would invading Iraq have been such a bad idea

[Kepler]

1. Maybe the Bushies want to endrun the whole city issue by claiming the Iraqis mustard gassed some troops and then nuking their cities. Ordinarily I'd say doubtful, but with these idiots anything's possible.

2. Initially there will be huge support for a war, there always is. it's the fight at the hockey game when all the yahoos are screaming for blood. I'm sure Bushy will go to 95% approval with an invasion -- for a while.

3. It won't take long. This is an elephant crushing an egg.

[Dis]

we don't really need to take the cities. We just need to oust Saddam. I really don't think their military will fight much longer after that. And even then we can dictate the battlefield. Where we might run into problems is if the military either starves the cities or starts killing Iraqis. Then the U.S. will be forced to enter the cities. But other than that we really don't have to enter the cities. Except Baghdad to oust Hussein.

And I just had a bad thought. Hussein may use chemical weapons on his own cities and claim the U.S. was at fault. This could have dire consequences.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I highly doubt Bush will launch an invasion of Iraq. An invasion would require ground warfare, which would mean many American casualties (much more than the few dozens the US are used to now)

How was it we wiped our asses with them last time?

I also don't think there is a well armed / well organized rebellion the US could boost to 'invade' Iraq in its place.
I don't recall any war with many US casualties since Vietnam (I may be wrong), but I'm sure the Americans really don't want to see American mothers mourn their boys who fell in this faraway land.

The real question isn't casualties, it's what kind of lackey will we install in place of Saddam, and how will we secure that lackey in power?

[Serb]

The real question isn't casualties, it's what kind of lackey will we install in place of Saddam,

Saddam Mrk II an inproved version- the same dictator, but who kiss uncle Sam's ass and let you grab Iraqis oil, perhaps more cruel and opressive toward its own population then previous model.

and how will we secure that lackey in power?

As you always do- bomb everyone who's disagreed to stone age.



Keep up the good work

[David Floyd]

I'm gonna essentially agree with Serb here

[Serb]

Nah, it can't be.

[David Floyd]

When it comes to opposing US action around the world, we probably agree on a lot

[Serb]

How many time it would take for us to turn this topic into another lend-lease fight?

[David Floyd]

I dunno. Not tonight, as I'm off to bed.

[Serb]

yeah, not today, because I'm going to have my lunch.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Serb

Saddam Mrk II an inproved version- the same dictator, but who kiss uncle Sam's ass and let you grab Iraqis oil, perhaps more cruel and opressive toward its own population then previous model.



As you always do- bomb everyone who's disagreed to stone age.



Keep up the good work

We will. We're a successful empire. The USSR wasnt. Learn to live with that, and you'll be much happier.

[Serb]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


We will.

It's good to see a citizen who is proud of his country government. (When its government is gonna murder hell knows how many thousands of people during oil conquest)

We're a successful empire.

You are very young and unexperienced empire.

The USSR wasnt.

It was, but it was very old and very tired empire.
Sooner or later your empire will die too. All empires are gone sooner or later and you are not the exception. This rule don't know exceptions.

Learn to live with that, and you'll be much happier.

I doubt. Only brainless zombies could be happy in the world where uncle Sam decides who deserve to live and who must die.
I don't want to live in such world and I'm not alone who feel sick edit: nevermind...
At least Paiktis is with me.
Have a nice day.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sikander
No, it doesn't. It may reduce that advantage, but night vision, GPS, and satellite guided bombs will all still carry considerable advantages.

Night vision? Maybe useful, but not that useful. Besides, it's not exactly high tech. GPS? How does that help? Satellite guided bombs? In the middle of a city when you can't tell which soldier is on your side?

Originally posted by Sikander
Remember also that we are under no pressure to instantly take out any group that wants to dig itself in and continue resistance. We will control the supply routes, and we can determine who we want to attack and who we can bypass and starve.

I am not so sure. The daily operating costs for an invasion is very high. If you cut the supply routes, you are going to starve the civilians before affecting Iraqi troops.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Night vision? Maybe useful, but not that useful. Besides, it's not exactly high tech.

The US and NATO are the only militaries to issue NV gear force wide, and our generation 3 stuff is a hell of a lot better than the crap the Iraqis have.

IFF signalling is also very useful.

GPS? How does that help? Satellite guided bombs? In the middle of a city when you can't tell which soldier is on your side?

Arty. Plus force-wide issue of communications and GPS improves identification, location, and coherence of forward lines.

[David Floyd]

Serb, erm, the Soviet Union was a far younger state than the US.

If you mean RUSSIA is older than the US, that's fine, but Russia and the USSR aren't the same, as I'm sure you know