If the US wants to go into Iraq it’ll have to go right into the heart of Baghdad with a lot of tank and artillery power. Air power wasn’t enough the first time and will never finish a country off so easily. I believe that the US can get rid of Saddam within a campaign period of two weeks to a month but this will really be more big time. You cannot compare Iraq to Afghanistan. Even though they don’t have a viable air force they have had ten years to prepare and the military is well trained and financed. They will certainly have learned from previous mistakes. Be prepared for American casualties in the hundreds and large scale missile hits in Israel, Kuwait etc. The area will become heavily mined and they will be well stocked with RPGS etc. Taking Baghdad will not be a picnic.
Many unexpected events will occur. Saddam really is a complete lunatic from all reports so whatever he has he’ll use it.
Overall though the US military has zoomed ahead of everyone else and can easily accomplish this mission. There’s no jungle or mountains to hide in and Saddam is unpopular at home. Most Europeans agree that Saddam is very dangerous but are unsure this is the best way to do things. One opinion is it might not be bad to wait another five or ten years, Saddam will be old then and dictators tend to fade rapidly in these situations. Another opinion is he’ll have nukes by then (very credible threat, look at India, Pakistan and North Korea). If I was the US I’d probably move as soon as possible. Technology is advancing too rapidly to hang around. I think they want to head off the possibility of a stand off whereby Saddam could place a nuclear device in an American city in a couple of years and use it as his insurance policy. This will completely negate America’s superpower status and render the military option hugely complicated.
quote:Originally posted by haobana:
Even though they don't have a viable air force they have had ten years to prepare and the military is well trained and financed.
In Gulf War I the Iraqi military was made up of veterans of the Iran-Traq War. They were well financed, heavily equipped, “well trained” and had an air force. Allied arm-chair military “experts” predicted tens of thousands of US casualties.
well, you allude to the very ugly and disturbing reality that dropping a “big one” in downtown bahgdad is an option…something that has been done before…twice…but seems like rulers of countries havent lerned the lesson they were supposed to teach us and them…that being don’t back superpowers even neophyte ones (as was the case in WWII) into a corner…
look at the havoc isreal caused in a few weeks in jenine and other cities, after the felt they were backed into a corner…you think the US couldnt do that on a huge scale to dirt poor bahgdad?
quote:Originally posted by noshrink:
not not that "massacre" that wasn't...i meant the overwhelming force that rolled into the city and took it over in a manner of hours...
quote:Originally posted by haobana:
Another opinion is he'll have nukes by then (very credible threat, look at India, Pakistan and North Korea). If I was the US I'd probably move as soon as possible. Technology is advancing too rapidly to hang around.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds this argument ridiculous and insulting. How is it we are supposed to accept that some countries e.g. the US, UK, Russia are responsible owners of a nuclear arsenal while others e.g. India and Pakistan are not. It’s a supreme insult when the only country to have ever used such weapons is telling another full democracy e.g. India that they shouldn’t be trusted with them.
As others have mentioned here, the US and many Western countries are chronically affected with a double standard mentality.
quote:Originally posted by haobana:
This will completely negate America's superpower status and render the military option hugely complicated.
The US’s superpower status was not eroded by that of the former USSR. Ironically, the world was a safer place during the cold war because of the checks and balances afforded by having a bipolar power balance. Now we have one world ‘policeman’ or ‘bully’ according to where you read your news.
quote:Originally posted by Abracadabra:
It's a supreme insult when the only country to have ever used such weapons is telling another full democracy e.g. India that they shouldn't be trusted with them.
India a democracy…what a concept.
quote:Originally posted by Abracadabra:
Now we have one world 'policeman' or 'bully' according to where you read your news.
Yes, if you live in Iraq, North Korea, etc, the US is a bully.
Got news for you. The Irish and Argentines view the British as bullies. The Burmese say the Thais are bullies. The Indonesians think the Australians are bullies. The Ukrainians and Poles think the Russians are bullies…do I REALLY need to continue?
well, i wont bash your comparison…much but i dont quite see the connection…US gun owners are NOT gonna go overseas and shoot people…
Point taken as I mentioned it was “flawed” but then again shouldn’t you show a good example first before telling the rest of the world what’s best?
In my opinion it doesn’t matter where you shoot people, it’s unacceptable in any case - and there is no direct threat (suspicions of connections with terrorism neglected) from the Iraq against the US, is there?
Anyhow, a comparision between Afghanistan and Iraq won’t work IMHO, different situation and in “Afuhan” you had the support of the local warloads, it wasn’t a war country vs country like it would be in the case of the Iraq.
That said the Iraq military is IMHO much more advanced and if you start bombing Bagdad I am certain you will not get Saddam that easily.
Nor will you destroy all the military facilities just by using a wave of airstrikes.
And even you bomb everything into pieces you will be guessing if he is dead or still alive like you do in Osama’s case for the next years to come … anybody want that?
Personally I am just worried of the consequences (expecially for Europe) as the odds are quite high and that the military might of the US is not always a guaranty for victory as history has shown us before.
And thus a required ground attack on top of the air strikes could proof disastrous for the troops.
Anyways, I’m still waiting for a viable alternative that a ‘smart’ US president should conduct in the current situation. It’s easy to bash someone else when its such a complicated situation and you don’t have to make these decisions yourself; let’s hear some good alternatives.
Surely people aren’t saying everything the US is doing is wrong, without knowing what would be right…?
Or do you have an alternative for each and everything you dislike?
And I repeat: don’t just reject our concerns and opinions by calling them “bashing”, that’s a lame excuse and just shows how ignorant you are towards (the opinion of) others.
"Opposition to the continuation of sanctions has even emerged within the US political establishment. There is an anti-sanctions lobby of around 70 Democratic and Republican members of Congress. Earlier this year, Scott Ritter, formerly of the UNSCOM arms inspection team in Iraq, called for an end to sanctions and a
quote:Originally posted by Rascal:
Some valid comments but I don't see any obligation to offer some alternatives.
Followed later by:
quote:Originally posted by Rascal:
Point taken as I mentioned it was "flawed" but then again shouldn't you show a good example first before telling the rest of the world what's best?
this is interesting, in that you suggest that many people believe the US does not have the moral authority to “police” the world, but that by restricting guns in american ,we would somehow GAIN the moral authority to be the world’s policeman? heh?
and funding the Kurds in the northern and southern parts of Iraq and having them fight just like the afghanis did against the taliban would not be so difficult In MY HO wouldnt the kurds just think…damn, it worked in afghanistan…why not here?
and i agree with you about the iraqi army being larger, and having lots of guns and lots of military bases to hide in…but, the structure of the iraqi army is horrendous, nepotistic and troop discipline lowlowlow…i dont believe they would stand much of a chance against well trained US troops…and i know that’s a cliche, but it’s true…the US doesnt stick their troops out on post and leave theme there for 2 years AHEM, like Taiwan does…they really are well,very well trained and have the best funding in the world
not trying to sound arrogant, but IMHO the US would kick ass and take names…it might not be embarrassingly as easy as the gulf war, but pretty close…now maintaining a presence is a whole other can of worms
and I thank you for a honest opinion…i half expected this thread to degenerate into name calling long ago!
and i also agree with you that i too am getting nervous about the direction and tone of the vpices coming out of the white house…why this why now? are they telling us everything? yea, RIGHT!
quote:Originally posted by Rascal:
You are wrong! [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
Or do you have an alternative for each and everything you dislike?
And I repeat: don’t just reject our concerns and opinions by calling them “bashing”, that’s a lame excuse and just shows how ignorant you are towards (the opinion of) others.
So Rascal, you say LittleIron is wrong in her assumption, meaning that you do indeed know the right thing to do. I ask you, then, what would be “the right thing.”
And don’t get me wrong – I’m probably as big an opponent of US foreign policy as you are and I certainly emphathize with your point of view (don’t forget – my home is one of the biggest US stationary aircraft carriers/nuclear submarine bases, and I’ve done my share of anti-US protests at Faslane), but I do get a little tired of reading that the American way is the wrong way, from people with absolutely no ideas of how else the problem can be approached.
Maybe we should start a new thread: “How can Saddam be contained without the US?”
quote:Originally posted by noshrink:
and i also agree with you that i too am getting nervous about the direction and tone of the vpices coming out of the white house...why this why now? are they telling us everything? yea, RIGHT!
quote:Originally posted by Rascal:
Or do you have an alternative for each and everything you dislike?
And I repeat: don’t just reject our concerns and opinions by calling them “bashing”, that’s a lame excuse and just shows how ignorant you are towards (the opinion of) others.
I don’t see how this shows I’m so ‘ignorant’ of others’ opinions (do you mean the whole world, or just every person on this forum?) And, yes, if we’re talking policy or politics, I would obviously have a policy I would prefer be implemented before I completely bitch about a current one. I would think most people are the same. I bitch about lax gun control in the US; I would prefer stricter gun control policies in the US.
I thought I kept my posts fairly neutral; sorry if you took them personally. I just see a lot of ‘bashing’ going on in various forums - as much as (if not more than) I see legitimate concerns/discussions. I never said you or anyone in particular were bashing. There is no need to get so defensive.
It’s fine to have concerns; trust me, I have them as much as the next guy, and I’m not sure if the US should go in. I just want to hear if anyone has any better ideas; it’s a difficult situation but I have yet to hear of a better course of action, and I would like to know if there are any.