would invading Iraq have been such a bad idea

[johncmcleod]

Let's say Saddam wouldn't let the weapon inspectors in. A war on Iraq would have little support from the US public or the Europeans. Saddam is very evil and has made it clear he hates Americans and wants top take over the middle east. We'd have to fight him eventually (maybe not anymore though because of his recent actions. If we to invaded them and we did it now, we'd easily beat Saddam, for I doubt he has nukes or WOMD, and if he does he probably has very few. But if we did nothing and then attacked in 10 years, he'd probably have a larger army, and probably a lot of WOMD, and it a lot more lives would be lost.

This is just from a litttle different perspective. Heaven forbid, maybe America's president might actually do something that isn't that bad an idea

[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). 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.

[David Floyd]

Invading Iraq is a horrible idea.

[Dis]

It's going to happen soon anyways

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dissident
It's going to happen soon anyways

would have been the better smilie to use.

[johncmcleod]

I am definitely not for fighting to solve problems but I'm saying we'll have to do it eventually, and if we do it now there'd be a whole lot less loss of life.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Dissident
It's going to happen soon anyways

But who'll die in the process ? You can't be serious about having American casualties in a war, don't you ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
But who'll die in the process ? You can't be serious about having American casualties in a war, don't you ?

He has a weaker army than he did in Gulf War I.

[David Floyd]

Then again, so does the US

[Dis]

Of course we actually have to fight in Iraqi land. You can be sure they will fight harder for their own homes.

I suppose the PC answer would be I cannot support a war because there would be american/British and Iraqi casualties. I don't really have much control over what happens. But if it does happen we might as well do it right.

[Spiffor]

True, but his army can still kill soldiers. Don't forget air attacks can devastate all things about communications and such (making his army mostly harmless), but the soldiers down there will still have guns and mortars and such, and will still use them on American jeeps.
The kill ratio will be overwhelmingly in favor of the US, but I think Bush will lose considerable popularity if there are a mere 1000 American deaths (which is fairly possible in the invasion of a country this size, and with so many men serving)

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Then again, so does the US

Relative power, not absolute power matters more in this equation.

[Urban Ranger]

Strangely, city fighting neutralises the difference in technology.

[Sava]

Exactly UR ... last time we didn't have to go into cities, go house to house, clearing ground infantry that was dug in. And I doubt that the rest of the world would stand by and let the US bomb the cities causing massive civilian casualties.

It's a mistake to think that an invasion of Iraq would be a repeat of the Gulf War.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Strangely, city fighting neutralises the difference in technology.

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

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.