Killing sadam

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Oct. 05 2002,22:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oh yeah?

you might not recall that the gulf war ended after d-day + 100h. and it was fought against 545.000 personel, 4300 tanks and 3100 pieces of artillery.

the coalition won by using a bunch of cowboys (400.000) and 1500 tanks as well as 250 gunships, etc., as well as some very competent allies.

the iraqis surrendered to anybody western who stood around. do you think they're stupid? they won't die for saddam!

they even surrendered to sam donaldson! the blabmouth from nbc, (or whom does he work for now?)

this time we're up against a massively demoralized foe. we'll spare them, if they give it up.

we're liberating a nation from a tyrant. (take your bleeding heart elsewhere.)

nevertheless: we should only go in in keeping with a fortified UN resolution, which we will get in the end.

THE TOUGH TALK NEEDS TO BE KEPT UP for saddam to buckle under! (did you ever realize that there is de facto not much of a mobilization of western forces going on?)

balshoiw,

i read your post. engaging. will answer later. I'm out of time.<span id='postcolor'>

You telling me the war will last 1 day and 50 hrs is like you telling me there is compelling evidence that Iraq has anything close to 'weapons of mass destruction'. How do you know? How can anybody know how long a full scale ground war against Iraq would take? I won't go back into the whole, "in the Gulf you had the support of the surrounding nations" bit, because I notice it's been talked about before. But it's pretty obvious that such a nice concise 'short war' would require the support of at least a few surrounding nations.

If such an invasion takes place and the people of Iraq freak out, depose Hussein and declare themselves free from his tyrrany, will the invasion then stop, turn around and go home, mission accomplished? Or will it press on, until a leader sympathetic to the Western nations desire for oil and with a fetish for McDonalds and Coke is plonked down in Husseins place?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Although I don't think we should attack Iraq at this point, I think it would be feasible.

Remember, Iraq's officers corps was decimated during the Persian Gulf War, and they have had no conflicts since then to rebuild an army of veterans- right now, they are forced to begin military indoctrination at the age of 13.

Their Air Force is almost non-existent, and what is left of it will cease to be within a very short timeframe, should we choose to attack.

Their army is a shell of its former self- sure, the numbers have been replenished, but equipment and training have lagged behind. All those numbers mean is that there will be many more prisoners and KIA on the Iraqui side.

The only difficulty will be if Iraq turtles up, and pulls all its forces back to defend their key cities. Everyone knows that urban combat is a bitch, no matter how well trained you are, or how badly trained your opponent is. Ask the Russians about that- theyve been on the giving and receiving end of that for a century. Then it degenerates into a seige of strongpoints, and that kind of warfare has never gone well for the attacker, at least not until the defender has gotten his licks in. The only way to minimize US casualties will be to turn the other side's condition into a nightmare of indiscriminate shelling and bombing, as well as denying the defenders food and water. The downside of that is that civilians live in cities. Lots of civilians. And you can be sure that anything we do to Iraq's army in a siege will be magnified on the Iraqui civilians.

We could do it, but we would have to choose whose blood we want to shed: our soldiers', or Iraqui civilians'.

[Balschoiw 0]

Yeah cool. So bomb the Iraki´s once more. More massive and maybe we can also add some swifty weopon testing on live targets.

Hey does it make sense to eliminate the civilians to free them from their "insert here whatever you wanna call him" leader ?

Don´t you think this will rise more opposition to US than there is at the moment ?

Collatteral damage - maybe once more a higher number than military units eliminated ?

Yeah give it a try, bomb them.

You know what ? You have to flatten Bagdad completely, and use bombs that dig in 25 m´s to get all the funny installations and shelters. If I was Saddam ( just an example, nothing serious) I would have built a lot of that stuff in the last years. At least to protect my people. I already told you not to underestimate an once beaten enemy. He could have more surprises and tactics than we might expect.

"Nah..., he is just a stupid camel trader and we need to show him what an US bullet can do to him." I wonder if anyone of this "war hardliners" here in this thread actually has been to a conflict scenario. That would be interesting to know. I mean you talk about war like it was the CNN latenight special with popcorn and Go Go Girls. "Yeah mom, I´ll be back in 1 day plus 50 !" I never ever heard a more stupid thing like this. Why did Kosovo take so long then ? Oh and I nearly forgot Vietnam. US achieved a great win by throwing nukes at people. Good one. Maybe this could work in Bagdad also ? I mean we have smarter nukes now and and we all know that Irak in general is a terrorist state. So why not nuke them ?

I really dislike the way some people do talk about war. It is not clean. It kills. Imagine yourself living in Irak. Would you be happy to be "free´d" with bombs , blood and your family dieing in war through "Collatteral - damage" ?

[Chill 0]

Bush/Israels is are murderer's!! They are responsible for so many dead in the Afgahnistan! Bush/Israels should be brought to trial for all their war crimes at the International court, but because of the US/Israel's power they connot trial any US/Israel people!!! How unfair to the rest of the world that such a warmonger's talk about war and get away with it.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

This has turned into an anti-American mud-slinging fest. I think to prevent flaming (any more than there already has been), a mod should close this thread.

I'm sorry, but I just cant respond politely to something like Chill's last post.

[ralphwiggum 6]

agreeing with Tex's view. this thread is now reaching point of flame war.