Standoff at Baghdad?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I hate to say it but I almost hope Saddam does use his Chemical weapons once or twice since it will completely prove the case and make the anti-war protesters look like the stupid fools that they are.

In other words you hope American troops die a horrible and lingering death and are maimed for life just to make your side look better? And you wonder why we don't trust people like you?

[chequita guevara]

It could go either way, quick or protracted. Either way, US casualties are likely to be in the thousands, while Iraqi casualities are likely to be in the hundreds of thousands. Either way, Baghdad will fall.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

And even better if he uses chem weapons it will give US all the reasons to use those new nukes they have been developing lately. Finnaly a good opt out clause on the nuclear testing moratorium

Afterall flattening Baghdad would be a good example to all the terrorists in the world of what is awaiting them.

[Drake Tungsten]

while Iraqi casualities are likely to be in the hundreds of thousands.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It could go either way, quick or protracted. Either way, US casualties are likely to be in the thousands, while Iraqi casualities are likely to be in the hundreds of thousands. Either way, Baghdad will fall.

Its not impossible.

However if Iraqi casualties are much lower than that, dont expect teh US military to get any credit - folks will move on to some other issue

Look at Afganistan :
September 2001- the US will need 100,000 troops, like the Soviets did, you cant win a war from the air and the Northern alliance is divided, untrained, unmotivated and ineffective.
Novemeber 2001 - The northern alliance are the warlord thugs who destroyed Kabul, let them into Kabul and they will start another civil war as bad as in the early '90s and the Taliban will come right back
early December - The northern alliance can hold Kabul,but the US has no friends in the south, the Taliban will hold out.
Jan 2002 - The Karzai govt is weak it wont last more than a few months.
June 2002 - The soviets had things their own way for the first year, it was when the second year started that things fell apart
Sept 2002 - someone tried to shoot karzai, there was a big bomb explosion in Kabul, see it is falling apart.
November 2002 well things didnt fall apart, but Karzai still only controls Kabul and a few surrounding provinces, theres violent opposition in the Pashtun areas and warlord control elsewhere
January 2003 - ok so Khost and Paktia provinces are controlled by pro-Karzai governors, and the central govt is taking actions to weaken the warlords, BUT Hekmatyar is a threat in Konar, Ismail Kham is still autonomous in Herat, and it will ALL FALL APART when the US shifts its attention to Iraq.

This is not to say things couldnt go seriously wrong in Iraq. They could.

[Sandman]

When they get to Baghdad, they'll expand the definition of military target to everything bigger than a market stall and bomb the city to rubble. By the time they get to Baghdad, they'll be running short of precision munitions as usual, so it'll be dumb bombs time.

The rubble will make the city easier to defend, but of course hundreds of thousands of civilians will die, not to mention Iraqi conscripts, who are so inferior to US forces that they're practically civilians, will be unmercifully massacred from the air. They can't even surrender to the missiles and helicopters.

The large amounts of DU ammuntion used, and the systematic destruction of the country's infrastructure, will make the entire area practically uninhabitable. Iraqi refugees will flee the country to every corner of the Earth.

[The Viceroy]

I still stand by my theory that there really will be no great battle, and that Saddam will flee. Not because he wants to, because his generals will turn on him.

[Az]

Aliens will land in the middle of the ruin of Baghdad, and will claim the area to be a colony of the migthy empire of xahlthuar.

Richard Dean Anderson will star in a drag show that will portray the heroic life of Thyl Ulenshpiegel.

A armada of marine creatures will surface near the shores of NYC and will start an aquatic gymanstic performance that would last for 37 years.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
The large amounts of DU ammuntion used, and the systematic destruction of the country's infrastructure, will make the entire area practically uninhabitable. Iraqi refugees will flee the country to every corner of the Earth.

Then it will be a failure for US strategy, which is to build up a post-war pro-US Iraq as a base for changing the rest of the Middle East. To which it has been rumoured that the US military is going to go out of its way NOT to target Iraqi infrastructure. But we'll find out soon.

[The Viceroy]

Great, they must of heard a MacDonalds was planned for Baghdad after the war, and thought they'd get in quickly before they did.

[Gatekeeper]

Chegitz:

Well, UR was hoping the United States would "make his day" by carpet-bombing Baghdad. Chastise him, too, willya?

Gatekeeper

[Drake Tungsten]

I hope the US bombs the Chinese embassy in Baghdad...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Should I remind you of the situation in Afghanistan? It's not a pretty one. That's why you don't see it on TV.

I follow the afghan situation -what is going on there that you are referring to?

[Ramo]

People said that before the last Gulf War and nothing came of it. It's certainly a possibility, but not a very likely one IMO.

The Gulf War I is a very different war from Gulf War II. Saddam doesn't pose a threat to any other state anymore, and opposition to the US has drastically increased since the Afghan War.

Look at how the people in a mostly secular, non-Arab state like Pakistan have responded to the fact that US soldiers operated from their bases when there was a legitimate casus belli. Do you honestly believe that an Arab state is going to get away with sending soldiers to help the US in Iraq when there is not a legitimate casus belli?

[Sandman]

Then it will be a failure for US strategy, which is to build up a post-war pro-US Iraq as a base for changing the rest of the Middle East. To which it has been rumoured that the US military is going to go out of its way NOT to target Iraqi infrastructure. But we'll find out soon.

I was probably exaggerating just a wee bit. But I still expect to see large scale emigration from Iraq, especially the middle classes.

If you have absolutely loads of planes at the ready, and there are no more targets to bomb, then it takes a supreme effort of willpower not to widen the target range. I don't think that the US has that willpower.

If the US tries to be 'gentle' and is rewarded with a bloody nose (several helicopters shot down would be bloody nose for the US), then they'll probably end up being harsh, using the human shield excuse.