary slobs who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Shape up and have some f**** respect.
From the Onion, January 21, 1981 Reagan May Have Been Elected, Doesn't Recall 40th President 'Not Entirely Sure' If He Swore to Uphold Constitution