What are the real reason why U.S.A. got into Iraq?

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Assuming they even had it closed for a day, we could most defninetly have it reopened within the week. Hell, if you don't believe that we could do that from the air and sea alone, there are two MEU's in the area right now that could take the coastline of the straights rather easily (it is rather sparcely populated and well within range of aircraft support from the Gulf of Oman i.e. carriers not within range of Iranian anit-ship missiles).

Yeah, right. We're going to invade Iran with a couple of MEUs. That'll work.

Let's see, two MEUs, that's about 5000 guys, nearly a third of which are trigger-pullers. Let's say 2000 infantry. With normal attrition, they'd last, I don't know, a week? Maybe two. Tops.

Assuming of course that the Iranians don't just kill the whole damn lot with their 50 to 1 superiority in numbers.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Anyway, is it considered naive to believe the words that come out of the people that did it and believe that it was a war undertaken to advance a liberal view of international relations? Especially as all the realist views you guys are trying to advance would tend to argue against the war.

No, it is naive to believe scant evidence to make claims not borne out by any particular evidence, (I have seen no evidence provided that Saddam's regime provided any material support of consequence to AQ).

[DinoDoc]

Can you point to where I claimed that in any thread?

[GePap]

Are you then acknowledging that there is no significant evidence that Saddam's Hussein regime provided material support to AQ?

[Saras]

Originally posted by Vanguard


Yeah, right. We're going to invade Iran with a couple of MEUs. That'll work.

Let's see, two MEUs, that's about 5000 guys, nearly a third of which are trigger-pullers. Let's say 2000 infantry. With normal attrition, they'd last, I don't know, a week? Maybe two. Tops.

Assuming of course that the Iranians don't just kill the whole damn lot with their 50 to 1 superiority in numbers.

[armchairgeneral]How do the Iranians needed to achieve 50:1 get to the coast? USN aircraft would rape the truck and APC convoys.[/armchairgeneral]

[PLATO]

I gotta go with GePap here. At best any relationship between Sadaam and Osama would have been an "enemy of my enemy" type thing.

Those two groups were just about as far apart as they could be and still both be radical islamist. In fact, outside of Sadaam's support of PLO terrorism, he was hardly a radical at all. Definately an imperialist, but not a radical. Osama is pure Islamic radical. Not a very likely combination for those two to get together.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Are you then acknowledging that there is no significant evidence that Saddam's Hussein regime provided material support to AQ?

Can you point to where I claimed that in any thread?

[Thue]

There is also the point that Dick Cheney, one of the main forces behind the invasion, was also the former CEO of Halliburton, one of the companies which benefitted most from the war.

The mind boggles thinking how you Usians allow that . One-tenth of the irregularity the Bush administration has shown would have cause a Danish government to be booted out of office long ago.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Saras


[armchairgeneral]How do the Iranians needed to achieve 50:1 get to the coast? USN aircraft would rape the truck and APC convoys.[/armchairgeneral]

shhh!!

There is no place for logic in a discussion of how an ill equipped third world country will devestate the US armed forces!!!

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Can you point to where I claimed that in any thread?

No, I can't, so answer the question, do you think there is evidence that Saddam's regime provided material support to AQ or not?

[DinoDoc]

Let's try a little exercise, GePap. If I never claimed something, I believe it must therefore follow that I have no evidence to support that position. That possibly leads to the conclusion that I don't believe it.

[Patroklos]

Yeah, right. We're going to invade Iran with a couple of MEUs. That'll work.

Did I say Iran, or the costs of the straights of Hormuz? Actually, half the cost, because the other half is UAE territory.

Let's see, two MEUs, that's about 5000 guys, nearly a third of which are trigger-pullers. Let's say 2000 infantry. With normal attrition, they'd last, I don't know, a week? Maybe two. Tops.

Why not look at the size of the striaghts and then get back to me. 5000 is more than enough to occupy the important parts that host anti-ship missle batteries. We don't need to occupy the few towns that are their, just set up camp in defensible positions supported by a few thousand airframes and wait until Iran gives up.

What is normal attition for soldiers in unihabited parts of Iraq? 0%?

The coast of the straights are basically a strip of isolated shorline set up against a large region of mountains. Or in other words, something easy to take and then defend. Of course all we really need to do is take care of the anti ship missiles. You seem to think we are talking about taking over Iran.

Assuming of course that the Iranians don't just kill the whole damn lot with their 50 to 1 superiority in numbers.

While counterattacking over mountains against enemies who are superior anyways in the face of enough thousands of unencumbered airframes just waiting for a conventional attack to justify the existance. Enjoy

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by PLATO


shhh!!

There is no place for logic in a discussion of how an ill equipped third world country will devestate the US armed forces!!!

I believe Saddam thought something similar when he invaded Iran....

I have the highest respect for the value of airpower. But it does not actually make our forces omnipotent.

The US has serious problems maintaining control of Baghdad. The idea that we can take over 200 miles of Iranian coastline with impunity using a couple of MEUs is ludicrous.

And even if we could, we run out of troops to hold it in a couple of weeks due to rotation of wounded, sick or killed Marines.

[Kidlicious]

I think people might be underestimating Irans anti-air capability. It takes time to take that out with cruise missles and stealth attack.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Vanguard


I believe Saddam thought something similar when he invaded Iran....

I have the highest respect for the value of airpower. But it does not actually make our forces omnipotent.

The US has serious problems maintaining control of Baghdad. The idea that we can take over 200 miles of Iranian coastline with impunity using a couple of MEUs is ludicrous.

And even if we could, we run out of troops to hold it in a couple of weeks due to rotation of wounded, sick or killed Marines.

Sadaam had Iran completely beaten once we started supplying him with intel and was simply to lame to finish it...and therefore gave the Iranians time to rebuild.

And yes, 5000 marines and their support should easily be able to control that area from a military point of view. With a 1000 aircraft and the naval forces there, it would be interesting t find the Iranian who had the guts to fire up his radar. The idea that Iran's full military might could be brought to bear in one of the most isolated regions of their county is what is ludicrous here.