The panel on Scarborough predict a huge "Battle for Baghdad."

[Swede]

Scarborough,Pat Robertson and Joe Kline all agreed,abandoning Al Anbar and concentrating troops in Baghdad,means a confrontation with Muqtada al-Sadr in Sadr city.

Joe Kline also said Bush is going after Sadr to satisfy the rightwing base and the Pentagon.

[Kelly Rupert]

1. Probably the best idea

if we're going to commit ourselves to blowing the fuck out of everything in Iraq until it's "stable" for a few hours so we can declare victory and leave, might as well start with al-Sadr.

[Jacobin]

2. There's not even any oil there

Its in the north with the kurds and the south with the Shia.

:shrug:

[MadMaddie]

3. It's mind boggling....Are they going to evacaute the remaining

civilians.....this will be a bloodbath....for all..

[Swede]

4. Urban warfare will be a disaster.

Tanks are vulnerable,troops,helicopters fish in a barrel. Add 5 million civilians in the way it will be a nightmarish epic.

[TomInTib]

6. Tactical nukes (neutron)

Evacuate city, screen evacuees, and neutron remainders.

[GreenZoneLT]

15. Thank you for your Stupid Post of the Year submission.

Democratic Underground receives many, many submissions in this category each year, but yours is a strong candidate that has already been selected as a finalist. Thank you for participating!

[Richard Steele]

17. If you intend to keep posting here, you might try reading the Forum rules...

...and FOLLOWING them.

[shadowknows69]

19. I thought that was a clever, if biting, response

to what could be perceived to be a very stupid idea.

[tabasco]

28. I don't know that the rules prohibit calling mass murder stupid.

I certainly agree with the LT on this one.

[leftchick]

21. nice

real nice. :eyes:

[magellan]

24. Actually there is oil right in that area -- the East Baghdad field

And it's a supergiant field.

[Jacobin]

26. True, there is some

But my understanding is that the vast reserves are in the Kurdish north and the Sunni South.

[shaniqua6392]

5. Good luck with that one too George.

Al-Sadr has accumulated a militia that is estimated to have between 60,000 and 80,000 armed members. How many more of our troops will die if George decides to go after the leader of the Shiites in Iraq??

[MadMaddie]

7. Just guessing that some of those people in Al Sadr's army

belonged to the disbanded Iraqi military and police forces.....If he has approximately 80,000 troops how many US troops do we have there? This is bad.....

[maxrandb]

22. Will Iran stand by and allow the slaughter of the Shiites?

This could be what it would take to get them to get involved. Despite our air superiority, Iran does have aircraft, missiles, shells, etc that could easily reach the Green Zone.

With all the confusion and everyone concentrating on Baghdad, it would be a good opportunity for Turkey to take care of their little Kurdish problem in the North.

If George wants all out war, he better look a little closer at Rangle's draft legislation.

I hate these fuckers. Hopefully the Bush twins will be walking point on this offensive.

[peaches2003]

25. Does George care how many Americans die?

No. Not as long as he remains The Decider and can show the world he is all-powerful. Isn't what this is all about?

[Johnny Appleseed]

8. I imagine it will be an air strike akin to the

way they took out Zarqawi. They had their chance to take him out a long time ago while he was still a minor figure, which is a pity.

[Batgirl]

9. another Big Battle -- that should oughta do it

nothing like sticking with a winning strategy

[Liberal In Texas]

10. They might want to review how this might go:

Under current policy, it's not a question of If it will happen, but WHEN...



(That's some great flying!)




To paraphrase: "Those who choose to ignore history are doomed to repeat it."
They have chosen to ignore the lesson of 'Nam. Thus...



These images will be repeated in all their digital glory when they cause the Fall of Baghdad.

[Toots]

23. At least in Vietnam there was a good side and a bad side

There are all too many sides in this debacle...Who would we evacuate?

[Bucky]

11. Because the occupation has taken so long, Sadr has become our personal Arafat.

At one time he was on the verge of being an ally. But the longer the occupation dragged on, the more he had to maintain his street credentials to keep more fundy splinter groups from breaking off from his control. It was all a rather predictable process. Unless you're in the White House, of course. Then no one could have forseen...

[Warren Stupidity]

12. We had that this summer.

How quickly the ass-tards forget. This summer we had our Big Bad Baghdad Offensive. It didn't do shit. Here is a clue: the insurgents are not stupid. Here is another clue: you do not win against an insurgency by Big Shows of Force, marching your Fat Armoured Brigades up and down the avenues, rousting the residents, and other assorted idiocy. But it will buy a few more months of prolonged debacle. Surely we will be working on 4000 instead of 3000 by the time this campaign winds down.

[Kingofalldems]

13. Here come the Rapture people

Get ready.

[GreenZoneLT]

14. Gee, that makes tons of sense

Wasn't the point of staying in Iraq that we were fighting Al Qaeda here, so that we wouldn't have to fight them at home? And where is Al Qaeda? In Anbar, mostly, in a failed-state province where Al Qaeda is the closest thing to a functioning government. So we pull out of there and create another Taliban-run Afghanistan equivalent. Brilliant!

I'm not sure how you fight a battle in Baghdad, when the goal is to police the place to STOP all the fighting. I mean, we take over entire neighborhoods and search house-to-house all the time; we could do that in Sadr City if Maliki would let us, but he's afraid of losing his political base.

[GreenZoneLT]

16. Those guys don't know anything.

Geez, what a bunch of dopes.

1. Sadr hasn't fight us heads-up since 2004, because he doesn't want to die or wind up in prison. He's not a military leader of any sort. Most of the Mahdi "Army" are disjointed gangs that he has relatively little control over, anyway.

2. Maliki controls the situation. We don't do anything in Baghdad without the Iraqi government okaying it. Maliki already ended the cordon we threw around Sadr City when that stupid translator got himself kidnapped. There will be no major combat ops in Baghdad.

[shadowknows69]

18. Cheney's trip is making more sense

We go after Sadar we piss off every Sunni in the ME. Saudi is going to put the crackdown on the Sunni population for us for a cut of the billions or just more of our national soul.

[bigtree]

20. My take, Thursday, August 24, 2006

Baghdad is Bush's Last Stand in Iraq

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_060824_baghdad_is_bush_s_la.htm



http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[grizmaster]

27. bush won't stop till Iraq is a peaceful pile of bloody rubble

sounds like they're going to do to Baghdad what they did to Fallujah.

[tabasco]

29. All is well! The oilfields are secure! All is well! The oilfields are secure!

There ain't gonna be no stinkin' "battle for Baghdad."



On edit: The Green Zone may be fortified but we aren't going to have a large scale urban assault in Baghdad, in my estimation. It would not serve the neocon agenda, other than to show in their pathetic way that they are "fighting the terrorists." But at the cost of lots of casualties. As long as control of the oil is not threatened, there will not be a big battle. My guess, but I have been right about everything. Just check my posts from the last 2 1/2 years if you don't believe me. Just kidding.